X-Message-Number: 28204
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:49:38 -0600
From: "Anthony ." <>
Subject: Re:use of force

> From: "John de Rivaz" <>
> References: <>
> Subject: Re: use of force
> Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:24:36 +0100
> This demonstrates very well that the use of force by gangs of people (for
> example governments and lawyers) to impose their will on other individuals
> is very dangerous and must be applied only in exceptional circumstances (eg
a rule to say which side of the road people drive on, rules of ownership of
property and so on).

And so on? Perhaps it'd be easier to say what there should be laws on
rather than shouldn't be, but that is still probably a long list of

Do you think if there was virtually no government, that no other
strong, resourceful political faction would try to take it over and
become a "big" government again? To prevent this scenario, if you had
a tiny government protected by an army, you have a tiny group of
people, who have enacted few laws (& so, presumably, aren't very
restricted themselves), but have enough force to see off all comers.
Isn't either alternative a problem - i.e. a potential dictatorship?

> If migration controls were relaxed all at once chaos would ensure, but they
> should never have been there in the first place.

But they are. This is the logical of property. Libertarians laud
property, perhaps even over human life, but then object to those who
represent groups of individuals taking property (i.e. forming national
boundaries) on their behalf (which in turn protects their property).

I'm no fan of immigration laws having gone through the process myself,
but it is useful to point out that the libertarian position often
involves serious problems. Do your property rights extend all the way
from your yard into space? Down to the Earth's core? What if one
individual amassed as much "property" as a large nation usually has?
You'd have to deal with THOSE borders instead. And as there'd likely
be few laws (in this libertarian scenario), the owner is not really
accountable and probably would give less of a damn if you were an
asylum seeker. Politicians usually need to be popular. Monopolising
libertarians do not.

> It is no more logical to
> say that someone cannot move from the UK to Canada than to say that they
> cannot move from town A to town B, or street A to street B or apartment A to
> apartment B or from one side of a room to another.

The picture is more complex than logic allows, as I'm sure you're aware!

> Maybe one day the people
> of the world will realise this, and migration controls can be relaxed in an
> orderly manner.

The people of the world aren't likely to be realising and relaxing
anything together, because the "haves" want to keep the "have-nots"
out and the "have-nots" want in. A more equitable lease on life for
all will make borders less important (if you're sharing, who can
steal!?) and they'll be less need for warfare (another good reason to
have very real borders).

You want less government? Then you need a fairer share of wealth,
health, and security and less stealing and domination through warfare
and aggressive business (often the same thing).

I do sympathise with you John, I'd like to see borders fall along with
arms and idols - but this is idealism. Let us cryonicists sound a bit
more realistic, less alien, and talk of representative and participant
democracy instead.

> But if those that want to impose ideas on others by force have their way,
> they can impose the idea of exterminating cryonics patients, by regarding
> them as "frozen bodies" and not people.

Some cryonicists see them as frozen bodies too - i.e. me. I do think
they should be accorded more respect than the average corpse because
they are part of an important experiment - but very few people are
going to accept that they are on equal footing with a comatose
patient, nevermind an average adult.

If you can convince someone that a "cryonaut" has the same rights as a
person, you've convinced them of more than is necessary to support
cryonics in the first place and opened yourself to all kinds of

Cryonicists would probably do better supporting euthansia laws so
cryonicists can decide when to be cryopreserved (e.g. before a brain
tumour eats most of your mind away, like with poor Dr Thomas
Donaldson) rather than argue for "corpsicle" rights.

> I therefore conclude that all cryonics supporters should be enthusiasts of
> minimum government.

Are you talking about the governments that provide welfare, social
services, arts funding, child-protection, support and advise services,
human rights protection and legislation, a forum for debate,
international courts, and (theoretical) representation?

Presumably businessness will step into these gaps  - and rather than
vote in elections, rather than lobby and protest and organise, rather
than being able to rely on rights bought at great cost - workers
rights, equal rights for blacks and women - we abolish it all in
favour of contracts and "voting with our purses"?

John, I truly respect many of the values that are at the heart of
libertarianism, but even if I was as convinced of it as you are, I
think I would still counsel that cryonicists work within the system we
have to improve it. We can write and dream of how things could be, but
in this life-time we need to ensure the security of our fragile
movement and use what is available to that end. Perhaps we can take
another shot at our ideals if there's a "next time" for us - an
exciting prospect considering the success of our shared ideal of
cryonics. Hopefully by then the world will be ready to listen.


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28204