I want to generally remark that 'violence makes no sense'. Basically, my best effort at resolving violence entirely capitalist-inhumanist (economic stick/carro

I want to generally remark that 'violence makes no sense'. Basically, my best effort at resolving violence entirely capitalist-inhumanist (economic stick/carrot, culturally agnostic solution, allowing an individual to be hobo's, addicts, foreign diplomats, aliens or robots basically) leads to a strange capacity-assurance metagame. Basically it ends up being pretty Cyberpunk 2077 by the example of their 'medical extraction teams'. There's something oddly desireable about that style; professional and expensive, highly capable performance orientation. And, by that example, enforcement operations are actually very similar. That example also makes you realize very quickly that you're 'putting a gun in the first chapter' (it tends to be used later in the story). How would a gang war be possible if both sides had: - Health insurance (you pay my healthcare costs) but also - Prevention Bonds (if you do not prevent it, you forfeit your upfront) Basically, a gang member is expect to potentially operate with a security company. The usual conflation of professional life or lifestyle is sort of removed with that - violence is worth money, but it's worth better money when it's legal violence. Prevents the idea that one's raison d'etre is their relationship with their gang. Similarly - a vested interest in issue prevention can be forced upon the entire circumstance. Machine Learning to validate the effectiveness. Could be very fun once we have AI prevention mechanisms, to throw rocks at people and just watch them somehow not reach the target. Or, idk, have the 7G mast spazz your muscles out before you toss it or something. Getting the control mechanisms right is clearly important, and things like adapting a poison dart to a person for their allergies should be pushed directly by (tuneable) financial incentives. Basically, could be made very unattractive 'overall financially' if things go badly with individuals. Regions of the US could be given higher taxes or 'forced commitment' to a qualifying group of enforcement organizations, if certain criteria are met. Basically - 'talking' to such communities' lack of harmonic practices through their pockets. Could end up as a forced reroll on any neighborhood that produces issues; it's often a consequence of not being in a good circumstantiality and it'd benefit a lot of these monkeys to just land elsewhere. I'm positive this fiscal-first approach makes it 'right-wing' or something, but the appearance of a great deal of scalars for tuning the security circumstances through fiscalities strikes me as a left wing affect.