[_DeadFred_]

If you don't feed people, they will pick for you.

The real question is do we figure it out with intention now, or let it be randomly figured out by people with nothing to lose?

[pdonis]

> If you don't feed people, they will pick for you.

Do you mean they will pick option 2? "Give me food or I'll mess you up?" We have a name for that kind of behavior, and it's not a pretty one.

Or might there be some possibility that they will realize that option 1 is there and try it?

[_DeadFred_]

If my family isn't eating and society is cool with that I could not care less about a label that such a society gives me.

Again, society can get ahead of things, or let it be decided later. The harder you make option 2, the more people will pick option 1. Society can figure out how to keep option 2 working if society prefers that. If society fails to do so it will deservedly get option 1.

[pdonis]

> The harder you make option 2, the more people will pick option 1.

I think you have the options mixed up. Option 1 is voluntary trade. Option 2 is violence.

You appear to be saying that people would prefer voluntary trade, but that they will resort to violence if they see no other option. Which historically I think is largely true.

[_DeadFred_]

Option one is always violence. It is the only option always on the table.

[ffaccount2]

I am shocked you think letting people starve is OK. The word you are looking for is "revolution" or "uprising" - people will fight for the right to live if you deny them food.

[pdonis]

> I am shocked you think letting people starve is OK.

I never said any such thing.

> The word you are looking for is "revolution" or "uprising" - people will fight for the right to live if you deny them food.

In other words, you're saying people will choose option #2.

[Starman_Jones]

What an odd response given the scenario put forth. I’m very curious what you think that starving people with no jobs are expected to trade with here?