From: Lee Corbin (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Apr 24 2008 - 09:47:57 MDT
>> But to answer your question properly, I'd have to delve a little into
>> libertarianism, and my attitude towards it. Been meaning to do that
>> for some time, so let's do it!
> Pardon me. Is this SL4? If so then what the heck is such a very
> mundane discussion doing here? Note that this question does not
> spring only from this post but from a slew of similar doubtful SL4
> material posts of late.
I reluctantly agree with Samantha. But clearly Stuart's *point*
was to explain the *reasons* why he would make certain choices.
Therefore, we ought to allude to our libertarianism, or our collectivism,
or our "progressivism" just in passing, and leave it up to people to
go google it. But here was Stuart's bottom line, which is SL4:
>> Now back to the "vote to allow". If the following were true:
>> 1) I was convinced that destructive teleportation was a form of murder,
>> 2) I was convinced that if permitted, then DT would become ubiquitous,
>> and everyone would be pretty much forced (by non-coercive practical
>> considerations) to make use of it,
>> 3) I was convinced that, if banned, DT would not come into general use
>> on some form of black market,
>> 4) I was convinced that banning DT would not impose a huge burden on people,
>> then I would vote to ban it.
Well, so would I. *If* I were convinced that destructive teleportation
is murder. You know that many of us don't. Maybe we've said enough
(or---for many people---way too much) on why it's not death for the
teleporting enthusiast. From the point of view of physics, as a number
of us have explained, the copy has all the important properties of the
There is more debate at http://groups.google.com/group/PersonalIdentity,
though I admit I haven't had time to drop in the last week or so.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT