[thereisnospork]

It's not exactly the "fairest" policy but maybe there's something to the approach used to qualify investors? Allow drugs to be sold to 'qualified' users (aka persons with a demonstrable net worth). Ostensibly this would try and keep drugs out of the hands of people who abuse them to the degree of losing functionality in society while letting 'responsible' people enjoy them.

Linking money to rights so directly grates with my idealistic sensibilities, but my realist sensibilities are against policies that would exacerbate the homeless situation.

[skidd0]

Seriously? So someone who is poor can't get legal access to some potential life altering drug just because they're not affluent enough? And that'll somehow have an impact on homelessness?

Many people in the open-air drug encampments are there because they aren't getting real help. Your proposed plan would do nothing to help those that might just be assisted by the new perspective psychedelic therapy can give. It would only let the rich keep living the untouchable life they already live.

[adolph]

> So someone who is poor can't get legal access to some potential life altering drug just because they're not affluent enough?

This seems to be the case for most things across human existence. Did something change recently?

[anigbrowl]

Yes, and that's a problem. Structuring society around capital acquisition is unhealthy for the social body, much as structuring a diet around sugar and complex carbohydrates is a fast route to diabetes. Dysfunctional as drug addicts are, obsession with money can be equally pathological.

[adolph]

The current model is an improvement over previous methods of value distribution which trended nearly exclusively toward warlordism or hereditary monarchism (but I repeat myself).

A model which on the margin (not totally) allows decisions about value allocation to be made by people who generate value seems to follow homeostatic principles which are evolutionarily fitting for a relatively peaceful time.

One may quibble that this equilibrium is largely limited toward English speaking nations and European peninsula, and that even there exist edge cases on the high and low ends. Thats focusing on the empty end of a glass that is generally getting fuller over time.

[anigbrowl]

decisions about value allocation to be made by people who generate value

I don't believe this to be the case in most instances. Value agglomerates due to preferential attachment, and greater a capital accumulation the less effort is needed to increase it.

relatively peaceful

Compared to what, historical nadirs? Substituting economic conflict for kinetic warfare has had only limited success and had drastic atomizing effects upon society. I don't regard this as a great improvement over the historic methods, which were more pragmatic than you suggest and where excess could be tempered by replacement. The elevation of property rights over virtually all other considerations has been a net negative in my view.

a glass that is generally getting fuller over time

Sure, if you look at naive measures like GDP growth or the like. Capital proponents recoil fromt he idea of factoring in all externalities, viz environmental impact. There's a reason insurers are scrambling to get out of many markets. I used to believe in the cis cornucopian version of capitalism, but have come to think it's much closer to zero-sum than proponents care to admit, preferring to take refuge in idealistic accounting than frankly appraise reality.

[adolph]

>> decisions about value allocation to be made by people who generate value

> I don't believe this to be the case in most instances.

Seems like a potentially objective thing to determine. My impression is that the largest non-govt money flows are in the consumer economy which reflects the decisions of working people. Is that not the case? Are people not earning money for work and spending it? Does that not represent the largest portion of value created and passed along?

>> relatively peaceful

This phrase is recognition that warlordism was probably evolutionarily suited for those historic nadirs as opposed to today excluding certain regions.

Zero-Sum vs Ubiquitous Abundance

I totally agree about economic mis measures. My thought is that we are approaching an age of ubiquitous abundance without the necessary psycho-cultural supports in order to not treat it as a zero-sun moment. Despite material well being, there doesn’t seem to be much realization of how awesome life is. It’s a philosophical tragedy.