If guilty of a lesser crime, you can be sentenced for a greater

[Igor Chudov @ home]

Dale Thorn wrote:
> Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> 
> > How about this scenario: I borrow 1 million dollars from, let's say,
> > Phill Hallam-Baker. Not wanting to pay it back, I pay to the
> > assassination bot and arrange him to be murdered.
> 
> Igor, there's an old saying in this country: the best way to lose a
> friend is to lend him money.

Phill, in this example, is not my friend, but a lender.

> > Another story: suppose that I negligently caused fire that destroys
> > house of, say, Toto. Toto knows that if he sues me, I can arrange him
> > murdered for the amount less than the amount of damages. As a result,
> > he refrains from suing me, or (if he is a mean person) pays additional
> > money to have me murdered. A suit would probably be a much better outcome.
> 
> Sometimes you have to pay a steep price for negligence, like neglecting
> to watch how close you get to the edge of the road on, say, Topanga
> Canyon or one of those (long way down).  Now, since people *know* to
> be extra careful on the canyon roads, don't you think by the same
> analogy they'd be extra careful with other things when AP is running?

Mmm, likely the result will be that Toto will be impoverished (it is an
example, do not take it personally) and will not only not be able to
murder me, but also will be too afraid to sue me (because I would
rather pay for a cheaper assassination than to pay damages).

> > Another story: suppose that OKSAS hired me to work for her, but then
> > our relationships go south and she fires me. Again, her fate is very
> > unclear, although I would probably spare her life if it were she.
> 
> If she does it right, with empathy, there is not likely to be a
> problem.  On the other hand, if she bad-mouths you to prospective
> employers or customers you want to do business with, you might be
> inclined to hit her.  This happens a lot when AP is not available.

... But would happen more often if it was.

> > The bottom line is, it becomes very hard to do ANYTHING that disappoints
> > at least somebody. That can lead to a lot of inefficiencies.
> 
> To get rid of everyone who pisses you off, you'd have to pay a lot
> more money than you'll ever have, therefore not a problem.  Those

Why, I will have a lot of money.

> people who have such money are not going to bump off very many more
> people than they already do, because:
> 
> 1. They need the people to make money off of (Mafia rule #4, never
>    kill someone who owes you money [or is a money source]).

This is a wrong Mafia rule, they do kill debtors who are in default.

> 2. Rich people have a lot of eyes on them, and it would be easy to
>    triangulate a series of murders to them, even without hard evidence.
>    In an AP world, this triangulation/correlation would be enough to
>    convince people to either shun this killer, or kill him outright.

When ten people make deals with each other, it becomes hard to
triangulate. And it is easy, if you know what deals are done, to change
the result of triangulation: suppose that I know that you borrowed 1
million from Toto, that my _and_ yours business partner had been
murdered (by me, but no one knows), and I am afraid that someone will
triangulate me and implicate me in that murder. I secretly order
the AP bot to kill Toto, and you get implicated.

Not good.

	- Igor.