4 ms·

> You clearly haven’t thought through the implications of that policy. This isn't my idea; this is an idea proposed by an economist and a lawyer, who have both

• jandrewrogers 6y ago
  But they haven't thought through the implications. As far as I can tell, they ignore the implications of optionality which has mature mathematical frameworks for reasoning about such things. That's like making a Newtonian argument in a relativistic universe. People will analyze it in terms of options calculus even if the authors didn't -- I know I would. I'd like to see an argument explicitly from the calculus of option theory, which is the operative mathematics here. I am not saying that a compelling supportive argument does not exist, just that a credible argument must be presented in these terms because that is the central mechanic. Maybe there are some subtle arguments that make it a good idea in this context but on the surface it is quite apparently a really bad idea with a lot of literature to support that impression.