but now what happens when say a natural disaster happens? and its not 1 person, its half the population of an area?

I'm not sure that's a good counterpoint

That's an issue in any scheme

There are rules doctors follow about how to handle this that _do_ involve choosing who gets help and who doesn't

I'm not sure that it either strengthens or weakens the case for federal intervention

1 person has 10 resources, 1 has 100, 1 has 1000, the last has 0 now. You need 10 resources to live. You take 10% from everyone and give it to the last person, great.
now you have 9, 90, 900, and 111. But you need 10 to live. So either you have 10, 89.5, 899.5, and 111. or that first person doesn't give 10% so you have 10, 90, 900, 110.

it makes no sense to take 10%

from everyone else

Sure--so anyone who has 10 pays nothing, and their 1 is covered by the guy with 1000

but now say something happens, and the economy is bad. So you have 8, 10, 100 and 0.

can't take from 8 or 10. now only 100 can lose 10%. which they still are okay. so now its 8, 10, 90, 10.
but wait, 8 has less than it needs to live, lets take more... can't take from 8, can;t take from 10, can take from 90, can't take from 10. So now its 10, 10, 85, and 10

now lets say, through no fault of their own, that last guy is back to 0 again because of something chronic.

to we just keep taking by force from the guy who had 100?

what happens if we can't get back to 100 faster than the last guy keeps going back to 0?

what happens if 100 guy suffers and drops down to 15? now we have a problem

Force currently has a problem: its slow to react

Correct--but in this situation no scheme has a satisfactory solution

correct

I don't think that's the situation healthcare intervention proponents seek to address

i don't think there is a solution really.

I'm not convinced it even matters to them if it makes it worse (it's a weird utilitarian tradeoff between steady-state improvement and worse exceptional situations)

the intervention proponents don;t take choice into account

lets go back to the force issues. we have 20, 10, 100, 0. Guy 0 has 0 because of choice. And his choices keep him at zero.

so you take 10%, 18, 10, 90...but guy 0 stays at 0 because all those resources he wastes

so all that happens is 18 and 90 keep having stuff taken from them

while guy 0 has no incentive to not be at 0, because when he needs resources, they are given from other people

Sure, but they also get more over time

So it turns into this flow game instead, which is more complicated

that assumes guy 0 is not throwing away faster than everyone else regains resources

and you HAVE to assume that for force not to be an issue.

I think the technocratic mentality wouldn't be fazed by this, though

Though, TBH

This might persuade some adherents

A compassionate technocrat would say that we would devise solutions to these problems as they appear

now, with choice, if the issue of 0 guy is his own problem, and not something nature forced on him, everyone else can say "fuck you pal" then either he dies of his own choice, or wises the fuck up.

If you say the state i too sluggish, that's because we need a more robust and responsive state!

if it IS something he didn't choose, something nature forced on him. force will keep pulling away from everyone above 10, untill no one is above 10, and 0 guy dies anyway.

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