[spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] r10

[Mark Karasek <mkarasek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:18:23 -0400, Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:

> By r10:
> No Proposal may modify this Rule unless said Proposal receives a 2/3 or 
> greater plurality of affirmative votes.
>
> p1596 modified r10, namely by making a rule that repealed it; but it 
> didn't receive 2/3 of the votes, so r10 blocked it.

So now we have Rules 0-6 and Rule 10.

> I also claim that the wording of the sovereignty rule is bad - "The laws 
> of each nation, part of a nation, or international body, as well as all 
> international treaties and all government regulations, are repealed." is 
> an action, not a rule condition; as such, I would interpret that it 
> happens upon the rule's creation; the rule was created *before* B Nomic 
> was a 'nation'; thus the repeal didn't affect our ruleset, because we 
> weren't a nation.

> From the former Rule 15:
"Proposals are processed in increasing integral order of serial number with 
respect to each other, but are otherwise considered to occur 
simultaneously, in the "instant" between the end of one nweek and the 
beginning of the next nweek."

Therefore, B Nomic became a nation at the same moment that the laws of all 
nations were repealed. Even if this hadn't been true, since p1596 created a 
rule rather than performing an action, I took this to mean that it was a 
*continuous* action; otherwise, why bother making it a rule?

> This is besides the fact that we don't have laws, so it still didn't 
> work.

See my response to your other message.

> Assuming nobody can come up with a counter argument to all three of these 
> weaknesses, I propose:
> {{
...
> Give the Galactic Institute's Prize for Extreme Cleverness to The Pusher 
> Robot.
...
> }}

I'm honored. :-)

--The Pusher Robot
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss