[tucnak]

I'm sorry, but it is you who completely misses the point, and have so far failed to engage with your opponent's rhetoric on any meaningful level. (Using latin words like sequitur does not count!)

To borrow your analogy: there is, in fact, major issue in people driving cars on roads. This is why many cities elect to reduce car use by means of policy. This is accomplished because there's a dialectic where "should" translates into "must." It's called governance.

[fluoridation]

>so far failed to engage with your opponent's rhetoric on any meaningful level.

I have not failed to do it, I have chosen not to do it. I asked a specific question and received as an answer something that's totally irrelevant. I am decidedly not interested in whether "it would be possible to have a system where startups to require less funding, for example, by UBI, or normalizing bootstrapping". It has nothing to do with my original comment, and I'm not going to engage with it.

[immibis]

I am decidedly not interested in whether it's possible to build a society where grandma doesn't need to defend herself with a flamethrower at the grocery store. That has nothing to do with my comment and I won't engage with it. I am simply asking what's wrong with grandma defending herself with a flamethrower at the grocery store.

[fluoridation]

How dare I not want to talk about what you want to talk about?