3 ms·
"Live with" is a weird framing, isn't it? If we accept the claim for a moment, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the restrictions exist to give the 95% t
by woodruffw 4y ago
"Live with" is a weird framing, isn't it? If we accept the claim for a moment, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the restrictions exist to give the 95% the best chance at a reasonable, unmolested life?
- AnimalMuppet 4y agoYes - at the price of restrictions that apply to all of us, not just to the 5%. The powers that be are trying to tune the restrictions to some kind of global maximum of organizational output. Rules hinder that - they slow you down. But the lack of rules increases the damage that the 5% can cause, which also slows you down. The hard part is, when something causes damage, it's easy to make a rule, but harder to see that the rule will cost more than the damage.
- Nevermark 4y agoYes, but the balance point of restricted/unmolested has to move further into restriction territory to account for intransigent vs. bad-day molesters A higher level optimality can be achieved wherever truly nasty people can be pre-screened out of situations
- nine_k 4y agoWhat's weird about daily life? 100 - ɛ percent of the population have to lock their cars and homes so that the ɛ percent of people won't steal or vandalize their property. The ɛ may be small, but while ɛ > 0, they can deal disproportionate damage unless everyone implements restrictions.