Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?

From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Sat Apr 09 2005 - 18:41:17 EDT

Next message: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM: "Re: [OPE-L] Ricardo on the value of manufactured goods, or does the tail wag the dog?"
Previous message: Philip Dunn: "Re: [OPE-L] Ricardo on the value of manufactured goods, or does the tail wag the dog?"
In reply to: Philip Dunn: "Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?"
Next in thread: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM: "Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

I asked Ian:

> Why and how would robots come to have an autonomous
> existence and be hired as wage-labourers?

Phil responded:

> They become self-reproducing and need to put bread or maybe
> brake fluid in their children's mouths.

This wouldn't give them an autonomous existence.   We have
the historical example of slavery that we can look to.  Even if
robots were self-reproducing their 'offspring' would become the
property of the owner of the robots responsible for producing
the new robots -- just as the children of slaves became the property
of slaveowners.  What incentive would the owners of a robot have
to cede the rights to the ownership and use of  robots produced
by their robots?

In solidarity, Jerry

Next message: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM: "Re: [OPE-L] Ricardo on the value of manufactured goods, or does the tail wag the dog?"
Previous message: Philip Dunn: "Re: [OPE-L] Ricardo on the value of manufactured goods, or does the tail wag the dog?"
In reply to: Philip Dunn: "Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?"
Next in thread: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM: "Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 10 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT