Kerim Aydin wrote: >The person != human is also an open question, debated but never >resolved.
Yes. CFJ 805 touched on this, but may no longer be relevant since Rule 754 could be interpreted as importing the legal definition of "person". You raised some other interesting issues too. >Another argument in your favor is that allowing you to sign >away your rights to personhood severely abridges your rights >as a person... or does it? Rule 101 doesn't explicitly say whether these rights are inalienable. But if they were alienable and a person signed them away then ey'd no longer have them, contradicting R101. So I think R101 has to be interpreted such that the rights are inalienable from a person who remains a person. R101 takes precedence over R754, so would not necessarily be tainted by the legal definition of "person" even if the rest of the Ruleset is. R101 does not appear to say anything about transitions from and to personhood. However, I think any legal fiction that a person is not a person which were to be established by a lower-power Rule could not influence the interpretation of R101. -zefram
