Murphy wrote:
Goethe wrote:
> As an unregulated property of a person (Zefram), it is the
> sole discretion of Zefram (CFJ 1361), and should be FALSE.
But what if e /wants/ to be a pineapple?
There's another argument that might apply to properties of
persons (e.g. being a pineapple). R101(iv) says that it takes
explicit, willful consent to agree to anything. Anything
not regulated is not part of the agreement that is the
Rules. So at the time of the CFJ, Zefram hadn't agreed to be
a pineapple.
That's actually a pretty nice precedent on rights over
unregulated properties of your own person. Even a Proposal
couldn't abridge the right (until the property became a
regulated thing in the rules).
-Goethe
