Topic: How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists - page 9. (Read 24009 times)

In that case, the morality of the action would rest with whoever or whatever created the autonomous system. Since the autonomous system is autonomous, it is not a moral agent. But I can program a robot police officer to shoot the innocent or shoot in defense. The former would be moral on my part and the latter immoral. It matters not that the automaton then executes the operations amorally.

Any moral agent who followed Libertarian principles would be acting morally or immorally because they would be choosing to follow those principles. Any automaton who followed them would be acting amorally, however the creator of that automaton could be acting morally or immorally. There is no requirement that moral *principles* be incapable of reduction to algorithms. (And if there were, it would be almost impossible to come up with any moral principles at all. "Thou shalt not kill" couldn't be a moral principle.)

It's terrible if a human *blindly* follows someone else's code. Humans are moral agents and are responsible for the choices they make. They aren't automatons. But there's nothing inherently wrong with following a moral code if one has determined, to the best of one's ability, that that code is in fact moral and they are willing to change things if evidence points otherwise.

What makes you think that we haven't examined these concepts down to first principles? Granted, some might not have, but I know I have, and found it to be a logically consistent and viable philosophy.

This is a ridiculous argument. You might as well argue that if I punch you in the face, that's not immoral because my fist is not capable of acting morally. Computers are just like our fists -- they do what we tell them to do. They are not moral agents, but when we command them morally, then *we* are acting morally and when we command them immorally, then *we* are acting immorally. You are erroneously looking at the actions of the agent rather than the actions of the master that commanded the agent.

The people doing business as "government"  in Singapore are fairly fucking evil, from what I've read that they do.

That makes some sense when there is a lot of money to be had and the conditions are at least livable (I have known several Brits who spent a couple of uncomfortable years in Dubai and came back with their pockets stuffed with money). If you're living as a prisoner for a pittance and hanging off the outsides of a skyscraper cleaning windows with a rag and a spray-bottle, there's more to it. Myanmar currently has 90,000 internally displaced people and a large ethnic group that the government refuses to recognize as citizens (not illegal immigrants by my reading either). Plus a lot else besides.


Personally, I'd describe aspects of what you're telling me as downright evil.

LOL, they are coming to a country where g owns all the companies. "Singapore, Inc." is the State slogan.
 
There are good g's, bad g's, and g's that are simply amoral. Singapore, Inc. falls in the latter category.

Hmm. Just doing some reading about why such desperate people would be coming out of Myanmar. Interesting so far. Guess which word beginning with "g" describes the reason?

It is a reasonable question of exactly how far should you be able to contract and how enforcible it should be. Things like duress obviously negate contracts and competency to enter a contract is also a requirement. But after the fact of a contract entered purely voluntarily? Since I don't swing quite that extreme, it's something of an "angels on the head of a pin" argument for me but I am somewhat sympathetic to the AnCap position so I take an interest.

Again, though, it's down to the ability to enforce the contract. In this case, it appears to be the state in some cases doing the enforcing and in other cases, failing to enforce what laws there are (or, in the case of the lack of such law, the state designating a set of second class individual since I'm sure it would not be acceptable for its citizens to be treated this way).

Not if it's in the contract.

Since we have been on the topic of examples of 'anarchist' societies and their longevity, I'm going to post this link here to an excerpt from a book that I've just recently learned about called The Starfish and the Spider.

http://www.starfishandspider.com/preview/16.html

It's not copy&pastable, so just start at the line, "By 1521..." and read about the structure of the Apaches and why the Spanish lost.

The contracts don't say anything about compensation for injury or death. They are pretty sparse. If you want to make such contracts illegal (more power to you), that is restrictive of markets. That is not ambiguous.

Here is a short article about compensation for death:
http://www.tnp.sg/content/compensate-maids-who-die-job

Apparently, the human rights groups are calling for employers to compensate maid's families when they die on the job. That is not in the contract though. Tough cookies.  
Maids are not covered under worker's compensation law in Singapore.

Should that be changed? Should we bring more workers under the scope of State protection? I'm glad that's what you are arguing for. Maybe you have a few brain cells after all.

One of the facebook comments:

What do you think of compulsory insurance purchases? Reeks of Statism doesn't it.

What about the mats on the floor? Is that in the contract?


Making whole those you injure is hardly restrictive of markets. It's also part-and-parcel of the NAP. You harm someone, you have to make that right. You wouldn't happen to have a copy of one of these contracts we could look at? You're making a lot of claims about what is and is not in there, and some proof would be appreciated.

No, that's not in the contract silly. I thought libertarians enforced contracts. You just want to make up phony laws about restitution. Restrict markets. You fucking Statist you!

But I'm exaggerating, you do have to provide medical care if injury is detected before you can successfully repatriate them. That's state law though.

In China they have good compensation for injury, but not death. Thus if you run someone over with your car, it is optimal to do a double tap. I can link to CCTV videos of this if you would like.

I don't think I am as confident about the fundamental goodness of humanity as you are. If people are really poor compared to you, they start to seem like animals and you treat them as such.

What are you talking about? Poor treatment is one of the contract terms, see above. Forcible repatriation is legal and is in the contract.
High-risk window cleaning is legal and is in the contract. No time off ever is legal and is in the contract.

So the maids or their families are paid restitution if/when they get injured or killed as a result of their employment?

You can learn about the employment relationship by visiting a maid company website.  

http://www.eck.com.sg/web/faq.html

This part is LOL funny.

I love how they describe the working conditions, but then part of their answer is "perhaps yes". At least the human life vs. clean windows trade off is "worth arguing" about.
Welcome to Libertarian paradise.

It looks like the issue here is the poor treatment of the workers, not the terms of their employment.

Actually, that is close to what happens. However, runaways are typically forcibly repatriated rather than returned to their employers.

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/11/repartriation-companies-manpower-ministers-response-belittles-the-efforts-of-migrant-workers/

"A Team Repatriation Services"
I can almost hear the "A Team" theme song. Wouldn't it be sweet if Mr T was on the payroll?

Cunicula, which parts of the contract are you referring to specifically? Likely there are some aspects that would be acceptable and some that would not and possibly some gray areas that would be subject to common sense.

Balahdeblah, Breaking a contract is typically a civil matter. In theory there could be criminal actions involved. However, it wouldn't be possible for someone to write in to your contract that if you didn't polish the silverware sufficiently, you could be arrested for rape. Clearly this is an example of government stepping over its correct role.

If the story was that workers who tried to leave their employers houses were being rounded up and imprisoned by private security companies, that would be a different story but apparently, it isn't.

The servant signed a contract to work 24/7/365*3. The servant cannot leave a house unless instructed to do so without permission. That would be refusal to work, a contract violation. Penalty for contract violation is to forfeit your bond to the employment agency. Typically about 6 months - 1 years' back wages. It is all in the voluntary contract signed by the servant of course.

Contracts like this are illegal in the United States, but legal in Singapore.

Does protection of rights to enter into bonded servitude advance individual rights? Or are these voluntary contracts similar to slavery?