This is an interesting question. One answer is the Iain Banks answer: the AI stops people from beating each other with rocks, but doesn't enforce property rights. If I build structures and you tear them down, oh well.https://twitter.com/MorganColeBooks/status/1120745314300960769 …
-
Show this thread
-
2/ Banks was a variety of socialist. Once there's so much stuff that everyone has all they need, he has no interest in property rights. I, as an ancap, think that wants are infinite, and we're already at 2,000 times survival level now, and we obviously still LIKE property so
4 replies 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
3/ I don't think reaching 2,000,000 times survival level will make us any less enamored with property. Indeed, the richer we get, the more things we turn into property! As to "how do we divide it up?", my answer is "read Nozick".
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
4/ Specifically, the Wilt Chamberlain story. At time t=n, there is already a division of property. As Moldbug said in his "leaving Tlon" blog post, property is arbitrary and unfair - and that's the POINT. We accept the division at time t=n, and we constrain >>
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likesShow this thread -
5/ further transactions to be mutually beneficial / consenting. At n+1, things are at least as just as they were at n, perhaps more so. Never less so. If the AI or some human wants to preserve property for AN IMPORTANT PURPOSE, well... he just does so.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread
6/ That which is unowned is always despoiled. That which is owned is not. Witness the tragedy of the commons, and how the Enclosure Acts benefited the environment / increased total utility.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.