[verisimi]

It doesn't. If you leave people to it, and people need something, someone will come along and offer a solution for a price.

But if you have a vested interest, they will want government legislation to prevent alternative solutions. Now people who have an idea face legal repercussions fines, jail, etc if they try to offer a solution.

This is the case in many industries, from taxis, to rubbish collection, to banking, to medicine. There are artificial barriers to entry that support rent-seeking by those industries already in place.

[TuringTest]

So you're saying that we're are infinitely resourceful and capable of re-imagining and re-engineering our environment, were it not for other people who can prevent it?

Where's the infinite resourcefulness and infinite capability in that?

[verisimi]

Force kills resourcefulness. Good ideas are prohibited.

To resolve this, you would have to have a good idea and the capability to take governmental force (police, law). Do you feel lucky?

[TuringTest]

My point was that, if you need to take force to implement your ideas (or prevent others from stopping you), your ideas weren't as infinitely capable as you first expressed. Therein lies the contradiction in your assertions on the first post, which is what I was commenting on.

[verisimi]

The problem of overturning government force is a different level of problem to say finding a clever way to create energy, transportation, a new medicine, etc. Its not a question of resourcefulness, its a question of understanding and coordination at scale. This is a weak point that has been played upon.

I don't think people even recognise the level of governmental force in this society - they think government is keeping them safe, rather than facilitating wealth extraction! No one has time to consider this - all are busy trying to get by, despite taxes, fines, etc.

But this force is going to become much more overt in coming years, technocracy will micromanage us. I don't think people will accept it. So I hope to see some solutions here too.

[TuringTest]

> The problem of overturning government force is a different level of problem to say finding a clever way to create energy, transportation, a new medicine, etc.

Right. But if you don't take into account the way that the force of government in your problem statements, you're not really "infinitely [...] re-imagining and re-engineering our environment", because our environment includes a society and how it reacts - of which having governments is an integral part. Any solution you'd imagine amounts to wishful thinking without a way to put it in practice in a real, pragmatic way. Calling those solutions "infinitely resourceful" seemed a huge stretch to me.

> I don't think people even recognise the level of governmental force in this society - they think government is keeping them safe, rather than facilitating wealth extraction!

I'd say that we consider government doing both. Wealth extraction is a good thing as long as it's used for the purpose that government was created - namely keeping us safe. As long as we perceive that there's enough of a safety net for when bad luck strikes and breaks all of our careful plans, people will tolerate that some of it is diverted to providing leaders with enormous luxuries (some even defend it as a matter of course to ensure that these leaders have sufficient resources to run the nation).

About government overstepping its bounds and harming us, there is a whole philosophical and political line that discusses how to defend ourselves against it. But when that line does not take into account at all the purpose of having a government to begin with, it becomes silly.