Some people "compete" with bombs and guns, when they feel they were screwed over.

Revert to the typewriters for security

There is a war going on. It’s not just tanks in the Donbas, it’s a global intelligence and cybersecurity conflict.

Deleting your social media accounts right before travel could be regarded as suspicious and not effective as your account data may not really be deleted.

So you want the government to be the only landlord or does everyone get their own home from the government (if they can’t afford one)?

Price is kept low so everyone can afford one, so the limited supply is rationed in other ways. I remember the local MP where I used to live boasting about how when she was a child her father managed to get a nice council house with the help of then then Local MP.

I.e. rationed based on party loyalty. Or nepotism.

We currently mostly ration on money, which is the least worse option if we refuse to increase prices. There is also rationing based on sexual favours, which I'd assume everyone would agree is terrible.

Many would prefer to ration on place of birth -- if you are not born in the city then you don't get to live in the city and don't get the job opportunities of the city.

If supply in say London suddenly doubled overnight though (magically make every borough the same density as Westminster - with all those big open parks), that would put downwards pressure on prices.

It would release the currently suppressed demand as those currently living in overcrowded situations could afford to live on their own, those currently living outside the city who don't want to could move in. I'm not sure what the supply would have to be to raise main-home occupancy in London to 90% with prices down at the same level as it is in Stoke, but it's far far higher than it currently is.

Or limit people to owning 1 or 2 homes. Does it make sense for one person to own 100 homes and rent them out? Think about the distinction that permanently creates for people who live in that community. Something like that only benefits the landlord class.

What to do with the people who would rather rent than own?

Let them rent. There are many good reasons why someone would want to rent. Limiting the number of homes one can own spreads it out.

Think shades instead of black/white. Our current rules can be tweaked. For example:

1-2 properties can be considered primary homes and get all tax benefits

3-4 properties allowed but no tax benefits

5+ properties not allowed

>[…] does everyone get their own home from the government (if they can’t afford one)?

Uh… yes? I mean, housing is a basic right in most countries. Also, a humanitarian, right thing to do. That housing became big business (or business at all) is the real tragedy here.

Cool, give me a free house. And when I burn it down smoking drugs, give me another one!

Why not ?

Unofficial MAID.

Medical Assistance In Dying, for the curious

Thank you, I forgot that Canada is ahead of much of the world on this

Blame the people not the tools.

Technology is not neutral, nor it does exist in a vacuum. It is not neutral due to the fact that humans are not impassible wielders of technology.

Assuming you define tools and technology as the same thing I disagree.

Hammers build homes, and smash faces

Encryption keeps honest people’s information safe, but it also can be used for drug trafficking

The internet is used for social media and news. But it’s also used for child porn.

Tools are neutral, it’s how they are used that makes a tool like a gun, something that feeds a family or something that kills innocent people.

Why have health care when you can make more treating symptoms without a cure or prevention?

Why have enough housing when rents go up during scarcity?

Why make life better for your working class citizens when you can import fresh ones to exploit?

Seems like there is a systemic problem that is causing the same issues in many countries.

On the healthcare front, it would actually more profitable for insurance companies to fund preventative health care and healthier lifestyles. Instead they focus on denying coverage as a way to generate profits.

Don't have to pay for the costs of denying preventative care if we just deny coverage for the expensive stuff too! taps forehead

They can only deny a certain percent of care that they’re supposed to pay out before they come under scrutiny and lawsuits are filed. Preventative care can dictate better outcomes for pretty much everyone covered.

Don't insurance make money on margin? That is what they are allowed to charge above their payout rate. Thus as long as payout rate goes up at right speed compared to their payin they will earn more the more they spend. It is not like premiums are set to go down ever.

For insurance, but health care is bigger than insurance.

Pharmaceutical, hospitals, equipment manufacturers.

Not everyone profits maximally from healthy people.

Correct. But incentives within the industry should balance everything out if each of these players tries to profit maximally the right way.

“Should”

Lobbying and regulatory capture have led to a less than free market, that people expect to function as a free market, but the government intervention has been too great.

Because it’s a very profitable industry

How many humans and where they are!

Lots of remote jobs (pipelines etc) could be done with robots and satellite internet.

If the maintenance and recovery teams can also be robots, suddenly lots of big projects could get done in very hostile environments.