Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185862 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1372 Members
Latest Member:
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  A Better "Two Heads Are Better Than One" Thread!
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: A Better "Two Heads Are Better Than One" Thread!  (Read 2830 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Alex Libman

  • Guest
A Better "Two Heads Are Better Than One" Thread!
« on: August 25, 2008, 05:37:34 PM »

:lol:

Aggh!  That's it, kids, we're leaving!  Manager!  Manager!  Damn well about time you showed up!  Well, I'm not happy with the level of "Two Heads Are Better Than One" service I'm getting 'round here!  I want my post back!  Now I know why this thread is so cheap, I bet that's not even real beef!  The menu says BEEF HAMBUGEAR?!  Huh?  Where's the beef?  Where's the motherfucking beef?!  All I see is mushed insect parts held together with industrial glue!  And not even fresh insect parts, and not properly mushed!  My cat has coughed up things that were more appetizing than this!  Yeah, that's right, we're going to Alexandrio's Fine Family "Two Heads Are Better Than One" Thread instead!  And I am e-mailing the Better Thread Buro when I get home!

Not satisfied with any `ol "Two Heads Are Better Than One" thread?  Feel like the chairs aren't comfortable enough, waiters too slow, and something in the hamburger tastes like it comes from a species that doesn't go "moo" as advertised?  Then come to Alexandrio's Fine Family "Two Heads Are Better Than One" Thread instead!  Our atmosphere is nicer, service better, we got a former Soviet rocket scientist flipping burgers in the kitchen, and best of all - same low price, all you can eat!

Welcome!

Come on in!

Here's a complementary appetizer with your menu:



Two Heads Are Better Than One Because...

I love debates like this!  Here's what I'd do...

First, I'm going to assume that they have capacity for independent thought: if one head couldn't think of a random number that the other head doesn't automatically know, which would be bizarre, then they'd probably always agree: unless there is a dispute then this matter never comes up.  If they have no capacity for independent thought and they disagree, then it's like one person having different parts of ris brain disagree!  If a person keeps radically changing ris mind every two seconds, or cannot overcome different limbs fighting each-other, then s\he's probably insane and should not be free.

Now, I've said a number of times that the sovereign Right to Life should begin with physical autonomy (i.e. birth) when talking about abortion, and this would apply to conjoined twins as well.  (Rights to Liberty and Property apply with emancipation from your parents / guardians, by jury or when reaching a certain age, unless lack of mental capacity to take responsibility for one's actions can be proven.)  Neither of them has the Right to Life independently of the other, but together they do.  Think of their body as a corporation and their individual mental selves as stock owners.  The shareholders (heads) get to vote on decisions affecting their jointly-held property (body).

Now you might say this argument justifies the "divine right" of majority-rule democracy to violate the Non-Aggression Principle, and I would say yes, to a degree.  There's nothing wrong with democracy doing that if all participants gave informed consent to settle disputes in this manner, but there has to be such a thing as "implied consent" as well, but only in extreme matters of life and death.  Without this, no one would give CPR to an unconscious victim in fear of being sued, and it's the same principle that gives parents guardianship rights over their children.

So what happens if they have capacity for individual thought, and they disagree?  If this was a case of three conjoined twins this would at first glance seem easy: majority rule.  But what about two heads that disagree?

Different mental selves get a different number of voting shares based on their measurable intelligence!  This would seem obvious in a case of one fully-functional twin and several parasitic attached twins that have the intelligence of fruit flies.  This also applies to the argument of "implied consent" of fetii (fetuses) to live: even a dozen fetii wouldn't have higher combined intelligence in their current state than their host (potential mother).

I'm sure no one would bother going through the ritual of having a would-be mother and the fet(us|ii) take an IQ test (unless she's comatose), but various means of testing the relative intelligence of different "mental entities" sharing a body could be developed.  The system can never be called perfect, but there would be multiple competing systems and the parents of the multi-personed body might stipulate the details of the procedures in the emancipation contract.  The parents could also stipulate that they're only emancipating some of the "mental entities", while retaining the ability to "vote" on behalf of others, or transfer guardianship of some of the "mental entities" to some others.

So in this particular case I would have the two heads take some sort of a well-thought-out IQ test.  There could be a tie at first, due to their identical genetics and experiences, but random variations in their individual brain development would eventually allow one to become just a tiny bit smarter than the other.  And that's how you break a tie vote between them.  Of course in many cases it would be in their best interest to negotiate with each-other for mutual benefit, but if they ever need to resort to a legal means of resolving a dispute then this is the best way I can think of.

Even though the smarter twin would get more voting shares, the lesser twin would be able to demand certain concessions through threat of non-cooperation.  Thus it would be in their best interest to negotiate with each-other, make contractual obligations, and exchange value for value.  (I'll let you do this if you let me do that.)

Since modern information technology could allow for them to have separate jobs, one "mental entity" could own financial and other assets that the other(s) do not.  Imagine five "mental entities" sharing a body: three of them want to work as stockbrokers, one as a rap musician, and one as a prostitute (they share one instance of sexual organs).  The first three can set up a brokerage account in which each of the three owns a particular percentage, while their two twins do not.  Since all five of them cannot be on the phone, play music, type (they have four and a half hands between them), or have sex for money at the same time, they would have to negotiate and vote on how to use their limited resources to mutual advantage.  The "mental entity" that wants to be a prostitute would be overruled often, but the three stockbrokers would need its cooperation for when they need to meet with perspective clients, for example, so in exchange for its good behavior they would agree to have sex with clients X hours a week.

Who pulled the trigger...who goes to jail...who gets capital punishment...

The whole interdependent body goes to jail, with all the heads obviously attached.  Principle of self-defense: duct-taping a helpless hostage to yourself does not give you immunity to go on a shooting spree with no one shooting back (though they still ought to be more careful for humanitarian reasons).  If you do that, and somebody firing back at you kills the hostage while you are taken alive, then you are guilty of murdering the hostage, and in this case the guilty conjoined twin(s) who committed the murder also committed an additional crime against an innocent conjoined twin(s) who must now sit in jail as well.  Establishing the guilt or innocence of each "mental entity" could be done based on what the limbs controlled by each mind were doing at the time.  If your conjoined twin is killing someone and you can't stop him, you should yell (or blink, or however you communicate) that you're not the one in control.

Since the arguments I'm proposing apply to my ideal vision of society, which would be an Anarcho-Capitalist one, there would be a high degree of flexibility in the criminal justice system, which would be based on restitution, with the victim having a lot of say.  The victims, including the innocent conjoined twin(s), would get certain voting shares in deciding how to deal with the guilty based on an estimation of harm suffered.  The death sentence would be off the table (and probably for other reasons as well), and the victims would have to come up with an ideal punishment.  The guilty twin(s) might be penalized with voting shares in their body as restitution to the innocent twin(s), etc.  The guilty twin(s) might, for example, have to do programming or telemarketing work to pay restitution to the victims, while the innocent twin(s) get to use the time to watch TV or do whatever else they want instead.


If one decides to be a socialist and the other decides to be an anarchist...

Given the intellectual nature of political activity, modern information technology might allow them both to pursue their own individual desires, to a degree.  One would listen to Free Talk Live via earphones and one to Socialist Nut Daily.  One might be posting one argument on a pro-liberty forum, while another is posting a totally opposite argument on a pro-socialism forum.  Etc.  An in-person activity like attending a convention would obviously be a major dispute, but they would have tools to solve it through negotiation and voting.


Who gets the ticket for driving without a license...  Who registers the car...

In a free society that is the context for all my theories presented here, all those things would be voluntary contracts between individuals: there would be multiple competing driver certification and car certification authorities, and different competing road companies would decide which one(s) to recognize.  Some would stipulate that a particular "mental entity" is always responsible for driving, and if it is being abducted by its fellow body cohabitants against its will then a crime is taking place.  Some would grant different certifications to different "mental entities": you can drive with this "mental entity" controlling this limb, or that "mental entity" controlling that limb, but they must set their course of travel with their Navigation System and agree to it beforehand.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2008, 06:12:43 PM by Alex Libman »
Logged

NHArticleTen

  • Guest
Re: A Better "Two Heads Are Better Than One" Thread!
« Reply #1 on: August 25, 2008, 08:04:48 PM »



kewl

Logged

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: A Better "Two Heads Are Better Than One" Thread!
« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2008, 11:31:49 AM »

*BUMP*
Logged

Alex Libman 14

  • Guest
Re: A Better "Two Heads Are Better Than One" Thread!
« Reply #3 on: July 09, 2009, 11:57:04 PM »

*BUMP*
Logged

Evil Muppet

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5487
    • View Profile
Re: A Better "Two Heads Are Better Than One" Thread!
« Reply #4 on: July 13, 2009, 12:10:15 PM »

Hey Asshole.  How about some Brevity.
Logged
Now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.

Alex Libman 14

  • Guest
Re: A Better "Two Heads Are Better Than One" Thread!
« Reply #5 on: July 13, 2009, 03:57:02 PM »

No, but you're welcome to summarize it for me if you like.


Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  A Better "Two Heads Are Better Than One" Thread!

// ]]>

Page created in 0.054 seconds with 17 queries.