[ExI] Libertarianism wins again...

Kelly Anderson kellycoinguy at gmail.com
Sat Jul 23 00:57:39 UTC 2011


2011/7/22 Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>:
> On 22 July 2011 22:12, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Call it what you will, morality is separate from law.
>
> "Crime" is a legal, not a moral, concept. In any society, era and legal
> system, there are behaviours which are widely considered as illegal, yet are
> not punished as crimes. Conversely, there are crimes which are not
> considered as especially immoral, unless perhaps because they breach the
> law.

OK. Then let's not use the word "crime" to describe governments raping
and pillaging their citizens and the citizens of the nation next door.
Let's use a different word. How about immoral. Can you accept that a
government can be immoral? And that governments often are? Or do you
beleive that governments are amoral?

> Moreover, morals are equally plural, and variable with time and cultures.

To some extent. There are some morals that have transcended time
without much change. The prohibition against murder, rape, stealing...
these are fairly constant. The suggestion that we should treat others
the way we would like to be treated is fairly widespread. There are
probably others that fit into this category. Probably the most
variable morals are those attached to sexual practices. Those have
been all over the map in different cultures. Whether morals applied
only to the tribe, to a local community, to a nation or the entire
world, that has changed over time, getting wider with the global

>> 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!
>
> This is a crucial point, not to mention the most important for the topic of
> this list. Now, I contend that defending the freedom of societies to give
> themselves the rules they like best (as in "self-determination" and in
> "popular sovereignty" and in "diversity"), rather than the idea that some
> kind of a "natural" law would exist that, as an avatar of the Will of God
> under a thin secular veneer, should simply be obeyed by everybody, is much
> better bet. Both in order to avoid puttin all eggs in one nest, as we say in
> Italy, *and* because Darwinian competition between different civilisational
> models, as opposed to globalisation, keeps *all* of them as little
> neoluddite and primitivist and conservative as possible, for obvious
> reasons.

This is what confuses me. You want to preserve these freedoms, and at
the same time give wide license to the welfare state to take from your
pocket and put into mine. Don't you see that the one form of tyranny
leads towards (not inevitably... perhaps) the other form of tyranny?

I choose to fight against ALL forms of tyranny, lest those in power
get a taste for absolute power... and go for even more. Join me in the
fight against ALL kinds of tyranny, not just the kind you find
objectionable.

First they came after the Jews, and I said "I am not  a Jew". Then
they came after tho homosexuals, and I said "I am not a homosexual".
Then they came after the Catholics, and I said "I am not a Catholic".
Then they came after everyone...

It's the same concept Stefano! You can't give latitude to tyranny
against the rich in support of a welfare state, and assume they'll
never get to you. If we eat the rich, the poor will eventually starve.
Give freedom a chance.

-Kelly



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list