On onsdag 25 juli 2001 20.32, Mike Lorrey <mlorrey@datamann.com> wrote:
>Unh Unh. So solly. A group entity has no right to be the equal of a
>'citizen', because this gives the members of a group more power (i.e.
>more than 'one man one vote') than non-group-members. States are not
>people, they are merely servant automatons, agents if you will, of
>actual beings that are citizens of the state. This is inherent in the
>principle that the state is only delegated some rights of the
>individual, not all. Without all rights, it is not an individual, and
>some entity cannot claim individuality by fraction rights derivation
>from other individuals. Because derived entities are always agents for
>individuals, giving the derived entity status as an individual causes a
>violation of 'equal protection'.
So you're a damn humanizt :-)
What's your definition of 'individual'? Does it include:
-living human being? (or do you have a better definition)
-modified human being? (e.g. brain-dead person)
-human in biostasis?
-uploaded person?
-artificial being?
Why not recognize any entity with individualistic traits and aims
as an individual? Corporations may consist of human members but
thats irrelevant. They are all replacable. (I start to sound like
a borg drone. However, thats irrelevant.)
/felix
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:57 MDT