Message from @Grenade123
Discord ID: 509422619628404757
force only works so long as everyone else keeps gaining faster than guy 0 keeps draining
Unless it doesn't drain fast enough for that
That's kinda an empirical question
oh yeah? how often does the economy crash?
And honestly, modern economies are so productive that it's hard to imagine that happening given fixed prices
who fixes the price?
Part of the trouble, though, is that all of these solutions affect the price over time, and likely not in a positive direction
All these increase demand without increasing supply
currently my alcohol is fixed in CT. so much so Trader Joes can;t sell their 2 dollar wine. the price fix forces it to be like 9 bucks.
Has anyone proposed fixing the price of health stuffs?
but you didn't asnwer, how often does the economy decline?
In the real world?
yes
how many economic increases keep increasing?
and are not met, eventually, with a crash of near equal proportion
In actuality, most if not all of them
The recent crashes were bad, but not _that_ bad
not that bad because our standard of living goes up all the time regardless
tech keeps bringing costs down but thats not the problem we are trying to solve is it?
we are trying to figure out what to do while we wait on technology
also, lets go back to your assumption that people don't drain resources faster than they are remade by people: Look at the number of drug addicted people and overweight people in the US.
if you give them no incentive to wise up, their healthcare costs are going to tax the system
if not already
and start to drain faster than resources are replaced
and that assumes those who are constantly having their resources taken by force, don't just leave
Whether it would be affordable is an empirical matter, I think
So long as we're steelmanning: what if it turns out to be?
IMO the real question there is : what are we giving up?
The way it's posed makes it seem like it'd be "free", but it's anything but
It's mostly stuff that Bastiat would've called "the unseen"
So, let's say it costs us comfort and prosperity in the future
But hey, people aren't dying for health stuff, right?
I can see how that would persuade someone who holds a simple "Life > material goods/comfort" value
However
What about...the lives that would've been saved from new medical procedures that didn't come about because there's not enough left over to pursue them?
Or the technological innovations that would otherwise do this (e.g. in-home heating helps save lots of elderly lives in the winter)?
So ultimately you're trading some kinds of lives for others
And the question is: why are some more important than others?
why are others more important than yourself?
That _is_ e decision that sometimes has to be made
Do you want to make it now, for all time, for everyone?