[ExI] Libertarianism wins again...

[David Lubkin]

Stefano wrote:

>This is a typical argument of the partisans of a concept of a 
>"natural" law. In fact, on closer inspection, what different legal 
>systems do is not to prohibit murder, but to specify when killing 
>could be considered as "murder" and thus forbidden, as to its 
>object, agent, and possible exhonerating circumstances.

Or putting a more extropian spin on the question, even the Non-Aggression
Principle has broad, debatable presumptions to it. Is initiation of force
against a fellow member of a hive species, a clone of oneself, an AI, a
human/non-human mix, an upload, an upload of oneself, an acephalic
clone of oneself, or by a being who is "as far above us on the evolutionary
scale as we are above the amoeba"  a violation?

"Natural law" might be a useful concept for today but it is insufficient for
our range of impending realities.

The basis for the future lies, I think, in areas like economics and game
theory.


-- David.