[catlover76]

I have seen a lot of your posts on here about political topics, and they are always disingenuous, misleading, and geared towards providing a thin veneer of reasonability over any form of morality.

> If Congress doesn’t want AI-powered killing machines, they’re the ones who have the right to make that call.

You have it backwards, and you know it. If Congress wants to invoke natsec concerns to force companies to sell to the federal government, then they have to explicitly say so, and any such legislation and exercise of execute power pursuant thereto would be heavily litigated.

> The government can make you go over to southeast Asia and kill people personally. It’s totally incompatible with that to say companies should be allowed to veto the use of their technologies in war.

Yes, it's legal to have drafts, but that's not relevant, and also includes certain exceptions for conscientious objectors. It doesn't matter if its paradoxical or ironic that an individual could be pressed into military service whereas a private company doesn't have to sell stuff to the federal government.

[rayiner]

> geared towards providing a thin veneer of reasonability over any form of morality

Arguing “morality” is usually pointless. There’s no need for discussion among people who agree on what’s moral. But where they don’t agree, invoking morality won’t get anyone anywhere.

It’s more productive to instead explain how certain policies follow from moral principles that we may not agree on, but we can at least acknowledge are broadly held in society.

> You have it backwards, and you know it. If Congress wants to invoke natsec concerns to force companies to sell to the federal government, then they have to explicitly say so

Congress did that back in 1950, with the Defense Production Act.