Luis suggests an approach to the spam problem:
[I]t really seems like it is a shame we probably couldn’t get away with killing a few spammers- because surely you wouldn’t need to do more than 1 or 2 before the point got across very clearly. To put it another way: I don’t think all spammers should die; I just think that enough spammers should die so that the rest stop doing it. 🙂 We’re clearly in a fairly interesting historical situation, where some of the things we all hate have no clear moral or legal antecedents, and the penalties we’ve set up so far are clearly not discouraging enough.
Worth noting in passing that Luis blogged earlier in the day about “the ethics (or lack thereof) in business school”. One wonders what the “kill the spammer” idea says about the corresponding ethics he’s getting in law school. 🙂
haha. Sadly, the ethics I’m getting in law school are less ‘ethics’ and more ‘complete risk aversion’. Something like this would never fly, sadly…