An interesting debate about robot rights.
- Thread starter klapse
- Start date
levi
Still fresh, damnit!
I get a 'you are not allowed in this section' error if I follow that link. It may be that I've not enabled enough javascript or cookies, but I'll wait till someone else has tried it before enabling all the bells and whistles.
ible
professional vim user
i'm not allowed, either, levi....
it's probably because i left the libertarian party a while ago...
it's probably because i left the libertarian party a while ago...
Linux-SWAT
Forum Addict!
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,189
Why debate about robots rights when we are unable to enforce human ones ?
Not to mention the animal genocide we are doing right here, right now.
Not to mention the animal genocide we are doing right here, right now.
Oh I'm sorry. when I wasn't a member of the boards I could read them. Very strange. Can you enter from http://www.libertariansforum.com/ ? Go to offtopic discussion / Do Robots Deserve Rights?
@ible did you leave the libertarian party because the party sucks, or because you don't believe in libertarianism anymore?
@Linux-SWAT It's a theoretical debate. People violating other people's rights doesn't mean they don't exist, just like someone stealing your car doesn't mean you're no-longer the rightful owner. Why do you believe animals have rights? Do bugs? Do bacteria?
@ible did you leave the libertarian party because the party sucks, or because you don't believe in libertarianism anymore?
@Linux-SWAT It's a theoretical debate. People violating other people's rights doesn't mean they don't exist, just like someone stealing your car doesn't mean you're no-longer the rightful owner. Why do you believe animals have rights? Do bugs? Do bacteria?
Last edited:
ible
professional vim user
well isn't that a leading question!
both
. i realized free markets lead to monopolies and stuff like the last recession (2008 housing market crisis), and so we need antitrust (antimonopoly) laws. i can understand the appeal of small government, but if your government is too small to enforce antitrust regulations, you're in trouble...well isn't that a leading question!
both
They do not. Government is the source of all monopolies.
[Edit] I'll make it simple for you. A free market means freedom of entry. If some provider is charging a high price, anyone can enter and undercut them. How defective is your mind to not see this?
Last edited:
ible
professional vim user
and (love of) money is the root of all kinds of evil?
a world without governments as a control to test your theory, while theoretically interesting, is not going to happen anytime soon. of course, governments haven't always acted to break up monopolies, and have sometimes helped create them. but i shudder to think what a truly free market would do before it destroyed itself (and the world, and the people living in it, and their standards), by monopolies, environmental deregulation, sweat shops, etc.
of course, i've gone quite to the other extreme since my libertarian days. i want press/education/health care/etc. free from private interests, and value someone's life even if they don't make a paycheck. but i can empathize with values on the other side, work ethic, tradition, etc...
a world without governments as a control to test your theory, while theoretically interesting, is not going to happen anytime soon. of course, governments haven't always acted to break up monopolies, and have sometimes helped create them. but i shudder to think what a truly free market would do before it destroyed itself (and the world, and the people living in it, and their standards), by monopolies, environmental deregulation, sweat shops, etc.
of course, i've gone quite to the other extreme since my libertarian days. i want press/education/health care/etc. free from private interests, and value someone's life even if they don't make a paycheck. but i can empathize with values on the other side, work ethic, tradition, etc...
You just assumed the conclusion - that free markets create monopolies, when I showed you that the opposite is true.
levi
Still fresh, damnit!
I can't even see offtopic discussions. All I get is freedom forum and information forum.
Thanks for the info, i'll ask the moderator why that is.
[doublepost=1488058227,1488057572][/doublepost]
I need to emphasize this: You're saying that the freedom of ANYONE to offer products and services is EQUAL to ONE ENTITY monopolizing the provision of those services.
Are you stupid or just a victim of SJW frankfurt school mental assf*ckery?
Ah, here in the Netherlands they stopped pushing for the destruction of the Tax haven we have here.
And I will be happy to undercut the jeans industry by paying the Bangladesh sweatshop 1 cent less per jeans... or from 49 to 48 cents an hour... I just need to cut out this thing I have inside of me... ethics or heart or something...
Dutch tip: We have here a shop called the HEMA. So they buy T-shirts for 50 cent, these go to Switserland. They add "designer costs" - 6 euro, and sell it for 7 euro to HEMA Netherlands. From there, these are sold for 8 euro... but because the stores need to be manned and rented and heated.... oh, this poor company barely manages to stay afloat... so because of the little money they make... at the end of the year they pay no taxes...
Now, if an individual would make these Tshirts... the minimum hour wage is way above 8 euro... so you need 1 employee to produce at least 40 T-shirts an hour (but for that price, you get a cheap student, not a professional seamstress, so expect faulty clothing)
Back to robots:
Afaik, in the past, if Optimus Prime stepped on a human, it was an accident. And the one they were after was the human owner of Optimus Prime. So as long as the robot sentience is not there... it will have an owner, and very few rights of its own...
And I will be happy to undercut the jeans industry by paying the Bangladesh sweatshop 1 cent less per jeans... or from 49 to 48 cents an hour... I just need to cut out this thing I have inside of me... ethics or heart or something...
Dutch tip: We have here a shop called the HEMA. So they buy T-shirts for 50 cent, these go to Switserland. They add "designer costs" - 6 euro, and sell it for 7 euro to HEMA Netherlands. From there, these are sold for 8 euro... but because the stores need to be manned and rented and heated.... oh, this poor company barely manages to stay afloat... so because of the little money they make... at the end of the year they pay no taxes...
Now, if an individual would make these Tshirts... the minimum hour wage is way above 8 euro... so you need 1 employee to produce at least 40 T-shirts an hour (but for that price, you get a cheap student, not a professional seamstress, so expect faulty clothing)
Back to robots:
Afaik, in the past, if Optimus Prime stepped on a human, it was an accident. And the one they were after was the human owner of Optimus Prime. So as long as the robot sentience is not there... it will have an owner, and very few rights of its own...
ible
professional vim user
just, for the sake of argument...
there are barriers to entry in a free market (enough capital, distribution, advertising, etc.). and if you legitimately have a good business going, and can undercut the monopoly, they will buy you out (i.e., make a more lucrative offer to buy your business than for you to continue doing your business).
there are barriers to entry in a free market (enough capital, distribution, advertising, etc.). and if you legitimately have a good business going, and can undercut the monopoly, they will buy you out (i.e., make a more lucrative offer to buy your business than for you to continue doing your business).
We have supermarket wars, undercutting each other. Small chains did not have the capital to engage for a large period of time and went bankrupt, being bought out by the victor. This, of course hurt lots of small grocery stores too, which also went down.
So... not a nice buy out but a hostile take-over...
an interesting historical example I like to present: Adidas and Puma. Were founded by two brothers, one was an idealist, the other collaborated with the Nazi's.... which one is a bigger brand now?
So ruthlessness and psychopathy pay off in business....
But back to the robot rights: Can somebody who has access to the article make a summary?
levi
Still fresh, damnit!
FWIW, a hostile takeover is usually classed as something that happens to businesses that have gone to the stock market and sold shares in their business. It's all about offering all of the other shareholders who are only really interested in the money an over the odds offer, and can only really happen if you own less than 50% of the business.
This sounds more like the small companies not having the economies of scale and the relationships with suppliers and councilmen and so on that the bigger companies can employ to defeat them. It's still not very nice dealing, and could be classed as hostile in general english, this sounds more like a fire sale by whoever's handing the redundancies, and plots of land and buildings and so on get snapped up by those same bigger stores to pay off the investors. In technical speak, a hostile takeover doesn't involve the bankruptcy of the smaller firm.
ElPoco
Hardcore Member
At a smaller scale, you've got a country: Somalia. It's what's closer to a country without any governement, and it seems far from a an anarchist paradise.
Back to the question of AI rights, I like the philosophical applications of the concept, I think it can lead to interesting discussions.
Question for @DaMummy: Are you more related to zombies or more related to humans? Or are mummy's just in a class of its own?
[doublepost=1488229189,1488229130][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1488229189,1488229130][/doublepost]
I see... thank you for correcting me.
Similar threads
