>> The flaw lies in the fact that I just re-read "the extropian
>> Principals v2.6, and there is no non-aggression principal.
>> "have some fire Strawman"
>Now you're really burning me up. :-)
>Obviously I wasn't referring to the Extropian Principles, but to
>the general libertarian prohibition of aggression. Extropians, by
>the coiner's own definition, are "libertarian transhumanists", so
>there's more to what we hold in common than the EPs, no?
>So douse that torch already.
The torch was strictly rhetorical, (and a wizard of oz ref) ToughLaw Inc (PPL) takes arson seriously.
>I suspect (and hope) that your death provision would be found null
>and void by most freemarket courts. There are things that can't
>legitimately be contracted for, including, especially, harmful
>effects on nonsignatory parties. (Right, Greg?)
Greg did a great job on this part.(Thanks Greg)
You made another attempt to differentiate punishment from revenge:
>> I argue it is fair because it is the only thing a murderer has
>>of equivalent value to what he/she took.
>What good does it do the corpse? How is it fair to forfeit yet
>another life, to nobody's benefit? What does it do to compensate
>for what was lost? IOW, exactly where is the justice?
As I argued to Paul, since the victim is dead they cannot act in their own interest, so the society must. The murderer has forfeit his/her life in the act of taking another. The murderer does not get to enjoy living, nor can they spread their genes/memes. The ultimate price for the ultimate despicable act.
> If an individual does it it is revenge.
>...implying that a wrong, so long as it's perpetrated by some
>_non-unit_number of individuals, somehow magically becomes right.
By the definition between revenge and punishment posted earlier.
We seem to have exhausted the usefullness of this thread.