[extropy-chat] Essay on Physical Immortality

[Technotranscendence]

On Saturday, January 03, 2004 6:13 PM Dirk Bruere dirk at neopax.com wrote:
> Another problem is defining what is meant by 'prevent'.
> Does it mean speaking against?
> Speaking against pursuasively?
> Legislating against in a democracy?
> If any of the above you are talking about
> justifying terrorism and oppression.

I haven't read Mark's essay, but just from reading this thread, I fear
some might interpret it very broadly to mean even such things as not
subsidizing other people's life extension program.  For strict
egalitarians, this might mean my failure to fund everyone else's life
extension program constitutes my "deny[ing them] access to radical life
extension technology."

I would hope that's not what Mark intended, but I can imagine others
taking the argument in that direction.

However, I disagree with you [Dirk] here about the last instance.
Legislating against something usually means initiating force.  Once a
person or a group has initiated force, retaliating against such is not
"terrorism and oppression" per se, but a just response -- depending on
it being justly carried out.

I mean here that if the government of, say, Ruritania outlaws
supplements, it is not wrong for Ruritanian life extensionists to
disobey that law.  However, it would be wrong to, say, bomb Ruritania's
whole population.  Specific acts against Ruritanian legislators and law
enforcement agents, though, might not be un-libertarian and would have
to measured against their justness and their likely consequences.

To drive this point home, imagine CPR were outlawed in Ruritania.  Would
not the Ruritanian government be the one using "terrorism and
oppression" in this case against people needing CPR, their relatives,
their friends, EMTs, etc.?  Or is any act by a democratic government
okay?

Cheers!

Dan
    See "For a Free Frontier: The Case for Space Colonization" at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/SpaceCol.html