i think even though interference could be justified at times, the governments way of interference is over the top.
it's repressive and gets people to use deception, makes them over think, if you have to get things right you genuinely get trained correctly to apply the methods, which relies on practice, but when it comes to reality intervention is intrusive and to tell other people what to do quite a hostile reality for most.
to tell them they cannot or can do something is insane.
The gambling industry is one, where i think the solution to the problem is to give back 10% to 25% of the loses, in the shop and online.
the only rule being as soon as you claim it back you cannot bet again today.
it's such a simple solution the government would want to intervene on intrusive levels and they do this everywhere, they cannot let people have freewill, they do this with being drunk, taking drugs, and anything else,even some level trading and using the net, they try to manage everything,
i don't really consent any of it,i think this inhibits prosperity,
i'm of the belief, you don't need insurance and you can get a waiver,
though if the other person crashes into you and it's not their fault and they have insurance then they can claim with-out penalty. end of the day they have insured their car. if it is your fault then you'd receive a penalty. if you've taken a waiver you accept the responsibility for crashing your car,no matter who's fault it is, i would anyway,
that's what you signed up for, you accept that, maybe the best bet would be to own a poor one.
take drugs for a example some poor women pulled out her eyes on meth, after hearing in her subconscious or by a demon, it's best to pull out your eyes or you won't make it to heaven, well, in my world meth is legal, and you go to a shop fill out a questionnaire, about what kind of things you've read in your life time, like the bible which has that same quote in it, my theory is she pulled out her eyes, because she took it into her subconscious and believed it, therefore pulling out her eyes, outside a church, see i'm anti system, people who here this are anti drugs, the is a difference, my system would of made sure this woman had a trip sitter to make her trips enjoyable, if she reached for her eyes, you'd have someone at hand to put her hands out and away before they had the time to say eye.
that's why i here this story and think it would be so much better if someone could of tripped sit her and looked after her, because banning the drug is never going to stop them being made and sold.
it's like saying ban books because she took that drug and believed what was wrote when inside her deep subconscious.
the are ways i believe that make the system and social mobility and increase jobs and actually look after people at the same time, like picking up plastic for cash, and just adding the cost onto the reused sales of bottled whatever!
i believe every problem the is a solution that is simple that does not involved harassing someone and locking them up into cells, but just agree if you are about to harm yourself on drugs in some ridiculous fashion a trip sitter can stop you with reasonable force, and maybe bandage your hands up so you have no hands to use for the foreseeable future.
i think these are simple but effective ways, i don't think in the world they offer enough options or opportunities, to have a different way of life, than in the Authoritarians world view! i also think the is greater better jobs to be created because who would not want to be a trip sitting altering subconsciousness so they have a great trip!