Nope. That was one of the silly laws that had never been taken off the books and forgotten. It was a South Carolina law from when the horseless carriages were first hitting the road in the late 1890s, discovered in an audit of the state laws in the mid 1960s. Needless to say after everyone got a chuckle out of it, the state legislature quickly rescinded it, lest some lamebrain decided to use it for ticketing people they didn't like.

Right on!

You made that one up, didn't you, Dr. Zarkov 99?

I have not watched the video yet; I have limited time at this machine. But I did read the comments by Gates. I have in the past thought he was being picked on and treated unjustly, by now I am thoroughly disgusted with him. Another means of getting us further away from freedom.

Comments and statements like that from Gates made me turn to Linux OS. I am free.

Bill Gates should be willing to pay an income tax on all of the programs he wrote that took jobs away from people, his nanobots are destroying jobs that used to be done by thousands with pencil and paper.
I think Bill may have always had leftist leanings, not possible for me to know for certain but he seemed to be uninvolved in politics until the size of his business suddenly became apparent to the power mongers who then threatened to destroy him for being too big by claiming that he was a virtual monopoly and had to be controlled. I think it was Senator Orrin Hatch who stated something along the lines of; "He should have come to us sooner to make sure what he was doing was okay!" He managed to keep the government from breaking up his little company, cost him millions in lawyer fees and corporate donations to the power brokers and then he turned hard left in his political leanings. I think it might be more to protect his holdings but it is probably what he really believes too. Those who have large enough holdings can protect themselves from destruction by going along with the socialist program. If he ever strays he will be destroyed and then he will be complaining; "But I was on your side!"

What portion of the investment in the robot was paid for by the state? Since the state creates no surplus, it cannot make any investment and it should receive no dividends in any form- especially not via taxes that are merely legalized theft.

"The robot that takes your job should pay taxes."
I find this a very interesting premise and am reluctant to dismiss it out of hand. I intend to think it through. :-) BTW I believe AI will eventually become a reality. At least to some extent and to some extent it is a reality right now and smarter than some politicians

I like how you think.

I've read your comment several times over the last day and I keep asking myself what it would mean to design an Objectivist ethic into a robot. I suppose you could, although I'm not sure that would make it a useful tool.

That's why I brought your link over here Nick...fit right in!

I actually did my first "Best of" with this one!

Awesome! I had to copy that to FB, just to irritate the Libertard element....

Isn't that weird? I posted that just because of the quality and proof producers can produce without the baggage of huge money, if they have the desire and the basic abilities. Yet it is a perfect fit for this discussion.....

I did watch it. No harm done at all.;^)

One key, that is seldom if ever mentioned, is that whatever tax system is adopted paying tax should be avoidable. In the FairTax you can raise your own food, and more importantly buy used things. In this way taxes will not get too high. As price increases due to taxation, more and more people will only buy used things and more will put in a garden. Self limiting!!!

Better to show him that your "Bow Finger" is still intact...

Good one...Just told the wife...she soiled her panties.

Before it blows up bcause it did something wrong...opps, hope you viewed the video and I didn't ruin it for you.

Better enjoy your burgers while you can!

And this is what we might get in return for automation...https://youtu.be/vDjcWlCT8rg
posted on another thread Nickursis

Still, it has no need for wages, a home, school, health care. As autonomous as it might be...it has no needs except the energy to power it. So the money earned by selling the products it makes would pay for that energy.

No matter who earned the money, the robots and or the inventor...the robots are not humans and have not human needs.

They might be successful a imitating humans, human awareness of their environment, awareness of their production and an imitation conscience...it still will not be human and never have the same consciousness, self introspection, privy to the insights the human mind is capable of and perhaps the same effect upon existence, creation, that humans may have.
They are and should always be, a machine.

That's my view and I'll be sticking to it for now.

R2D2 might be better as a waitress or server or for routine jobs around the house. C3PO design is a more flexible design but it really doesnt need to look like a human.

Did you happen to see boston robotics youtube videos of the dog and random farm animal shapes- kind of amazing how far robotics has come

Agreed. I hope the new CEO shows more ethical action, too.

Did you design in an Objectivist ethic, WS?