If you cannot decide what is harmful, then you cannot use "the one law". What are you to do then? Also, sometimes (or should I say always) all choices, even non-action choice, will harm someone

Even "harm" is a difficult issue in reality. When a doctor prescribes a drug with disease-curing effects as well as side-effects (all of them have side-effects), does he harm the patient?

Further, "beings" is ill an defined term (may be defined somewhere, I have not studied this philosophy). Is an anthill (as opposed to individual ants) a being? Many claim it is a superbeing

So "The one law" is simple enough. But obviously there are endless complications to it if you sit down and think about it. For one, most people eat plants/animals. You could argue both are beings

Sanctuary welcomes @AlexDGreat into the MEMO community

The illegal numbers and primes are pretty funny:) Remember protesters printing the color code in a flag, it is the perfect symbol. The hard case would be if you could make nukes from algebra.

Sanctuary Learning Center - A peek at the direction this might parallel in some ways:

decentralized consensus vs authoritarian vs random lottery vs ...

how ar misinterpreations ofthe violation ofthe one law determined

How is the One Law derived? It sounds like the NAP

Need more info. What about private property? Self defense?

Love the idea, but how do you define "harm"? Just physical?