From: Samantha Atkins (sjatkins@gmail.com)
Date: Sat Apr 26 2008 - 03:00:38 MDT
Tim Freeman wrote:
> From: "Lee Corbin" <lcorbin@rawbw.com>
>
>> The two big large contributors to progress have been (i) Rule
>> of Law (ii) Respect for Private Property. These clearly apply
>> only to humans. Cows, for example, cannot understand either,
>> and they have no private property.
>>
>> This thread started when the need for a line to be drawn was
>> realized. I've drawn that line in my previous post, and here I
>> defend it. Questions?
>>
>
> Okay, here's a question -- Do you know a way to do something like
> Hutter's AIXI that has the concept of respect for private property
> built in?
>
Sort of without formalism. If you respect individual intelligent beings
at all you in some sense respect a core of private property, the beings
own self and right to exist. Given that much some modicum of property
is essential to existence, at least some amount of space, shelter,
energy, food and so on. Given that we are talking about an intelligent
being part of the respect is for the being to do its own thinking, act
on its thinking and experience consequences (learn). Out of freedom to
act and experience consequence comes freedom of association with others
and freedom to make voluntary agreements/exchanges (trade). The rights
to the products if any of such exchanges and interactions follow
directly from the individual right to exist and function as a thinking
being.
I we surmise from the above that such freedom and property rights are
essential to the maximal development of thinking beings and perhaps
essential to the maximal creation of value among any collection of
thinking beings then it follows that a FAI must support at least some
naturally derivable level of property rights.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT