[ExI] Nolopsism

[JOSHUA JOB]

> Are victimless crimes morally, ethically, and legally acceptable? They
> ARE crimes, so, no to the last one. The first two are arguable. I feel
> confident that a coherent system of law could be made without the
> assumption that any selves exist for it to protect. It would
> essentially treat people as highly valuable property, no different
> from houses or cars, owned by entities just as imaginary as
> corporations.
> 
> Really it could only streamline everything. We should do this. We
> should do this right now. -Spencer Campbell
Problem: Who do you punish? This imaginary entity that damaged the property of another imaginary entity? If you do it like that, then I don't see any difference between that and a legal system based on actual "selves." And without a victim, there is no crime. I can't see the purpose of law without individual rights as its basis (rights based on principles derived from the nature of human beings), and if you eliminate the individual, you'll have a hard time justifying anything, ultimately.

Corporations are entities made up of people ultimately, and they are created and owned and controlled by people. Hence a crime against a corporation is a crime against a group of people (the owners or employees). Without individuals, you can't say make laws based on happiness, or prosperity, or anything else, because all of those reference individuals and minds. And obviously "rights" go right out the window.

I'll finish reading the article and probably get back later.

Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com