X-Message-Number: 1879
Date: 03 Mar 93 15:17:21 EST
From: "Steven B. Harris" <>
Subject: CRYONICS Alcor Membership Exclusion

Dear Cryonet:

   The argument about the morality of impeaching and expelling a
member of Alcor for high crimes and misdemeanors against the
organization, or for any other reason, is an interesting one,
because it has so many different philosophical subtexts.  

   On the one hand, there is the ethical assertion and premise
that people should be free to have an absolute right of associa-
tion, and that any organization should have the right to kick out
anybody it wants to, for any reason that it deems appropriate, so
long as doing so does not constitute a breach of a contract. 
Never mind that this idea went by the wayside in practice long
ago in our own society, what with civil rights laws, antitrust,
government enforced collective bargaining, etc. etc.  This is an
argument about ethics, not law, and there are still many liber-
tarians who hold the absolute right of association as a moral
ideal.  

   On the other hand, there is the real issue of coercion, and
the morality of same.  Libertarians don't like "coercion," but
coercion is a word that defies definition.  Coercion is not
always physical or the treat of physical harm (assault).  It
doesn't always mean having a gun pointed at your head.  There are
few people (even libertarians) who would not regard certain of
the grosser forms of blackmail and extortion as coercion.  

   Consider, for instance, the milder kinds of extortion that
quite often occur within businesses.  A woman may find (for
instance) that she's spent years working her way up the corporate
ladder in a firm, only to find to her horror one fine day that
the boss (for simplicity's sake we'll assume he's the owner) is
interested in her sexually, and her job is now on the line
depending on whether or not she rejects his advances.  Should
this kind of thing be illegal?  Some libertarians would say no,
arguing (in my mind, rather ridiculously) that the free market
will punish such business owners (they'll miss out thereby on a
certain segment of executive talent), and that's punishment
enough.  One can argue that the sexually harassed person can
simply find another job, but in times of severe economic stress,
it may not be that easy:  A spouse may be out of work.  There may
be medical bills to pay.  A landlord may be about to evict if you
don't come up with that next paycheck.  You get the idea.  This
is coercion without the gun.

   Another familiar example of this which comes up in libertarian
arguments is the homeowner's association.  You may buy a house
knowing that you're going to be subject to certain rules, but
after that the rules may change (and they may be ridiculous ones,
like what color you have to paint the garage), and if you don't
like them you may be forced to move out of the community.  In
many ways, there isn't much difference between a homeowner's
association and a feudal kingdom.  Or, for that matter, a cult.

   Milton Friedman's son David Friedman (an anarchist of note who
has won fame in small circles by preaching to the converted) has
recently admitted that there is very little difference between
the coercion of a State, and the coercion of a homeowner's
association, except for the size of the entity in each case (Mike
Darwin echoes this thought in his recent posting, which is my
inspiration for these thoughts).  It's easier to switch com-
munities (or, we assume for that matter, jobs) than switch
countries, says Friedman, and that makes all the difference. 
Well, does it?

    Note that we're talking about a mere quantitative difference
here, which Friedman translates into a qualitative difference
(there's that old Sorites/Plato's Beard paradox again that I've
written about in the past-- gosh it's weird how all things seems
to boil down to some of the same few really deep problems in
philosophy).   Is there really a bright line of coercion here
between taxes you have to pay in a State rather than move
somewhere else, and whatever distasteful things you have to do
for your homeowner's association rather than move out of your
home, or for your boss rather than change jobs, which may entail
moving out of state or country itself?  If there is, will someone
explain it for me?  And if this bright line of coercion does
exist somewhere between the bother of moving to another country
(of which there are hundreds in the world), and the bother of
moving to another community or business (of which there may be
thousands) then how does it compare by analogy with having to
move out of Alcor, which really has no other alternative?  And
what do we do about the issue of life and death which pervades
the loss of Alcor services, but hardly the services which attend
citizenship of most governments?

   Remember that here I attempt to separate legal and moral
issues.  Even many people who would not have laws against sexual
harassment in the workplace, or blackmail, or extorsion, etc,
still think that these actions are immoral, and ought not to be
practiced by any moral organization or person.  So: do we want
any similar kind of coercion in our own cryonics organization?

   For coercion, you see, is the issue.  We have a great power
over believers (as in any cult) if we can excommunicate at will.
We may say that we will only expel dangerous members, but this
has the problem of defining the elastic concept of "dangerous"
(very tricky-- does this mean ideas that we don't agree with,
people who embarrass us and cause us emotional pain by talking to
newsmedia, people who bring bad publicity, etc., etc.), and also
the problem of deciding wether kicking someone out really does in
fact reduce the danger.  We've had good argument on this from
both sides.  I only hope it continues.

   Randian Objectivists, who own a libertarianoid philosophy
(though they'd be the first to deny it) have had to create a
special category for events in which life is in acute danger, and
you don't really want to have in force the ordinary rules of
capitalist negotiation.  These are called "emergencies."  If a
man has fallen from the roof and is clinging to the flagpole
outside your office on the 50th story, it is not the time to see
what kind of resources he will trade for the privilege of coming
though your window (a lifetime of slavery perhaps....?).  The
unfortunate problem with Objectivism is that it fails to re-
cognize that nearly all social problems become emergencies if you
fail to deal with them for long enough.

    In this spirit, however, let me suggest a metaphorical
analogy which may help us in future discussions of under what
circumstances it is proper to exclude members from the only
decent cryonics organization on the planet.  Let us suppose that
we are sailing the seas on the HMS Alcor, and we come upon an
exhausted swimmer in a lifejacket, in mid-ocean.  We send out a
lifeboat and open negotiations.  Does he have enough money for a
fare, we ask?  Here we're in a special situation (the metaphor
breaks down) because the good ship Alcor may indeed SINK with all
hands if it has too many stowaways and non-paying passengers
(Still, this is such a natural analogy that earlier cryonics
organizations, and even Alcor up until a few years ago according
to Mike D, were still thinking along these lines and rescuing
everyone.  Now we know better).

   Okay, so our swimmer has enough money.  Now what?  Do we ask
about his politics?  Suppose we recognize him as somebody who
created a great ruckus on the last voyage?  Suppose he's sued our
shipping line, and slandered us in the papers, and all this has
drained our money to the point that our ship is not very sea-
worthy?   Suppose he murdered a passenger on a previous voyage,
although we have ways of making sure that doesn't happen on this
one.  In all these cases should we be judge and jury and let the
guy fend for himself in the ocean?  Do we provide him with a
leaky lifeboat, Henrick Hudson/William Bligh style, and wish him
luck getting across the Pacific or whatever (my metaphor for
referral to ACS)?  My own feeling in all these cases is that this
is rather repugnant.

    I hope that all this will be helpful.  In any case I'm tired
of the arguers who counter moral arguments with the idea that
cryonics is a capitalistic business, and people who counter
business arguments with the idea that cryonics is a moral
lifesaving crusade.  That kind of thing reminds me too much of
the grosser sins of my own profession.  Let's decide what
absolute rockbottom standards business dictates, than take it the
rest of the way in another mode of discourse.


                                Steve Harris, M.D.


P.S.  And no, damn it, I'm not Clarissa Wells, either.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1879