3 ms·
This way the sum of all ownership sums to 1. QED, I guess. Meanwhile, down on Planet Earth, we have the perfectly obvious and natural question: when one of th
by kafkaesq 10y ago
This way the sum of all ownership sums to 1.
QED, I guess. Meanwhile, down on Planet Earth, we have the perfectly obvious and natural question: when one of those vehicles (inevitably) plunges into a school bus full o' kids, and is found to have done so as a result of criminal negligence -- who's going to jail? Once you've identified those parties -- you know, the human beings who will be held accountable for the aforementioned negligence -- you've identified the "de-facto" owners of these vehicles, by any meaningful definition.
Or if you (truly believe) the answer is "no one" -- as in, "Aw shucks! Nobody owns these cars, you see! Just some blobs of white noise on the blockchain! You can't even trace 'em! BTW sorry 'bout all those poor kids, but you know, stuff happens" -- then at least we've identified the "self-ownership" fad for what it is: just another libertarian smokescreen to maximize the potential for financial gain whilst minimizing (or in this case, voiding entirely) the personal responsibility (and accountability) that otherwise -- in a sane world -- would go hand-in-hand with such activity.
- ouid 10y agoYou called it an oxymoron, which was wrong. Lots of things own themselves. If you have a problem with the man's article, articulate it better, or be prepared to be called wrong.
- kafkaesq 10y agoLots of things own themselves. Can you name a single instance of a complex, industrially produced item (let alone one interacts with our day-to-day world in a significant way; and is quite inherently possessed of the ability to kill human beings) -- that "owns itself"?
- cr0sh 10y agoWhy are complex, non-industrially produced items which interact with our day-to-day world in a significant way, and are quite inherently possessed of the ability to kill human beings, which do own themselves (well, in most cases - but unfortunately not all) - somehow different? I mean - we've come up with solutions for those items - so why couldn't we do the same with industrially produced items which have the same characteristics you've posited?
- ouid 10y agoyou asserted that it was impossible, not that it hadn't been achieved. If you are merely asserting that it hasn't been achieved, then that is in agreement with the article you claim to disagree with.