Re: [s-d] [s-b] Contract for the Purposes of Personhood Definition Exploration (PftPoPDE)

[James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 17:40:43 +0000
> From: charles.w.walker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Contract for the Purposes of Personhood Definition	Exploration (PftPoPDE)
> 
> 2009/11/1 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >> The rules don't define plenty of things which exist happily within B.
> >
> > Such as?
> 
> We no longer have a definition of personhood, yet we still exist and
> interact with the platonic gamestate happily enough. One big example
> from Agora is acting on behalf- that was considered to work for ages
> before they legislated it formally.


"Person" can be assumed to take the standard English definition (precedent for this is the way "attribute" was used in era 5). Although contracts can still exist (Rule 1 point i), they have no power under the rules. The contract is not a person by the standard English definition and so cannot register. 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
New Windows 7: Simplify what you do everyday. Find the right PC for you.
http://www.microsoft.com/uk/windows/buy/
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss