Many cultures and social movements operate under a foundational philosophy that are typically can be summed up in a few words. Most famously, in much of the Western world, is the Golden Rule: Do onto others as you want them to do to you . In libertarianism, the backbone of the political philosophy is the non-aggression principle( NAP ). It argues its immoral for anyone to use force against another person or their property except in situations of self-defense.
A challenge has recently been posed to the non-aggression principle. The thorny issue libertarian transhumanists are increasingly requesting in the 21 st century is: Are so-called natural acts or occurrences immoral if they cause people to sustain? After all, taken to a logical philosophical extreme, cancer, aging, and giant asteroids arbitrarily crashing into the planet are all aggressive, forceful acts that harm the lives of humans.
Traditional libertarians hurl these issues aside, quoting natural phenomena as incapable of being morally forceful. This thinking be compatible with most people in Western culture, many of whom are religious and fundamentally believe only God is aware and in total self-control of the universe. Nonetheless, transhumanistsmany who are secular like myselfdont care about religious metaphysics and whether the universe is moral.( It might be, with or without an almighty God .) What transhumanists genuinely care about are styles for our mothers to age less, to make sure our kids dont expire from leukemia, and to save hundreds of thousands of species that vanish from Earth every year due to rising temperatures and the human-induced forces.
An impasse has developed among philosophers, and questions once guessed ludicrous , now bear the cold bearing of world. For lesson, automation, robots, and software may challenge if not obliterate capitalism as we know it before the 21 st century is out. Should libertarians stand against it and develop precepts and safeguards to protect their livelihoods? I have argued, yes, a universal basic income of some sort to guarantee a suitable livelihood is in philosophical pipeline with the non-aggression principle.
However, its more of a stretching to talk about the NAP in terms of healthcare. Nonetheless, the same new rules could utilize. Libertarian transhumanists believe aging is a negative forcesomething that we did not invite into our lives. Dedicated that lifespans already doubled in the 20 th century due to medicine and technology, and may double again for the same reasons in the 21 st century, do we begin to see agingand even dyingas an unwanted and so-called immoral force against our extremely lives?
I believe we do. In reality, in my run for the governor of California as a libertarian, a primary policy of mine is to label aging as a disease. The category takes this universal phenomenon and reduces it to exactly what it is: an aggressive power that I do want in my life.
Knowing my arguments, my libertarian friends have asked if I would use government resources to help fight against aging. As a libertarian, I would prefer the private industry to tackle this question. Nonetheless, as an aspiring legislator in the real world, I understand that when our government and National Institute of Health( NIH) classifies something as a disease, around the world notifications, and often billions of dollars flows into the research to tackle it. Im not sure about billions of excise dollars being appropriate, but Im sure Id crave the government stamp of approvalas the peoples of the territories stamp of approvalon it, shaping clear that its an important issue.
I believe support for some government help with thefighting of maladies is warranted, if only to be symbolic in supporting. In my opinion, and to most transhumanist libertarians, fatality and aging are foes of the person or persons and of autonomy( perhaps the greatest ones ), similar to foreign invaders operating up our shores. Therefore, I believe government and libertarians have some interest in stepping in to protect living and sovereignties in this case, as they would against foreign aggression.
Id likewise argue some government help for the room industry is likewise warranted. After all , it is not possible to get humen off this planet easily poses amajor existential risk in the event of a world beset, major asteroid reach, or some other catastrophic occurrence. In this case again, a coordinated minarchist state try against a foreign foe threatening life, autonomy, and country could be acceptableand not too far of a stretch for some libertarians.
In the end, Im glad Im operating for governor in California, as I suppose the majority of libertarians will be reluctant at looking at the non-aggression principle in this way. And California has a behavior of permitting these strange ideas to get the green light and develop. And why shouldnt it? Anything that harms the human being and its ability to thrive is an affront our extremely lives and values. In the 21 st century, we should rise up and use everything within our means to increase the success of our extremely lives.
Read more: http :// www.dailydot.com /~ ATAGEND