No, I'm saying that it doesn't make sense to prosecute a non-sentient thing for a crime that it can't commit. Fantasy crime is just the tip of the iceberg with the problems this approach brings. For example, the idea that property can commit crimes is the basis of the reprehensible civil asset seizure laws that the US has.

Easier than what? There is nothing else in the role these current drones are being used for.

And you're telling me that's not a game changer either?

So yes, he was arrested for failing to comply with a police order and yes, he was arrested for his speech as well.

It's because landmines have limited value, but robotic weaponry is a game changer. For example, we may be a few decades away from obsolescence of traditional human piloted fighter aircraft due to higher cost per seat, lower acceleration tolerance, and possibly slower reaction speeds.

Sure, you can ban the weapons, but then the initiative for their development and use will just go to those who break the rules.

They also want them to be able to drive fast in dense traffic and my understanding, with decentralized logic as to how to handle emergencies. That's a high standard, though not an unachievable one.

IMHO, they probably project various EM effects up to that altitude like their terrestrial counterparts do. But there are probably easy ways to keep from getting harmed by that.

And you're spot on with turbulence.

So what? You can make anything real or imagined a crime. But it remains that the people behind the business are carrying out the criminal acts, including that of a "criminal enterprise".

They could anyway, unless, of course, no one actually committed a crime.

It doesn't.

What's the point of introducing new arguments when very old ones crush the complaint in question? The evolution of corporate personhood and the abuses it was meant to protect against are well known history, if you choose to look. I don't care how my comments are modded. I merely care whether those comments are sound and reasonable, or not.

Similarly, I don't care that people are upset about corporate personhood- though if they want to be upset, they can find a far better quality of problem to be upset about. What I care about is maintaining a society where they can be upset at whatever they want.

When you take away someone's rights merely because they are unpopular, then that's a serious danger. Even the wealthy should be protected from violation of their rights.

My point exactly. One has to invent imaginary categories of crime in order to convict abstract social structures.

Not at all. We can simply observe that corporations can't commit actual crimes.

Banks don't launder money. Bankers launder money.

It's not a defense, but an observation. Similarly, you can't point to a crime that the abstract entity, "the Mafia" commits, but which isn't actually committed by its constituent members.

That wasn't the case with the Citizens United ruling. Nor was it the case with the earliest rulings on corporations, which protected them from violations of the Fourth Amendment.

I have to state the obvious here. Corporations are granted these rights because otherwise the people involved with the corporation have their rights abridged, owners, employees, customers. And while legislatures in various countries occasionally disagree, corporations can't commit crimes. The people who make up the corporation commit the crimes.

At least you recognize that the US isn't the sole country which has done this. That indicates that ignorance need not be permanent.

Let's get you acquainted with a number of them. Note this list doesn't include pre-1992 Arkansas shenanigans (at least the ones which didn't spill over to Bill Clinton's presidency) such as magically making $100k (out of a $1k initial investment) while dabbling with cattle futures.

Fancy and misleading terms often used to push whatever the user of the term wants at the moment (here, taking care idiots who abuse drugs in unspecified ways, probably by throwing them in jail for possession). That's not what "social contract" should mean.

And you should even if you think the lives of brown people are more important than aryan ubermencsch. Europe is not the only beneficiary of the current period of relative peace.