On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 01:19 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I cause Rule 2380 to cause Rule 2361 to become a Slave Golem.
>
> I CFJ { Rule 2361 is a Slave Golem. }
>
> If Rule 2361 is a Slave Golem, I cause Rule 2380 to transfer it from the
> LFD to me.
>
> Arguments:
>
> The only reason I can think of that this would fail is if being a Golem or
> not being a Golem is a substantive aspect of the Rule. I'm torn as to
> whether or not this is the case. On the one hand, it does change the way
> that the Rule would work, but on the other hand, it does not actually alter
> the way that the Rule functions; it only alters the way that other Rules
> apply to it---and certainly, affecting how rules interact is not a direct
> aspect of power security, or else Agoran satisfaction would not work.
> Therefore, I submit that since golem-ness is not, directly, a part of the
> functioning of a Rule, it should not be considered a substantive aspect,
> and Rule 2361 is a Slave Golem.
Arguments: this fails due to rule 2150; a rule needs power at least 2 to
define an entity as a person. Defining a rule as a golem is defining it
to be a person, among other things.
--
ais523
