X-Message-Number: 22047
From: 
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 01:27:47 EDT
Subject: Libertarians and cryonics [Sidebar comments]

--part1_10.32012758.2c269853_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Steve Bridge
Libertarians and cryonics [Sidebar comments]
June 27, 2003

I had some other interesting stories that didn't fit into my main discussion, 
but I thought these were worth sharing.

I enjoyed the discussion of different forms of libertarianism. I hadn't heard 
about libertarian socialism before, for instance. I would also point out that 
in my limited experience (I've never been to a Libertarian Party meeting, 

although I have been to several "libertarian" parties) even American 
libertarians 
are of many different sub-species.

First, I would point out that many American libertarians and Libertarians are 
reasonable people, sincere about increasing liberty for everyone, willing to 
listen to the opinions of others, and cooperative in group settings. But there 
are other variations.

There are the Constitutional libertarians who take the U.S. Constitution as 
the Ten Commandments, inviolate and carved in stone -- where it suits them. 

Often they are also strong-jawed American nationalists (they prefer "patriots")
who don't need to believe that personal liberty should extend to whomever the 
U.S. is bombing at the moment or to any American citizen who might disagree 
with them

There are Libertarian Party members who always vote Republican because, they 
tell me, the Democrat leaders are "evil" and want to take all of their 

freedoms. I personally fail to see that one set of politicians is much more evil
than 
another, although there are certainly differences between individual 

politicians. They all wish to restrict some freedoms and increase others, 
depending on 
what their religion tells them. Of course, for most politicians, their real 
religion is "getting elected the next time," so these issues can blow with the 
prevailing winds. 

In my opinion, part of the reason that some Libertarians vote Republican is 
that some Republic politicians and some conservative talk-show hosts insist 
that they are really libertarians -- which often simply means they want the 

freedom to make as much money as possible without personal accountability and 
still 
maintain the right to tell other people they are not moral enough or 

Christian enough or heterosexual enough. (Not to give Democrat Party politicians
a 

free pass on the issue of labels; but they tend to avoid the word "libertarian"
and hide their true intent behind different labels.)

Some self-labeled libertarians have a narrow, self-focused interest in being 
able to take illegal drugs or engage in unrestricted sex or whatever they want 
to do that other people don't want them to do. Often they are quite 
unconcerned if others have more liberty or not.

There are also people for whom 99% of their "libertarianism" is bound up in 
the 2nd Amendment. I recall one fellow that a Libertarian (capital letter 

intentional) friend introduced me to as "another libertarian." This guy gave me 
a 

tense lecture on the 2nd Amendment, all the while twirling a long knife between
his fingers, making small stabbing motions in the air to emphasize his 

points, and warning me of the deadly consequences of attempting to take this 
knife 
or any gun from his possession. I concluded that this fellow was simply using 

the name of "libertarian" as a cover for his desire to have weapons in order to
intimidate others. I have met several similar people since.

Several of the above could also be lumped in a category I have often referred 
to as "Nazi-Libertarians." They want to have total freedom themselves yet 

have the power to deny that freedom of choice to those who would not make their
same choices. Their true motto should be "I am free to do anything I believe 
in, and YOU are free to do anything I believe in." (Read that carefully, and 

then ask yourself how often you have been guilty of the same. It is an easy trap
to fall into.)

Then there was the "libertarian" in Riverside, California who wanted a ride 
from me but refused to wear seat belts solely because the government required 
him to. I replied that there were good practical reasons for him to wear the 
seat belt, and that I would not give him a ride in my car if he refused to 

buckle up -- not because I cared about the government requirement, but because I
did not wish him to become a loose missile in my car if we had a wreck. I 
already had two friends with severe injuries from their unbelted passengers. 
Furthermore, I said, if he insisted on simply doing the opposite of what the 

government told him to do, with no thought of his own, he was as firmly under 
the 

control of the government as those who always went along. He put on the seat 
belt.

Now, some of my friends would say, "But, Steve, someone calling himself a 

libertarian doesn't make him one." And I would reply, True, but if we insist on

labels like "libertarian," "Republican," "socialist", or even "cryonicist" as a
shortcut to accurately defining what we really believe and as a mask to hide 
our own perfectly human inconsistencies, then we have to be prepared for 

others to wear those labels also. And any label is defined for the public by 
those 
who wear it the most loudly.

Which leads to a most interesting question for this list: Who is going to 

define "cryonicist" to the public? Those interested in the science and 
technology 
of the idea; those with a real desire to save lives; those with the urge to 

see the future themselves -- or those who want to use cryonics only to get rich
or to destroy religion or to become a big fish in a small pond or to push 

irrational personal immortality schemes that somehow look like cryonics? In real
life, unfortunately, the answer will be "all of the above."

Part of the reasons we do cryonics publicity is to gain new members. But a 

lot of it is to make sure that WE committed cryonicists are the ones defining 
the
 terms, not the swindlers or nutcases that have often been called 

"cryonicists" and not the "ethicists", "journalists" or sportswriters (of all 
people) who 
feel they must define us in terms they can deal with.

Steve Bridge
Again, writing for himself and not speaking for Alcor or any other 
organization

--part1_10.32012758.2c269853_boundary

 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22047