Anonymous
asked:
I think it's sort of a mistake to try to come up with a "real" definition of private property. It's not a physical truth about the universe we can discover if we only try hard enough; it's an agreement we can make amongst ourselves. I mean, there are better and worse ways of defining it, but the goal should be "useful" (like, for social/legal purposes, such that it's fairly clear to everyone what IS considered theirs) rather than "philosophically airtight".
argumate
answered:

Yes. Even if you do come up with a definitive proof of something you still have the problem of some geezer with a shotgun ignoring all of your logic.

mitigatedchaos

1. Quite frankly you don’t understand the true potential of AI if you think it’s impossible for it to lead to human extinction. It’s hardly gauranteed, and longer development time at the civilization level makes doom less likely, but humans are only a small slice of the possible mindspace, so AI can have totally alien values relative to ours. Believing AI cannot cause human extinction is like believing some of the upper end of theorized nuclear war scenarios couldn’t cause human extinction or come damn close.

2. They keep hammering property because that’s what makes your system de facto Neo-Feudalist if it were attempted for real, and because property is a license to do violence. It is property-obsessed relative to other frameworks, as “self-ownership”/property are used to frame all the other rights.

3. If you would sacrifice all of humanity rather than let your honor be stained even one little bit in a world where we evolved from animals, then quite frankly I can’t see your stance as moral, since it concludes that your personal honor is more important than the lives of the entire species.

Source: argumate
philo