> the people are increasingly voting to go down the cliff, just to shake things up a bit. 1) I think a lot of people (correctly) feel that their quality of lif

> the people are increasingly voting to go down the cliff, just to shake things up a bit. 1) I think a lot of people (correctly) feel that their quality of life is not improving the way it should be according to the (so often discussed) technological progress and growing economy, yet don't have the ability to think about the system as a whole and the root causes. I could be wrong too but the way I see it is that an increasingly large cut of wealth goes to the already massively rich. Any kind of passive income is IMO exploitation by a different name. If you're not putting in work, then the money coming out has to come from other people's work. Finite investment should yield finite reward. Owning companies should be illegal just like it's illegal to own humans already (at least in the civilized world but it took even us a long time to get here). > since political pressure will stop them from being too hard Calibrating the difficulty correctly will be hard but we won't know until we try. Politics is adversarial so the way of coming up with questions probably(?) has to be as well. I think people should be able to vote on laws directly - see my other comments. That would hopefully cut down on some populism and also incentivize not voting on stuff you don't understand. But as long as we're stuck with political parties, we could try systems where each candidate party provides a list of questions+answers (with a maximum amount). Or where anybody can submit a question if they collect enough signatures.