Possibly due to the more than one car per person in the US and the likely utility and corresponding desirability of such robots. Also, the notion of everyone gets one is a nice vision and plays on our emotional desire for egalitarian access to all that glitters

this part (italic quote below) (from the first link) did not seem consistent (but I might be splitting hairs) - the second element of it does not seem to follow from the first part. it is too much of a physical to metaphysical jump so the logic doesn't translate well. I don't think it makes sense to suggest that a lack of sensation of free will means that we do not indeed have it, and that we cannot be held responsible. Many people often feel/think that they have less choice or no choice when there is often always a choice - the perception doesn't always correspond with the reality. The definition of agency freedom probably needs to be less constricted. I would suggest rewriting it, considering the logic of the sentence - i.e. it doesn't ring as valid / the logic seems off; you didn't mean it ironically correct? I think it stems from the definition - the meaning of the word 'agency' transcends a persons feeling/sensation. I believe agency has more to do with capacity to act and responsibility for such action - the whole ought implies can discussion in ethics.

"For example, we say that a chair exists because we perceive a chair to exist. We don’t call a chair “something that causes the perception of a chair, but which objectively we cannot call a chair since its existence as such is subject to our perceptions of it.” Instead, we call it a chair.

The same goes for free will. If we do not have the sensation of free will, then we don’t have free will and, therefore, can’t be held responsible."

I think the whole dynamic occurs on a slightly more complex level than this link describes. or maybe I just come at it from a different interpretive priority - I do think we are sort of on the same page in a variety of ways. But, the factors that contribute to behavior are subconscious and conscious so I don't see freedom as the ideal term to use - i see freedom as an overused concept in philosophy, particularly American philosophy. I am unsure how to accurately describe the distinction between the linguistic functions of the terms other than to say that I prefer the term sovereignty as an existentially derived primary right rather than freedom as some sense, quality, or capacity that someone possesses. I am more interested in the primordial existential state of being and how this translates to higher-order ontological principles as axiomatic to normative and political discourse - i.e. how we arrive at the higher-order principle and then see how this relates to our right to self determination and ethics/morality. I did appreciate how the phrase higher-order principles was used, but without a stated basis for this/these principles how can it be objective? The project of objectivity in morality and ethics seems like a faulty way of thinking to me - I ontologically categorize ethics and morality as subjective not objective. I think many people want to base ethics and morality on objectivity because of the concrete priority humans have. I see this as more of a will to power type approach, rather than seeking the necessary relational approach implied by the metaphysical category of being.

it did occur to me that you could be using the term objective in the sense of not being biased - i was using it here to refer to the correspondence our framing has with objective, concrete tendency.

​

​

In the second link I wasn't sure I agreed in part because of definitions and tracking meaning and interpretive priority, but I thought it might be good to suggest that It might bare more fruit to reference and predicate the free will/determinism debate as more spectral rather than as dichotomy. For example, we do have free will in certain ways, but we also have limits to this, which might be considered deterministic. if you think about the it from subconscious to conscious there isn't really a hard line - sometimes we are explicitly aware and other times we are on autopilot - it isn't an either/or proposition. Free will and determinism occur simultaneously at different thresholds of conscious experience.

My Opinion: The ordering tendency or principle of the universe, historically referred to with concepts like "The Logos" refers to the observed fact of order, diversity, and complexity of extant phenomena. This ordering principle which subsumes the myriad conventions for describing the known universe is the foundation of how we exist since we are a result of the ordering process through which the tendency or principle acts/works. Evolution is the contemporary, and epistemologically, greatest form of comprehending this ordering principle / process.

Rights come from evolution in and through the emergent faculties which resulted from it. We have the conventions of rights because we evolved to be conceptual beings with animal needs. We are also social and political beings as a result of our evolutionary historicity and thus we relate with one another in a manner consistent with how these evolved predispositions are consistent with the tendency. The "fitness" of a convention of rights is mostly based in how rational they are (for the sake of justifying agreement), and how well the contribute to the survival of individuals/the group. Put simply, all justified rights are ideally predicated in terms of how they promote the essential basis of our physical and metaphysical existence and the pluralism implied by moral equality - Everything else is just wishful thinking (a.k.a limited justification) and/or the arbitrary/non-necessary imposition of such thoughts on the self-determination of others ( aka the imperfect elements within existing conventions).

​

property rights are a convention born out of value production and retention. We live in the world producing things, we use money as a basis for value representation and exchange, and we are incentivized by the relationship we have with the various things which are produced - particularly food, shelter, heat and water (so we dont die). without property rights to reasonably insure that we have consistent access to these things, we probably wouldnt cooperate well as a species and many people would not survive. Property rights can exist in many forms, but they exist in principle for survival even though they are social conventions.

Most justified rights exist for survival whether or not this is how they are predicated within the various conventions. But many rights are justified because they contribute to making a variety of things work better - the other side of the justification equation.

​

TL;DR - although I agree that rights are not naturally emergent in the typical way in which they are, and have historically been, described, this article seems predicated in an over-priority of political buzzwords, particularly US culture and politics with the term 'freedom' - a broadly used, but not well defined term to describe a person's right to self determination. linked articles seemed to be predicated in similar conventional terms which I find too inaccurate and unoriginal for my tastes as a lover of wisdom. I do, however, agree with the aspect of this project which emphasizes what was described as the need for specification, prioritization, and geneology. Traditional theories do not well address these. I also agreed in principle with some of the interpretations.

I personally think we need to start with the big bang and work forward but that is too much to write out in detail here

The 'law' of gravity, simplified, is a description of the relationship between the masses of particles/objects and is rightly classified as a component of physics / physical ontology. Rights, and normativity broadly, belongs to the category of metaphysical ontology - there is a relationship between the physical and metaphysical but this relationship needs to be properly explained in a way which is compatible with the generally agreed upon conventions, generally divided by the terms 'science' and 'non-science'

I dont know what you mean when you say that "we have a right to feel grounded." to me feeling grounded equates with an emotional sense of stability related to one's physical or social place in the world. I agree that this as an ideal way of being, but I struggle to see how we could use a non-primary emotion as the basis for any legal convention of rights in and of itself.

For me, I attempt to connect the metaphysics of ideas and feelings (things that exist dependently on a subjective mind) to the physics of the universe in which subjectivity arose. To do so, I use the concept of evolution, since what we are is a result of the specific evolutionary steps our species took to get to the present state of things.

Human beings are animals, in principle just like any other, the majority of us seeking food, water, thermal regulation, and shelter, and we also embody fight or flight tendencies and the tendency to recapitulate through sexual embodiment and activities like dating and pair bonding. From an evolutionary perspective you can tie survival tendencies to the physical and, in doing so, concepts related to survival are then bridged and can serve as the basis for normative conventions.

However, there is more than survival. We often seek to improve our existence and so there needs to be a secondary basis since normativity covers both the survival and improvement aspects of living.

I created a system, feel free to reach out if you are curious :)

I don't see a paradox, or rather I depart from Popper's paradox in a way which resolves it.

if tolerance = tolerance

and intolerance = ~tolerance

than ~(~intolerance) = tolerance

Thus the only form of intolerance which is tolerable in a just society is the intolerance of intolerance and this is not logically inconsistent or irrational using the symbolic logic above.

This requires more complex analysis and terms since we need to better define what tolerance is with respect to the nuance and complexity of a society and civilization rather than mere logic.

I tend to perceive in terms of impositionality and the need for justification being non-arbitrary. I would thus propose that any significant and arbitrary imposition is a thing which society should restrict. yet Human beings tolerate myriad forms of imposition. We tend to tolerate arbitrary and more extreme forms of imposition less frequently. If we break these forms down and understand the basis for tolerance of them, we might better come to understand what forms of tolerance and intolerance are acceptable. Examples of imposition in this context include the production of sound, or existing within the visual range of a person, consuming finite resources, being an emotional being (imposing one's emotional needs on others), etc.... Most people would be entirely accepting of another person producing sound, but would be intolerant of it in a movie theater or during the middle of a funeral or wedding ceremony. similarly if a young child or a person with a significant psychological condition was verbally disruptive we would tend to tolerate such sonic impositions more readily. Who is doing it, where it is done, what they are doing, why they are doing it, etc... all play into our tolerance of many things.

So, intolerance of intolerance seems to be a rather narrow and also particularly variable set of ideas. the generally agreed to restrictions to the arbitrary imposition of a person or group on the basis of race, sex, gender, or nationality is based in this understanding of intolerance of intolerance. I think intolerance is arbitrary and thus subject to justified intolerance if it is based in any ascribed status (since a person cannot choose or change this status within reason). accountability thus also plays a significant role. if one cannot be accountable, within reason, the intolerance of them is unjustified and thus should not be tolerated. For example if a person is Russian, this alone is not a sufficient reason to hold them accountable for the actions of the administration which presides over them. Most people would agree that a citizen of a country is not accountable for the actions for their country's policies in the same way that the representatives of their government are. Similarly a black person or a white person is not accountable for the actions of other white or black people, etc.... Each person is accountable for themselves, and we ought to tolerate or not tolerate them based on the degree of arbitrariness that their imposition, their behavior or assertion, has on others.