Your reply is bewildering. I mean... I don't know what to say... I guess my suspicion that humanity is backwards on purpose is confirmed. I thought I came up with an ingenious way to handle crime but it would seem, based on the response I'm getting, that humanity is too set in their crappy ways and it would take thousands of years to get anywhere. I give up.

"it completely contradicts EVERYTHING you pretend to stand for."

How so? I'm not seeing it.

"Or anywhere else where power and money control people's lives."

You mean like the US? Or maybe EVERYWHERE else?

How is my proposal to have perpetrator actually pay back the victim like Cuba, Iraq, China and North Korea? I'm not seeing it.

How is repayment a nightmare? It seems better (for the victim) than no repayment.

I would argue that the current (western) justice system is illogical. Why is punishment better than repayment?

It is not that money can solve any problem, it is that money can get you to the solution. Money is just a medium of exchange.

"recognizing other sentient beings"

I am going to confess, I used the word 'sentient' a bit too loosely. When I said 'sentient' what I really meant was 'intelligent'.

Nobody knows what consciousness/sentience is. I would argue it is unimportant. What is important is 'intelligence'.

"the entire premise of the Golden Rule is an intrinsic equality between people"

My understanding of the golden rule (or anything similar) is that it is about the equality of terms based on which people interact, NOT equality of their physical attributes or abilities.

It goes "do to others". So, it is about what you do to other people, in other words, interactions.
It then goes "as you would have them do to you". So, this is implying equality of interactions.

This isn't about 'skin color, eye color, hair color, facial shape, perceived abnormalities or physical defects, speech impediment, autism, visual acuity, cognitive ability or impairment, etc'.

You don't need to perceive the other person as equal to you, you need to perceive their allowed actions with regard to you being equal to your allowed actions with regard to them.

"One variable can have a fixed value, a two-variable system can not."

I don't understand your point here. Would you please explain in more detail exactly what you mean by that? How does that nix the golden rule as axiom idea?

"One of the major flaws in your proposed ideology is the lack of an adjudication and enforcement mechanism which is consistent and authoritative."

I don't know if you saw my take on this, but in my system adjudication is done by logic (which is universally 'consistent' and 'authoritative') and enforcement is done by private security firms paid by the people. There would be no conflicts between the different security firms because they all are following the same universal law.

"The second flaw in your statement is in equating coercion and justified force."

Not really, I just don't agree with what you would consider justified.

I like how you try to equate physical laws and societal laws. That is actually my goal as well in a way. However, the way you are going about it doesn't make much sense to me.

Physical laws don't need enforcement. They are self-enforcing. Why then do your societal laws need an adjudication and an enforcement mechanism? Shouldn't they also be self-enforcing?

If I look at my system for laws, they actually do seem to be self-enforcing. With my system, if you 'violate' laws, you don't actually 'violate' them, you just change the nature of your interaction with the other 'sentient' being. So, if you steal from someone, you turn them into your slave. This other person then has the right (by this universal law) to defend themselves with violence. So, nothing is really getting 'violated.'

"you consider law-enforcement immoral".

Not really. I consider what you consider laws to be not really laws but peoples preferences. Enforcing other people's preferences on someone by force is immoral.

I'll be honest, I'm not an expert on (human) laws surrounding radio transmission.

It is the accelerating electrons that create electro-magnetic waves which is the interference. Magnetic/electric fields around wires with current don't go too far and are pretty weak.

It wouldn't be a person or entity. It would be logic.

Of course, somebody would need to be executing it but they would use logic to control their decision to use violence.

If they are wrong, they would be screwed. People would sue them for damages and win (based on verifiable logic). So, it would be in their interest to not get that wrong.

"There is definitely a price [for everything]."

No. There isn't. That's where you are 100% wrong. You think that money can solve any problem.

"You can always buy people's cooperation with money. It might be quite a bit of money, but at a certain point they will agree. They wouldn't be thinking logically if they don't."

That's a particularly curious line and it completely contradicts EVERYTHING you pretend to stand for. You pretend that principles and universal law matter and are of paramount importance. If they do, however, no amount of money can trump that.

Your idea of "justice" is a complete and utter nightmare. It is Cuba under Fidel Castro. It is Iraq under Saddam Hussein. It is China. Or North Korea. Or anywhere else where power and money control people's lives. Where people flaunt the notion of universal rights because they think they are immune to its reach.

The fact that you can't see and are unwilling to admit the gaping hell you are proposing is just shocking to me. This conversation is over.

"Those who choose to rely on hypotheticals in spite of reality get what is coming to them."

Don't be ridiculous. I'm using it as a tool to reason about things. It doesn't mean that my reasoning is wrong if I am having to use a bit of imagination.

"You do realize that slavery is based on that exact same premise, right?"

Not sure what your point is.

Slavery is coercion. I am not trying to defend slavery. By saying "you can always place a price on someone's life" what I mean is, there is an "expected value" that a person can expect to receive from their remaining life. If someone was to deprive you of your remaining life then they would deprive you of this "expected value". That is the price of your life.

"Those aren't the same crime."

They would still go to jail, would they not? The process would be the same. The punishment might be less severe.

From my point of view, the same amount of damage was done, so, I would argue the crime is the same. The only difference is that the perpetrator is deranged and needs psychological rehabilitation and extra enforcement expenses (which might be substantial). So, the apparent 'punishment' in monetary amount would be larger for a premeditated murder.

Anyway, I was hoping to get you to agree to a simpler case where there was an accident before moving on to a more complicated issue of premeditated murder.

"rich because they have provided valuable goods and services which people paid them for"

Right, my point was that hopefully they didn't steal their wealth, in which case if they accidentally killed someone, they would be able to repay for that from their existing wealth. The 'punishment' is that they would become less wealthy and the victim would be compensated. The fact that they were rich to begin with didn't get them off the hook. They just had the means to compensate the victim.

If they stole their wealth, they are in double trouble then. They are going to need to repay for the theft as well.

"penalties for crimes have to extend beyond the monetary" being "common logic"

I don't see that as being "logic". What is the line of reasoning starting from axioms that everyone accepts as being true ending with "penalties for crimes have to extend beyond the monetary"?

Regarding "common", that doesn't matter. People throughout ages had "common" beliefs that were totally wrong. Truth is truth, it doesn't require common belief in it.

I have no disagreement with you regarding the transaction being coercive.

The one thing you are missing is my idea of justice.

If someone breaks into a house, steals stuff, and rapes somebody, they participated in a transaction without doing their part of it, if there was one that could be made.

So, the question is, on what terms would that transaction be voluntary?

1. Breaking into a house: How much would someone want to get paid for having their house broken in? There is definitely a price. I would allow it for a big enough amount. Why not? At a certain point it would be worth it to the victim. I would agree for like a million bucks. Why not? I would fix the doors and windows and still have plenty of profit. Hell, I'll agree to the price of the house, maybe less. I guess it depends on the house.

2. Steals stuff: the price depends on the prices of the stuff they steal, but I am sure there is a monetary amount that people will agree to to give up that stuff.

3. Rape is involuntary. How much would the wife charge for rough sex (assuming the husband also agrees)? There is definitely a specific monetary amount above which the wife & husband would agree to the transaction. You can always buy people's cooperation with money. It might be quite a bit of money, but at a certain point they will agree. They wouldn't be thinking logically if they don't.

So, my idea of justice is to make the perpetrators keep their side of the 'bargain' and make the transaction voluntary. Now the difficult part is to figure out the exact monetary amounts.

Looks like they are pretty bad at it if stuff is getting overturned all the time. How can the same principles be applied and lead to a completely different outcomes? I would argue because of such a bad record, it is pretty much same as law making on a whim. 'Applying principles' is just a cover. I judge them guilty of misapplication of principles for possible personal gain or other reasons.

"Have you paid attention to any of the "scientific" consensus about "global warming"? How about that the planet can't sustain the population? How about Keynesian monetary theory? How about COVID?"

I would argue some of this stuff is people pretending to believe in incorrect things on purpose so that they can defend their predatory actions. I don't think there is consensus on global warming. The population limit thing is contested. There is quite a large community of Austrian economists that contest Keynesian economics. If some government bureaucrats force stuff on people and claim to be the 'science' that doesn't make them a scientific consensus, there were plenty of people contesting that baloney.

You don't need the world to be full of Vulcans, only the people wielding force and those that check their actions. The people need to make sure they allow only logic to control power (by purchasing security services from the most 'logical' entities). The academia needs to do the leg work to determine what is most logically sound. At least, that is what I would propose at this stage. It is my hope that the people would have the sense to chose wisely.

"Do you sustain the scientific method?"

Testing hypotheses before accepting them as fact is clearly much better than blindly believing in them, regardless of the evidence. So, yes.

"How do you think society proves out hypotheses regarding working social systems?"

To be honest, I think they are doing it probably not willingly. They don't want to do it. They have 'traditions' and such. That seems to indicate resistance to change. But there is probably an element of evolution at play. Systems that work badly or less better tend to lose out to ones that work better.