Message from @Grenade123
Discord ID: 509421011696091136
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
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