3 ms·

First, I meant that as a suggestion to look at comparable countries and look at what they're doing because it has been proven it will work. That is as opposed t

by thworp 3y ago

First, I meant that as a suggestion to look at comparable countries and look at what they're doing because it has been proven it will work. That is as opposed to different measure which might work but have side effects. That leads me to the heart of your comment. Sure you could institute some kind of dystopian dictatorship that makes sure nobody dies of the causes we deem preventable now. But it would be a cure that kills the patient (free society). So, there are always trade offs. What I was saying is that looking at other countries and what they've done you can see the trade offs in advance and decide if they're worth it.

RC_ITR 3y ago
>That leads me to the heart of your comment. Sure you could institute some kind of dystopian dictatorship that makes sure nobody dies of the causes we deem preventable now. But it would be a cure that kills the patient (free society). >So, there are always trade offs. What I was saying is that looking at other countries and what they've done you can see the trade offs in advance and decide if they're worth it. I'm struggling to follow your point here. Your argument is any country should only try things other countries have already tried? Doesn't that get us into a loop of sorts? How did those countries get to the better/worse point without doing things on their own?