[ExI] Libertarianism wins again...

[Kelly Anderson]

2011/7/21 Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>:
> 2011/7/20 Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com>
>> And the biggest criminal of all, in any region, tends to be the state.
>
> This sounds well rhetorically, but it is actually an oxymoron, because
> whenever a State exists, "crime" is defined as the breach of (a law which is
> part of a subset of) its rules.
>
> Then, individual officers can breach them, but if the "State" does, it has
> simply changed the rules actually in force or introduced a new exception
> thereto.

You are so used to the state acting in a criminal fashion, that you
justify its criminality to justify your position.

That is a legal definition, and laws are a product of the state. So
almost by definition, to determine whether or not a state is, in and
of itself, a criminal one has to go beyond law, and appeal to a moral
foundations that law is built upon. Socrates made good arguments that
what is right and wrong doesn't come from God or the state, but from
an inner state of outrage at the criminal act. So morality exists
independent of law. Other philosophers have called it "natural law".
Call it what you will, morality is separate from law.

So the question basically boils down to whether the state is moral, or
whether the state engages in immoral acts. And the state does not get
to define morality. I think it is fairly non-controversial to say that
some states, at some times have engaged in outrageous immoral acts.

Us libertarians look at the state the same way that everyone looks at
other people, and at corporations and other groups. We postulate that
if the state does something that if done by an individual or other
group would be immoral, then it is an immoral act when done by the
state as well. Libertarian thought is a very big tent, so this doesn't
mean that all libertarians are against, say, the death penalty in some
cases because there are balancing factors. But when the state steals
with force a percentage of your income, and that of corporations as
well, poses a state imposed fee simply to own land, tells me what I
can an cannot do with my own body and so forth, that seems immoral to
us, because we use the same yard stick to measure people, corporations
AND the state. Other classes of political thought, on the other hand,
seem to believe that the state is somehow above morality. Or rather,
that it can define it's own morality through legislation. I flatly
deny that a state can legislate morality for itself or its citizens.

If a state conscripts young people into it's army and engages in an
unjust war, and those young people die, then the state is morally
responsible for their death. If the war is a just war, a necessary
war, and the soldiers are volunteers, then the state's responsibility
as an immoral actor is minimized.

Why is this important to the future? Because what kind of future we
will have as transhumanists may be very much affected by rules laid
down by the state. And we have an interest in having those rules be as
friendly towards transhumanism as is possible. We don't want to lose
our rights as individuals simply because our physical form changes
over time. Only states can pass laws that will inhibit our future
freedom to reach our individual full potential!

Washington! Stay out of my DNA!

-Kelly