05-24-2016, 04:55 AM
Thanks for the info!
It seems to me that this would only work in a world where everyOne (all participants) is on the same page, sharing a common goal for the arrangement.
AnyOne falling subject to the wrath of the community (fouls out) would probably be excommunicated or banished... If enough people are banished, there is a chance that they will unite against the peace-loving group...leaving the peace-loving group in need a Rogue-Hero (like Mad Max) to come to their rescue. (That story has been played many times and many ways --- think Clint Eastwood characters.)
Fully informed consent
Hurt or Kill anOther
Take or Damage anOther's property
Defraud anOther
Exceptional Scenario:
Jim took John's life, and all his possessions.
Jill, John's sister, says that 'not three weeks ago, John said he would never consent to someone taking his life, nor his possessions, and that upon his death, all his worldly possessions would be hers'.
Jim says that John not only consented to Jim taking his life, but also offered all his worldly possessions in exchange for the service.
No-one but Jim and John were present when John's life ended, nor when Jim recovered all of John's worldly possessions.
A thorough investigation of 'the scene' does not reveal a struggle - but - it has obviously been cleaned and rearranged to suit Jim's personal preferences (as, Jim moved into John's digs).
No foul can be proven...only inferred, insinuated or otherwise conjectured.
How do the 3 Laws handle this situation fairly?
It seems to me that this would only work in a world where everyOne (all participants) is on the same page, sharing a common goal for the arrangement.
AnyOne falling subject to the wrath of the community (fouls out) would probably be excommunicated or banished... If enough people are banished, there is a chance that they will unite against the peace-loving group...leaving the peace-loving group in need a Rogue-Hero (like Mad Max) to come to their rescue. (That story has been played many times and many ways --- think Clint Eastwood characters.)
Fully informed consent
Hurt or Kill anOther
Take or Damage anOther's property
Defraud anOther
Exceptional Scenario:
Jim took John's life, and all his possessions.
Jill, John's sister, says that 'not three weeks ago, John said he would never consent to someone taking his life, nor his possessions, and that upon his death, all his worldly possessions would be hers'.
Jim says that John not only consented to Jim taking his life, but also offered all his worldly possessions in exchange for the service.
No-one but Jim and John were present when John's life ended, nor when Jim recovered all of John's worldly possessions.
A thorough investigation of 'the scene' does not reveal a struggle - but - it has obviously been cleaned and rearranged to suit Jim's personal preferences (as, Jim moved into John's digs).
No foul can be proven...only inferred, insinuated or otherwise conjectured.
How do the 3 Laws handle this situation fairly?