4 ms·
> it’s the current set of players Yes, that's right. Because others who could be playing cannot, in this case because society has decided they don't want more
by randomdata 3y ago
> it’s the current set of players
Yes, that's right. Because others who could be playing cannot, in this case because society has decided they don't want more players, for whatever reason.
However, the original premise still holds true given the constraints the actors are operating in. The 10x represents the additional value offered to society to operate within those rules created by society.
So while, again, all acts have negative externalities, we cannot deny that society sees great value in having a limited set of players. In fact, society sees so much value that, in this example, it is willing to pay 10x more and accept that some people will not have access to drugs in order to maintain the benefits.
- jchanimal 3y agoInsane argument that regulatory capture is the best possible outcome. Are you suggesting anything more just would undo society?
- randomdata 3y agoIt is what society deems beneficial. That is not necessarily what is the best possible outcome, to what you see being the best possible outcome. I suggest nothing. That would require injecting my feelings towards the matter, and that would be in bad faith.
- UncleMeat 3y agoWe've truly gone off the rails if considering our own feelings for important matters like these is considered bad faith.
- randomdata 3y agoThe discussion is about how the world is. Our feelings about the merits or failings of that world have no place in the discussion, and even if we were to share them what purpose would they serve? That is where you would find us going off the rails.