From: Michael M. Butler (butler@comp*lib.org)
Date: Sat Jul 05 1997 - 22:11:08 MDT
> The offended parties in the post human world could link up, each
>contributing resources in proportion to the offense given. They could then
>reduce the offending party to raw materials. That is unless the offending
>party also had friends. Obviously, violence is not going to work in every
>case. Therefore, polycentric law will be applied. It will actually be the
>only law that can be applied because data flow between entities is so high,
>they cannot help but know what each one's goals are (probably survival and
>therefore expansion, most everything else would probably be tossed). This
>means that polycentric law will actually be more like agoric computing.
>One would not consider the relegation of a computer program hogging more
>resources than its worth to a lower priority slot, or even deleting it, as
>"capital punishment." Executions, more properly prunings, in the
>post-biological world will probably be as dramatic, and necessary, as
>cutting one's toenails.
An interesting notion. It's true, I don't wonder if my toenails have rights,
nor even if an astrocytoma has rights. But astrocytomas are considered
inoperable.
I'm confused, though--you use the term "polycentric law" as if it had a
fixed meaning, then announce what it will be "more like". Help me out,
here: what are you on about? How is "polycentric law" any more principled
than a kangaroo court?
Apart from that, where does the notion of property rights go? "Hogging more
resources than its worth"[sic]? To whom? Than whom? Them Injuns weren't
*using* the prairie, they was jest a-*sittin'* on it. Pass the smallpox-
infected blankets. Sarge.
Sounds about as ethical as Salmonella in a petri dish.
>Dan Hook
>guldann@ix.netcom.com
BOUNCE WARNING: A simple reply to the above address will fail. If you wish
to send me a _noncommercial_ message, kindly substitute a hyphen for the
asterisk.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:33 MST