Who Wants to Grant Robots Rights?

The robot rights debate has thus far proceeded without any reliable data concerning the public opinion about robots and the rights they should have. We have administered an online survey (n = 439) that investigates layman’s attitudes toward granting particular rights to robots. Furthermore, we have asked them the reasons for their willingness to grant them those rights. Finally, we have administered general perceptions of robots regarding appearance, capacities, and traits. Results show that rights can be divided in sociopolitical and robot dimensions. Reasons can be distinguished along cognition and compassion dimensions. People generally have a positive view about robot interaction capacities. We found that people are more willing to grant basic robot rights such as access to energy and the right to update to robots than sociopolitical rights such as voting rights and the right to own property. Attitudes toward granting rights to robots depend on the cognitive and affective capacities people believe robots possess or will possess in the future. Our results suggest that the robot rights debate stands to benefit greatly from a common understanding of the capacity potentials of future robots.

Introduction to Max Weber’s article ‘The “Threatening” of the Reich Constitution’

In May 1904 Max Weber published a short article in the Frankfurter Zeitung. It has gone unnoticed in the extensive Weber literature and it appears here in English translation for the first time. It is an important statement of Weber’s political views after his withdrawal from his active political engagement in the 1890s. He defends the Reich Constitution from attack and a possible coup d’état. He demands that the German Parliament (Reichstag) stand up to autocratic plans, closely linked to Emperor William II, to suppress democracy and voting rights. A constitutional conflict would require not a great statesman but an ‘unscrupulous idiot or a political adventurer’ who would undermine ‘all our institutions and the security of law for many generations’. The article marks the start (earlier than previously assumed in the literature) of Weber’s consistent championing of Parliament and democratic institutions.

Dual Class Model and Shareholder Agreements: An Analysis of Italian Companies

This paper analysed the changes in ownership concentration of the Italian financial market and the recourse to dual class model and shareholder agreements by Italian listed companies in the period 2009-2020. The analysis shows that the control market did not show signs in the period that would lead to presume an increase in the contestability of our companies. The attenuation in ownership concentration, highlighted by the reduction in the value of the Shapley-Shubik index, and the increase in the average market participation did not produce an increase in the contestability of Italian listed companies since the high concentration and limited contestability of control continue to characterize their ownership structures. Findings also show less recourse by the Italian companies to the instruments of separation between ownership and control in the considered period. The reduction in the number of companies that resort to the issue of shares without voting rights and the shareholders' agreements is also reflected in the lower incidence of the capitalization of these companies compared to the market capitalization.

System of Zemstvo Elections According to Regulations on Zemstvo Institutions of 1890 in Estimates of Russian Periodicals

The article is devoted to the little-studied issue of the reaction of the Russian periodicals to changes in the zemstvo electoral legislation in accordance with the Regulations on zemstvo institutions in 1890. The positions of the leading conservative (“Moskovskie vedomosti”, “Grazhdanin”, “Russian Review”, “Russian Bulletin”, “Novoye Vremya”), liberal (“Novosti”, “Nedelya”, “Bulletin of Europe”, “Russian Thought”, “Russkie vedomosti”, “Sudebnaya Gazeta”) and populist (“Russian wealth”, “Novoye Slovo”, “Severny Vestnik”) editions. The attitude of periodicals to key changes in the system of zemstvo elections is shown: the establishment of estate electoral meetings, the privileged position of the nobility, a change in the order of representation from peasants, the deprivation of voting rights for Jews, a change in the procedure for approving members and chairmen of zemstvo councils. The authors argue that certain provisions of the new electoral law did not suit both conservative and liberal and populist publications. At the same time, there was no single approach within each of these groups. Some conservative publications in their proposals and criticism were close to the liberal ones (“Novoye Vremya”), and vice versa (“Novosti”, “Nedelya”). In general, each of the editions focused mainly on individual changes, criticizing or supporting them, as well as proposing their own versions of their changes.

John Lewis and the Durability of Transcendent Race Politics

John Lewis's civil rights activism in the 1960s often obscures the fact that he won elective office as a racially moderate politician. Scholars have long noted the efficacy of using deracialized, or racially transcendent, campaign strategies to get elected, despite normative concerns. These strategies were critical to electing Black governors, senators, and even President Obama. However, in the age of Black Lives Matter, some have questioned the continued usefulness of the strategy. Using Rep. Lewis's life as a guide, I examine the ways that some Black politicians continue to use deracialization, even in this racially charged social and political moment, and I explain how younger cohorts of Black politicians challenge this approach. Ultimately, I argue that while deracialization is a contested strategy, its efficacy has not diminished. Rather, Black politicians have expanded the boundaries of what constitutes racially transcendent politics to include consensus issues like voting rights, which while highly racialized, are not likely to induce an erosion of support among non-Black Democratic voters.

Summit for Democracy raises more policy questions

Significance The online meeting, which included civil society groups and representatives from the business sector, was ostensibly a forum for considering strategies to bolster democratic institutions. However, it also offered implicit criticisms of China and Russia while playing to Biden’s domestic agenda, in particular efforts to strengthen voting rights and bolster social spending. Impacts The second summit is expected soon after the November 2022 US midterm elections, when further claims of electoral fraud are likely. Criticism of Washington’s choice of participants will spark calls for a multinational committee to set the invitation list. Controversy over Taiwan’s inclusion in the Summit for Democracy will increase during 2022.