I think one of the main arguments for abolition of slavery/serfdom in Europe both in XII (serfdom) and XIX (slavery) centuries was that rights mirror responsibilities, and either a slave has no responsibilities, or they have no rights, and the latter is inhumane, and the former is useless or even dangerous, because who’s to blame for a crime committed by a slave, for example? If a slave has responsibilities, those surely have to be mirrored and then why are they a slave, that is, how can they be responsible for their master’s orders?
Have also read that the perpetual bloodbath in bear corners of Europe like Scottish highlands and Norse parts before reduction/abolition of serfdom there was, in part, conditioned by a notable part of population being slaves and thus criminal proceedings being additionally complicated, because if a slave killed someone, they had to find out if it was their master’s order or their own idea, and when the latter is chosen too often, then masters’ impunity is reinforced, and when the former is chosen too often, slaves are more likely to expect impunity.
EDIT: And also they were largely pirates, including respectable officials and rulers, Akershus itself was one big pirate base, similar to Visby, honestly to any Norse or Scottish big coastal settlement, so yeah, other reasons for bloodshed. But slavery too.
Anyway, my point is that if someone wants computer programs with rights, they want computer programs with responsibilities, meaning things with their own responsibilities following orders.
That’s a hype, but also a danger of medieval legalism’ proportions. No human should be able to shift their responsibilities to computer programs. Unless those computer programs own themselves and their hardware, I mean, one can in theory make a complex enough automaton functioning autonomously, but what’s the bloody purpose even if one can. (EDIT: and due to possible hidden prepared behaviors I’d rather not have that with rights too)
I think one of the main arguments for abolition of slavery/serfdom in Europe both in XII (serfdom) and XIX (slavery) centuries was that rights mirror responsibilities, and either a slave has no responsibilities, or they have no rights, and the latter is inhumane, and the former is useless or even dangerous, because who’s to blame for a crime committed by a slave, for example? If a slave has responsibilities, those surely have to be mirrored and then why are they a slave, that is, how can they be responsible for their master’s orders?
Have also read that the perpetual bloodbath in bear corners of Europe like Scottish highlands and Norse parts before reduction/abolition of serfdom there was, in part, conditioned by a notable part of population being slaves and thus criminal proceedings being additionally complicated, because if a slave killed someone, they had to find out if it was their master’s order or their own idea, and when the latter is chosen too often, then masters’ impunity is reinforced, and when the former is chosen too often, slaves are more likely to expect impunity.
EDIT: And also they were largely pirates, including respectable officials and rulers, Akershus itself was one big pirate base, similar to Visby, honestly to any Norse or Scottish big coastal settlement, so yeah, other reasons for bloodshed. But slavery too.
Anyway, my point is that if someone wants computer programs with rights, they want computer programs with responsibilities, meaning things with their own responsibilities following orders.
That’s a hype, but also a danger of medieval legalism’ proportions. No human should be able to shift their responsibilities to computer programs. Unless those computer programs own themselves and their hardware, I mean, one can in theory make a complex enough automaton functioning autonomously, but what’s the bloody purpose even if one can. (EDIT: and due to possible hidden prepared behaviors I’d rather not have that with rights too)