Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think you have a very cartoonish view of things, one that, like many purists, leads you to in effect support the system you claim to decry. That may preserve your feelings of purity, but it doesn't do a thing to actually solve the problem. I’m tracking that you don’t agree but it might be more helpful for you to consider why I might feel that way instead of dismissing my perspective as cartoonish. > The truth is…
If you don't want to be thought cartoonish, you should not say cartoonish things. For example: > People who don’t follow economic incentives starve to death or die of exposure. That's just absurd. Every day people make choices between maximizing revenue and other things they value. If everybody was so slavishly devoted to economic incentives, we'd have no teachers or nurses. I'm no expert, but I haven't heard of many…
Thats a ridiculous strawman. Teachers follow economic incentives, thats why they demand a paycheck for their labor.
> This is already a well-discussed space.
Yes, and people still insist on pushing authoritarian restrictions on people because they seek to control other people’s behavior.
> Other countries do fine.
Them move to those countries. Not everyone here agrees that they are doing fine.
> If you really want to understand it, go do the work. But since it looks like you don't,
I understand that you can’t prevent rich people from spending their money to support causes without also restricting poor people from doing the same, and that the specifics about how those restrictions are made and enforced are the result of a product that the rich people have wildly disproportionate influence over, and the media that informs you of all of this is likewise beholden to oligarchs. So historically, these programs always result in a consolidation of power by oligarchs that is marketed to the public as “giving power to the people” and despite this issue being heavily discussed, no one seems to want to discuss this inconvenient fact.