Small government was Re: [extropy-chat] EMP Attack?

[Brett Paatsch]

Adrian Tymes wrote:

>> > Brett Paatsch wrote:
>> >> Do you think a "PostHuman era" can emerge with existing
>> >> governments in place?
>> >
>> > Do you think it cannot?
>>
>> Yes I think it cannot.  I think a PostHuman era and existing
>> governments are incompatible.  Existing governments would
>> oppose a PostHuman era emerging without even noticing that
>> they were doing so unless PostHuman advocates became violent
>> or directly threatening to it, then they'd oppose it knowing that they
>> did so.
>>
>> > How do you envision bringing it about?
>>
>> I don't envisage it.  I envisage a lot more history largely as usual.
>
> Old saying: "Lead, follow, or get out of the way".  It might be nice
> to speculate about ways to get rid of existing governments, but it is
> *EXTREMELY* important to know at least approximately where
> you're going before you start trying to go there.  Some form of
> government exists at all times (anarchy, in some cases), ergo if there
> is a path from where we are to the Singularity, one or more forms
> of government (possibly transitioning from one to another as needed)
> will be in place during that path.
                                                    What type of government 
would be
> conducive to bringing the >H era about?

Why don't you tell me? Perhaps start with what you think the ">H era"
is?

If your approach makes sense maybe I'll follow it. At the moment
so far as I can tell you seem to be saying do whatever you can within
the system as it is. ---That is a formula for incremental change only.

And essentially change for you only. That is the formula conventionally
successful individuals use now. Do you really think that is enough to
bring in a >H era ?  That was the point of the question after all you
seem to be focussing on the part about existing governments.

>Otherwise, chances are anyone getting rid of the current government
> would just make things worse.  (Yes, the current government may
> lean against >H in many ways, but in many ways they lean in favor
> of it - for instance the fact that there are public hospitals through
> which certain cures and medical techniques can be delivered to the
> population at large.  A pure anarchy would get rid of such things, or
> at least severely disrupt the current hospitals' logistics.)

Its not just the current government, its the current *system* of
government that leans against >H. Voting D or R (in the US) will not
change that. Protest voting for a minor party will not change that.

I did not suggest anarchy. Perhaps you confuse me with
Technotranscendance or someone else.

> If you can't answer that question, you might want to stop talking about
> it until you can. Not because I said so, but because it will help you
> see exactly what about the government you would like to change, and
> what you really can do about it.

That's rubbish. Identifying problems and suggesting solutions are two
distinct things. If you can't see the problem, then that doesn't mean I
should shut up about it until I have a solution for you.  You may go
through your whole life adapting to the system and trying to be
successful and never take the time to see the speed limits or upper
bounds on success that are built into that system.

>  (For instance: you see that people are voting for short-sighted
> interests, and that is putting short-sighted politicians in power.

No the politicians don't have to be short-sighted they just have to be
longer sighted than the average voter and better at telling the average
voter what the average voter wants to hear than their opponent.

>  Can you see a way to change things so that most people would vote
> for long-sighted interests, thus putting long-sighted politicians in 
> power?

No. Can you?

I can see only ways to make incremental change and the whole PostHuman
era thing is unweildy excess political baggage for even that more modest 
aim.

>  And if you can, do those ways require abolishing our current government
> before you put them in  place, or is said abolishment instead a probable
> result of those ways - meaning that you could overthrow the government
> without fighting it directly?)

The current government will be replaced at the next election regardless of
what I do. The current *system* of government is not something that I
think that I can realistically change. It has evolved to be resistant to 
large
scale change.

Brett Paatsch