"ten-net"

What's that?

"and it breaks IMMEDIATELY on IPv4"

How? Why?

One more argument for you:

Death penalty is final. If it later comes out that the verdict was in error and someone else was responsible for the murder then you have no way to back out. This has been known to happen.

With my idea, there is a possibility of undoing the damage.

"policies which have been tried in real life which directly dispute the hypothesis you present"

"It is proven that societies which enforce the death penalty for murderers see significantly lower rates of murder than those who only incarcerate murderers."

No shit, Sherlock. Who wouldn't want a free hosing and food for life (or for the next 20 years)? I mean, it is better than death for sure.

I don't think the above disputes my idea. Was my exact idea actually tried? I don't think so. If it has, I would appreciate you enlightening me.

I think my way is worse for the perp. They will likely off themselves after learning their fate, so, I think you should be happy.

"pain and suffering"

Not really. Why would I, as a victim, care that they suffer. It will not improve my situation much. What I would like to see is their "pain and suffering" working and turning over their earned income to me as compensation.

Think about this logically. What would be better for the victim?
1. having the perp killed
2. having the perp be the victim's slave until debt is paid back

I think #2 is better.

For god's sake, at least sell their organs and have something rather than nothing.

You guys are crazy. I want off this planet.

Edit: Actually, the latest news today are that police decided not to press charges against the Sikh man but did charge the perp, so, I guess this time it worked out.

It seems like market forces are working perfectly fine right here:
https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/...

Oh wait, that sikh punisher was charged with a crime by those who were supposed to do his job. Your statism at work... punishing the virtuous while letting go the wicked.

Ok, to be fair the thief needed to be restrained and made to pay back for the damage (with money or labor). I think beating him with a stick was probably a bit of an overkill.

"The free market ... is horribly inadequate to the administration of moral issues."

I disagree. If there exist a counterexample, there is probably something else going on that would explain its inadequacy.

I am guessing your plan is to use an immoral non-free-market solution to enforce morality. Wouldn't that be a bit ironic?

"Punishment is there to attempt to alter human behavior"

I think that having the perpetrator pay back the victim is enough to act as a punishment and alter human behavior. This also prevents frivolous punishments for violating arbitrary made up laws where no victim even exists.

"physical reality and universal law are the same thing"

I don't know how to respond to that yet.

On the one hand, I don't think that's true. One cannot physically break the laws of physics even if one wanted to. However, the "universal law" that defines interactions of individuals in a society can be broken physically. One is able to kill another, however, one cannot cancel gravity.

On the other hand, logic would be used to come up with the "universal law", and logic is part of reality.

"they ultimately fail and inflict pain and suffering along the way"

Exactly my thinking. I would even go so far as to say that they decree wrong laws on purpose so that they benefit at the cost of others.

"Freedom is the knowledge and will to act in complete accord with the laws of the universe and in so doing to be absolved from any negative consequences of the abrogation of those laws. Freedom means acting in a such a way that we choose the specific outcome of those actions which lies in harmony with the laws of cause and effect within the universe and which in turn benefit us."

This might be a definition of control theory or something, not freedom.

Your definition sucks IMHO.

In this case, freedom is about what others allow one to do. It has nothing to do with the laws of the universe. It has nothing to do with knowledge. It has nothing to do with consequences.

DuckDuckGo:

freedom
frē′dəm
noun
The condition of not being in prison or captivity.
The condition of being free of restraints, especially the ability to act without control or interference by another or by circumstance.
The condition of not being controlled by another nation or political power; political independence.
The condition of not being subject to a despotic or oppressive power; civil liberty.
The condition of not being constrained or restricted in a specific aspect of life by a government or other power.
The condition of not being a slave.

---

I see a lot of nots there.

I'm not selling anything. I'm pointing out the reality of policies which have been tried in real life which directly dispute the hypothesis you present.

"If they murdered, they have to pay back (to next of kin or somebody) a monetary value of the life of the murdered person."

Uh... They do this already AND add in pain and suffering. It doesn't really deter murder, unfortunately. The death penalty does. Dismiss that reality at your own peril.

Novelty isn't in and of itself a selling point. The product still has to solve a problem in a reasonable, i.e. economical and feasible manner. Most "new" products don't appear out of thin air, they are modifications and improvements upon existing products with flaws. You not only propose throwing out the baby with the bathwater but throwing out the tub as well. For such an extreme proposition, the benefits and implementation need to be extremely well researched and bulletproof. And no disrespect intended, but I'm seeing a lot of Swiss cheese...

I don't buy your argument that you need laws to say "been there, done that." My 'universal laws' still exist though.

It is pretty self-evident that those who steal need to return what was stolen. If they murdered, they have to pay back (to next of kin or somebody) a monetary value of the life of the murdered person. This can be calculated by figuring out the murdered person's 'profit' (income minus expenses) for the rest of their presumed life (if it was allowed to happen). This would be a very large amount, so, the perpetrator would likely be repaying for the rest of their life. Not having perpetrator repay is a great disservice to the victim.

My argument would be that repayment would be plenty punishment, maybe even harsher.

California doesn't have the right to pass laws like you mentioned. As I've said, this can be easily remedied by removing the power to decree arbitrary laws. Those theft cases need to be documented, those thieves need to be tracked down (easy to do these days with cell phones and stuff) and the thieves must be forced to pay back for stolen goods, cost of enforcement, and pay for rehab course that they would go through. If they refuse to cooperate going forward, I think we can consider them as forfeiting their social contract (and deal with them as you would deal with animals).

Trust me, my way is harsher. So, it should work even better than the death penalty / jail in terms of a deterrent.

" would you consider my proposal to remove people from law making and allow logic to do the job?"
vs
"Law enforcement would exercise it."

Uh... So who exactly are you going to have performing this task? You're saying contradictory things...

"except the laws would be produced by something like academia"

Then all you'll get is congresspeople running into academia. And lest you forget, we had academics running things when Woodrow Wilson was President (only President ever to have served as college professor and dean). That's where we got progressivism and the idea of an "energetic" executive - essentially a dictator. We've seen all this before and it brought NOTHING but disaster.

"Judges and courts would exists but they would not be establishing case law"

Please study some actual law before you say such ridiculous things. Case law is nothing more than the attempt to rule using existing principles on novel circumstances.

"Maybe you can help me understand why this wouldn't work without Vulcans?"

Because you keep saying that everything is going to be dictated by logic. There are no 100% logical humans; the emotional biases and ignorance they inject foil a system based on logic.

Might you allow me to boldly suggest that I'm one of those saying "been there, done that" (in reference to the current system) and proposing we try something new?

Law enforcement would exercise it. It would be the same situation as now, except the laws would be produced by something like academia (instead of congress) and law enforcement would be done by private companies. Judges and courts would exists but they would not be establishing case law (or at least not in the same way as now) and they would be private and subject to the free market. When people have disputes, they would agree on a court/judge to use for resolution. They would both pay for those services (or maybe the loser would). Sometimes, one of the party would be a law enforcement company (for criminal cases). Otherwise, those would be civil cases (not involving law enforcement).

Maybe you can help me understand why this wouldn't work without Vulcans? I am open to improving this idea.

So how does a murderer pay back for a life they have taken? A rapist? A drug dealer? How do you put a monetary value on lives lost or destroyed?

Yes, you can. I've done it, too. But it isn't efficient - as you well know. It isn't even remotely workable for large systems with literally millions of connected devices. Oh, and it breaks IMMEDIATELY on IPv4 because of all the devices on the ten-net.

Now if the internet was build on IPX/SPX, you'd at least have enough addresses, but you'd still have to have a central router doing resolution. And we're back to why DNS works...

There is no logic without a person to exercise it. And unless I'm blissfully unaware, we don't have any Vulcans on Planet Earth. All we have are limited, ignorant, ideological human beings.

"There is no need to force someone under the threat of death to do something in order to teach a lesson."

The single example of murder in society is enough to debunk this notion. It is proven that societies which enforce the death penalty for murderers see significantly lower rates of murder than those who only incarcerate murderers. The threat of punishment is in-and-of-itself an effective deterrent.

I can point to another. California recently passed a law saying that they weren't going to prosecute shoplifting as long as the value of the stolen goods was under $1000. Now stores are being looted by roaming mobs who simply load up entire shopping carts and leave the stores without paying.

You may not "buy my argument." It's the truth nevertheless.

You can't assume an axiom governing human interactions, however. One variable can have a fixed value, a two-variable system can not. I know it is inconvenient to your argument to nix the idea that the Golden Rule can be considered an axiom, but such is life.

"In my view, a sentient being is nothing more than a system for optimizing nerve signals."

I won't go into all the ways in which this is insufficient to explain human interactions. What I will say is that based on such a system, there is no way to come to an arrangement such as the Golden Rule. You can not perceive any other person as equal to yourself based on visual perception alone because the entire premise of the Golden Rule is an intrinsic equality between people.

Here are any number of ways we might try to evaluate another human being: skin color, eye color, hair color, facial shape, perceived abnormalities or physical defects, speech impediment, autism, visual acuity, cognitive ability or impairment, etc. When combined - and usually even individually - one derives an inequality between human beings.

Another example: Even when we consider the marketplace are we comparing equivalencies? No. We're capitalizing on differences. The entire concept of differentiation of products/services or efficiencies due to scale or natural ability ALL assume a basis of inequality rather than equality.

"In this model, there is a placeholder for another sentient being."

There is a fundamental problem with this, and I start to address it in my book: that of recognizing other sentient beings. You can't do it based on the physical senses. You can try to infer it based on actions taken, but one can not conclude sentience in another being. As proof, please tell me from observation how one determine's the sentience of a comatose person.