If I buy some future robot that's (for the sake of argument, I know this is a stupid way to do it) capable of mining and refining and processing all the stuff it needs to make a copy of itself, who gets to put the breaks on this process? Who gets to say "no"?
The old government can only preclude sovereign citizens, if that state has enough resources to actually stop them.
Imagine the sort of "sovereign citizens" we already see today, only instead of putting their names in all-caps and citing non-existent legal mumbo-jumbo, they have a robot army on top of all the stuff they're currently mocked for.
State can in principle get a robot army of its own to monitor everyone. Ugh, do not want. But I also "Ugh, do not want" at the things I see as inevitable without it.
Comments
Legal ownership is just that, subordinate to a legal system under a state.
That does not answer my question.
Who is sovereign in this future?
Or to put it another way, who even is the state?
If I buy some future robot that's (for the sake of argument, I know this is a stupid way to do it) capable of mining and refining and processing all the stuff it needs to make a copy of itself, who gets to put the breaks on this process? Who gets to say "no"?
The old government can only preclude sovereign citizens, if that state has enough resources to actually stop them.
Imagine the sort of "sovereign citizens" we already see today, only instead of putting their names in all-caps and citing non-existent legal mumbo-jumbo, they have a robot army on top of all the stuff they're currently mocked for.
State can in principle get a robot army of its own to monitor everyone. Ugh, do not want. But I also "Ugh, do not want" at the things I see as inevitable without it.