[extropy-chat] Thinking in Darwinian Lockstep

[Technotranscendence]

On Wednesday, March 03, 2004 3:40 PM Reason reason at longevitymeme.org
wrote:
[from his discussion with Harvey]
>> Actually, I would consider such groups to be
>> poor resources because of their rabid
>> christianity, poor science, and veiled racism.
>> If they aren't objectively trustworthy on these
>> topics, why should I trust their research in
>> other areas?

The simple answer to this, Harvey, is you should always be critical of
all research.  You should always ask, especially about stuff you either
strongly agree with or strongly disagree with:  What does that person
mean?  How does what she or he means stack up against the facts and
logic?

BTW, I am sad to report that even hardcore atheists lie.  Even
scientists make mistakes.  (Heck some scientists are theists and some
atheists appear more irrational than some religious people I've met.)

>> It is this very reason that I
>> discount that "large number of influential
>> libertarians" that you mention.
>
> Sadly, these people are actually very influential.

I'm not so sure about their influence and this seems to me to be a
mostly American phenomena because religion is much more influential here
than in many other countries.  My experience is that there are far more
atheists -- or agnostics, which is just a euphemism for "atheist" in my
book:) -- among libertarians and more open ones than in other groups.
Well, the exceptions that come first to my mind are Objectivists and
Marxists who tend to all be atheists.:)  (Okay, a trivial exception is
secular humanists, but that's like saying atheist groups are full of
atheists.)

Nevertheless, the religious ones are vocal and vocal about tying
religion to politics.

> Their relationship to the libertarian community
> is similar to the relationship of Betterhumans
> to the transhumanist community - i.e. they get
> way more eyeballs than the rest of the
> community put together, but are by no means
> representative of diversity or majority viewpoints.

This is true.  However, I mostly see this coming from FEE, LvMI, and
Rockwell.  Most of the other libertarian organizations and circles are
non-religious, such as Cato, the Independent Institute, and the like.
My personal experience, again, has been that there's a small but vocal
religious minority in the libertarian movement.  I'm not sure of its
numbers, but by the same token, there's also a small but vocal
Objectivist (read: rabid atheist) contingent in ditto too.

[from his discussion with me]
>>> Lew Rockwell would be a good resource to
>>> introduce people to libertarianism if not for the
>>> rabid christianity and veiled racism.
>>
>> I'm not sure it's racism.  I think it's more saying
>> things that shock people in today's PC-climate.
>> ("Today's" because just all ages and circles
>> have their PC lingo.)  But what, in particular, do
>> you think is racist there?
>
> Positions and statements on immigration from
> a few of the writers.

Actually, I don't think those statements are essentially racist.  The
locus classicus for those views are Hoppe's papers on free immigration
wherein he defends restricted immigration on the grounds of property
rights.  I think when the Rockwell writers are talking about
immigration, they have that in mind.  (Hoppe is probably the most
outspoken member of that clique on immigration.)

> As for religion, they veer off into protectionism
> and racism, ignoring the obvious, well discussed
> libertarian solutions of property ownership, small
> government and strong rule of law. If you have
> those two, you don't need borders.  Immigration
> "problems" are all commons-like problems relating
> to public services and commonly-held resources
> that can be got rid of by privatizing the problem
> areas.

I agree with you.  Hoppe's view, since his is that which I'm most
familiar with and the one informing the other Rockwellians, is that
public property really is private property -- private property owned by
the tax payers.  Until it's returned to them -- which he endorses:
returning the property -- the government as caretaking should do the
least amount of abuse to it.  He goes on to argue that free immigration
actually results in an abuse of the property and restricted immigration
would do less abuse.  (There's a little more to it than this, but I
believe this gives you his argument in a nutshell.)  It's kind of like
if X steals Y's car, it's better for Y if X tries to retain some of its
value in hopes of future return than if X just goes about setting it on
fire.

Now, you might be right that some of these anti-free immigrant types are
closet racists.  After all, they should maybe present the Hoppe view and
then say, "This is how it has to be if we still have public property,
but it would be best to privatize the public property so that the
rightful owners would then decide who can move about on it."  But I
would give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.
(However, to be sure, next time I read any anti-immigration stuff there,
I'll email the source and see if she or he agrees with you or is just
using the Hoppe view as a cover for racism.  Assuming the writer is
honest, would you agree this would give us definite answers on this
matter?  Also, don't me stop anyone else who feels strongly enough from
doing likewise.)

Regards,

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorksBySubject.html