12 ms·

(For those unaware, 'disco biscuits' is slang for Ecstasy pills, I believe). Sure, so it seems reasonable to prevent people spending benefits on drugs. However

(For those unaware, 'disco biscuits' is slang for Ecstasy pills, I believe). Sure, so it seems reasonable to prevent people spending benefits on drugs. However is there not a slippery slope towards preventing people buying (say) unhealthy food? I can imagine some 'luxury money' that can be spent on anything and 'basic money' that you can't use to buy a pack of crisps or a bar of chocolate, only carrots and apples...

no_time 4y ago
>I can imagine some 'luxury money' that can be spent on anything and 'basic money' that you can't use to buy a pack of crisps or a bar of chocolate, only carrots and apples... This becoming a reality in my lifetime would convince me that time is a circle. My country had "dollar shops" before my time, where you could buy western luxury goods with foreign currency. Which was basically unobtainable for the average citizen. https://bav-art.hu/blog/hello-tourist-dollarboltok-a-szocialista-magyarorszagon/ https://bav-art.hu/blog/hello-tourist-dollarboltok-a-szocial...
swarnie 4y ago
> However is there not a slippery slope towards preventing people buying (say) unhealthy food? Would that be such a bad thing.....? Again statistics would say people can't help themselves in that department.
- gilleain 4y ago
  Ok, and then it goes to alcohol, sugar, meat, and fuel as items that people can't help themselves to stop buying? I mean, this is what consumption taxes do. A tax on sugar makes it more expensive to buy a sweet drink, so you can buy less of them for the same money. By putting it into the programming of the money, you make the control more precise - you can only buy 1 sugary drink a day, for example.
  - InCityDreams 4y ago
    What if someone is doing exercise/ heavy work and need more sugar, for example?
    - gilleain 4y ago
      Sure, that's one flaw in the (dystopian) plan. I'm sure there are many others. I guess the horrible bureucratic solution would be to get a 'sugar license' or similar. To be clear, this would be a nightmare, I think!
  - tough 4y ago
    then you create a black market of non-sugary drinkers reselling their allowance to the sugar-addicted
- throwaway98797 4y ago
  freedom isn’t free that’s a terrifying world of control nothing like a perfect life of 90 years of eating grain and meat in the proper proportions no thank you
  - swarnie 4y ago
    Everyone seems very confused. The old pound isn't going away, you can still blow your own money on a corn dog and cocaine if you so wish (under this hypothetical system).
    - starkd 4y ago
      Of course not. But these are long term concerns that are very real. Too much convenience can very easily take away the frictions that allow a governing authority to act. These are uninintended consequences involved in displacing a legacy system.
- thworp 4y ago
  When I read comments like yours I can't help but wonder if sheltered naivety (from living under somewhat reasonable governments) or ulterior motives leads to statements like this. Would you agree to your town council deciding what things you can buy with your wages? No? Then why is an even more distant institution any more competent on that front?

no_time 4y ago

>I can imagine some 'luxury money' that can be spent on anything and 'basic money' that you can't use to buy a pack of crisps or a bar of chocolate, only carrots and apples... This becoming a reality in my lifetime would convince me that time is a circle. My country had "dollar shops" before my time, where you could buy western luxury goods with foreign currency. Which was basically unobtainable for the average citizen. https://bav-art.hu/blog/hello-tourist-dollarboltok-a-szocialista-magyarorszagon/ https://bav-art.hu/blog/hello-tourist-dollarboltok-a-szocial...

swarnie 4y ago

> However is there not a slippery slope towards preventing people buying (say) unhealthy food? Would that be such a bad thing.....? Again statistics would say people can't help themselves in that department.

gilleain 4y ago
Ok, and then it goes to alcohol, sugar, meat, and fuel as items that people can't help themselves to stop buying? I mean, this is what consumption taxes do. A tax on sugar makes it more expensive to buy a sweet drink, so you can buy less of them for the same money. By putting it into the programming of the money, you make the control more precise - you can only buy 1 sugary drink a day, for example.
- InCityDreams 4y ago
  What if someone is doing exercise/ heavy work and need more sugar, for example?
  - gilleain 4y ago
    Sure, that's one flaw in the (dystopian) plan. I'm sure there are many others. I guess the horrible bureucratic solution would be to get a 'sugar license' or similar. To be clear, this would be a nightmare, I think!
- tough 4y ago
  then you create a black market of non-sugary drinkers reselling their allowance to the sugar-addicted
throwaway98797 4y ago
freedom isn’t free that’s a terrifying world of control nothing like a perfect life of 90 years of eating grain and meat in the proper proportions no thank you
- swarnie 4y ago
  Everyone seems very confused. The old pound isn't going away, you can still blow your own money on a corn dog and cocaine if you so wish (under this hypothetical system).
  - starkd 4y ago
    Of course not. But these are long term concerns that are very real. Too much convenience can very easily take away the frictions that allow a governing authority to act. These are uninintended consequences involved in displacing a legacy system.
thworp 4y ago
When I read comments like yours I can't help but wonder if sheltered naivety (from living under somewhat reasonable governments) or ulterior motives leads to statements like this. Would you agree to your town council deciding what things you can buy with your wages? No? Then why is an even more distant institution any more competent on that front?