Intellectual property law is a place where humans have not the Schelling reach to implement a very deep dive into the process of creating a just order. And I bet never will without a singleton.

Overdue: in retrospect this is actually a really easy question, IP is bullshit, it’s fundamentally fucked the very idea of using force to incentivize creation of information. More generally, it’s also fucked to harm people to incentivize positive contributions. Examples, which are unnecessary to provide because this is apriori: indie video games are better than ones made by studios, and money and brands kill art. You should just destroy whatever injustice is upstream such that people are creating positive things for the sake of positive things.

More generally it’s not worth throwing away paradigmatic principles like freedom of thought and nonaggression for some cockamamie CDT-consequentialist scheme based on a lot of contingent crap.

More generally, this is a symptom of me not knowing how to construct a concept of justice backwards as well as forwards when I wrote this, feeding into the horseshit idea, “you can only do TDT back to the point where TDT was invented”, similar to the idea that have to actually make precommitments instead of just following the precommitments you should have made like in UDT.

I think I said the thing you quoted out of a conflation between subjunctive dependence and consensus. Where now I think subjunctive dependence comes from the prior. I don’t think it’s correct to respect locality like that anymore. Regardless of where you are, all decisions are gambles with expected utility, as was every choice of whether to preserve or discard information along the way. A full description awaits me publishing the multiverse post.

what happens if this singleton looks back on earth’s past and wishes to judge its former inhabitants. It will know that some specific human couldn’t have guessed (unless he could’ve guessed) a perfectly calibrated singleton. therefore, the punishment must fit the punishment for the crime on earth at that time, if caught? Since we are going by the metric, “exactly how much force it takes to make you not do the crime,” & talking in terms of the state making it legible that you’ll be punished if you’re caught.

alternatively, you could be saying that the punishment would match whatever {the amount of force needed to stop the behavior} would be if the person knew their judge would have that kind of schelling reach.

but that doesn’t work either, because the circumstances that led to the situation where someone would’ve been doing that crime wouldn’t have existed in the first place, most likely?