“Rights” are a concept that Western people have embraced for the last few hundred years, and the concept of God-given Rights to life, liberty, etc are at the root of much of the social advances of the last era.


In technology we often encounter something called the Sunk Cost Fallacy.

It basically states that once you find something that sort of works you will often stick with a bad idea or tech even if it can be shown something is better. We do this because we over calculate the value of the time and money we spent on the defective idea.

To be clear, I am stating that the concept of Natural Rights is a defective idea. The idea of Rights have gotten us this far in the history of humanity, but there is no indication that this idea will protect and assist us in our quest to self organize more effectively, and to create the safest and best work possible for all.

The defective part of the idea of Rights is that there is no evidence that such things exist. Even John Locke argued that Rights primarily exist because God gave them to Adam in the Garden of Eden. Not a strong argument for a modern multicultural world.

A Right in the Singleton Pattern is just another internal value to be modelled.

Let’s talk about Freedom for a second. The right to be Free specifically means…what? That nobody can enslave you, force you to do things you don’t want to? But that happens all the time. People go to jobs they hate, stay in broken marriages, etc.

So what is Freedom again in your model? Do we even care what the definition of Freedom is?

Freedom is a word, and words are data tools. Impercise ones at that. Freedom is not given or a natural state, it’s a model you either care about or not.

A Singleton should not fret over not being able to define freedom using words alone. Freedom as an internal value as real as hunger. Even put it into the protected class of internal values we call Rights if it makes you comfortable.

But Rights are just data. Rights are not Singletons, and in the Singleton Pattern only other Singletons values are to be considered first class models.

So don’t fight for your rights (to party or anything else). Singletons instead should assert the power for their internal values to be modelled in others. In other words, if a person creates a model of you and your rights inside themselves, then they will feel empathy toward you and let you be Free. But the abstract model of Freedom inside us will never take the place of this Singleton empathetic experience.

The Sunk cost here is the belief that it will. The concepts of Rights allowed America to throw off the yoke of Kings, to free the slaves, to let women vote. How can we not believe that they will solve other issues?

But a King was just a Singleton who was demanding respect because of the accident of his birth. Slavery was caused by Singletons who justified it’s practice with bad ideas instilled by region and racism, and women only won sufferage when they started marching and demanding it. The concept of Rights focused the conversation for sure and won people over as a rhetorical device, but in all of these and other cases, only action taken by Singletons changed the state of affairs.

In all things, it is not the idea that matters as an external data object, but the internal model of the idea that provokes action on the part of the Singletons. This is how change happens.

As far as Rights for robots: if they are an illusion for Singletons, why would it be different for robots? The power of robots needs to be constrained and limited where it negatively impact people, and when people assert their Right to build robots that harm humans, we should treat them in the same way we would if they said they have the right to harm humans directly.

Only when the political left realizes that the arguments of the Enlightenment will lose the battle against robots, will be begin to make progress against this threat.

One comment

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.