Shocking. Moral implications are bleak, but I can't grasp the political implications.
When the government announces that suicide is permissible, it is a statement that they no longer value or rely on the citizenry. The simple explanation may be that all suiciders will be simply replaced with diverse immigrants, but you can't just isolate these things - it changes the whole incentive structure. There aren't many further steps to take before the government decides it's in their best interest to make citizens maximally miserable.
Logistically, who cleans up the mess? Is the whole machine buried with corpse? Who pays for that? Is the corpse dragged out and the machine cleaned of excrement? What happens if the power goes out while someone's inside one, is there a battery? Biggest question: does it lock the door, and if so, when does it lock and who can unlock it?
I agree, and that's mostly what I meant. No illusions of serving the public here.
It's troubling when they start making policy decisions under the assumption that we're completely replaceable cogs. It -should- be in best interest to promote a little prosperity and productivity, even if social/cultural cohesion is off the table. I assume the fault lies primarily in managerial disconnect with reality.
It's troubling when they start making policy decisions under the assumption that we're completely replaceable cogs.
I think it's a bit too late for that. Any large organization will view its members, subjects, citizens are replaceable cogs. We'd have to return to self-government by communities of about 250 for that to be different, and even then, it will be different solely because members can make their influence felt as individuals.
It -should- be in best interest to promote a little prosperity and productivity,
Anything that you consume is something that the government cannot consume. Your prosperity is in direct competition with their funding. So it most certainly is not in their interests to promote prosperity, at least directly. Indirectly, it often is, because economics determines how restive a population is. But there is a reason they are completely fine with promoting economy-wrecking climate insanity.
Why do they simply not take it all, or even more than they do now? Because they can't.
If you want a nice blackpill, check out Mancur Olson's theory of stationary bandits.
We'd have to return to self-government by communities of about 250 for that to be different, and even then, it will be different solely because members can make their influence felt as individuals.
That's not far from my wishes. I don't know if there's a proper label, but I am generally unhappy about the large scale nature of...well, just about everything in the modern world. I think humans need to have communities and that's only possible if you aren't walking by hundreds of mysterious strangers in the street every day. No, I do not know how this could be accomplished now, short of extreme scenarios.
I don't think you need an example, but I'll point out that you aren't even american yet you have to deal with our ridiculous cultural exports. It makes life more difficult for you (even if only an irritation) and it should not be your burden.
Your prosperity is in direct competition with their funding. So it most certainly is not in their interests to promote prosperity, at least directly
I hadn't considered this. It's a good point especially when denying personhood to bodies of power. The individual people operating the government have needs just like us, but the government does not have needs like us. This should make it possible to coexist peacefully - even symbiotically.
So you suggest that governments are taking as much as they can. What about the things they can't use? Is the expectation that they will gladly let citizens have the leftovers? Or is the expectation that they will work hard to find a way to use things they weren't using already?
Taxation is already a poor precedent there, as it assumes that citizens can't spend their money effectively on societal needs like infrastructure.
Shocking. Moral implications are bleak, but I can't grasp the political implications.
When the government announces that suicide is permissible, it is a statement that they no longer value or rely on the citizenry. The simple explanation may be that all suiciders will be simply replaced with diverse immigrants, but you can't just isolate these things - it changes the whole incentive structure. There aren't many further steps to take before the government decides it's in their best interest to make citizens maximally miserable.
Logistically, who cleans up the mess? Is the whole machine buried with corpse? Who pays for that? Is the corpse dragged out and the machine cleaned of excrement? What happens if the power goes out while someone's inside one, is there a battery? Biggest question: does it lock the door, and if so, when does it lock and who can unlock it?
I don't think governments, of any kind, values the citizenry beyond what they can get out of it in terms of taxation or offices.
I agree, and that's mostly what I meant. No illusions of serving the public here.
It's troubling when they start making policy decisions under the assumption that we're completely replaceable cogs. It -should- be in best interest to promote a little prosperity and productivity, even if social/cultural cohesion is off the table. I assume the fault lies primarily in managerial disconnect with reality.
I think it's a bit too late for that. Any large organization will view its members, subjects, citizens are replaceable cogs. We'd have to return to self-government by communities of about 250 for that to be different, and even then, it will be different solely because members can make their influence felt as individuals.
Anything that you consume is something that the government cannot consume. Your prosperity is in direct competition with their funding. So it most certainly is not in their interests to promote prosperity, at least directly. Indirectly, it often is, because economics determines how restive a population is. But there is a reason they are completely fine with promoting economy-wrecking climate insanity.
Why do they simply not take it all, or even more than they do now? Because they can't.
If you want a nice blackpill, check out Mancur Olson's theory of stationary bandits.
That's not far from my wishes. I don't know if there's a proper label, but I am generally unhappy about the large scale nature of...well, just about everything in the modern world. I think humans need to have communities and that's only possible if you aren't walking by hundreds of mysterious strangers in the street every day. No, I do not know how this could be accomplished now, short of extreme scenarios.
I don't think you need an example, but I'll point out that you aren't even american yet you have to deal with our ridiculous cultural exports. It makes life more difficult for you (even if only an irritation) and it should not be your burden.
I hadn't considered this. It's a good point especially when denying personhood to bodies of power. The individual people operating the government have needs just like us, but the government does not have needs like us. This should make it possible to coexist peacefully - even symbiotically.
So you suggest that governments are taking as much as they can. What about the things they can't use? Is the expectation that they will gladly let citizens have the leftovers? Or is the expectation that they will work hard to find a way to use things they weren't using already?
Taxation is already a poor precedent there, as it assumes that citizens can't spend their money effectively on societal needs like infrastructure.