But who bears the cost of this betterment? I certainly don't want to be responsible for paying a cost for someone else's bad choice, esp. if the bad choice gave them an advantage or "profit".
That's why all individual choices should have individual consequences, and only under some circumstances where there's a prisoner's dilemma should there be a method/regulation to enforce cooperation.
> I certainly don't want to be responsible for paying a cost for someone else's bad choice
Then, in some cases, you'd prefer them dead/permanently disabled/permanently in pain/etc. Which, I guess is a position to have, but not one I'd like to take. It sounds like I'm exaggerating here but I'm not.
Remember, the theory in the posts above is that technology makes people more likely to take more risky behaviors. And I'm arguing that there will always be a significant percentage of the population that engages in risky behaviors (for whatever your definition of risky is), and we should have technology to help.
> esp. if the bad choice gave them an advantage or "profit".
Not everything is black and white. We are allowed to pick and choose here and limit this from happening. Most examples we've been talking about involve an individual having to use some communal system, like a healthcare system. That isn't an "advantage" or "profit" that the individual is abusing.
Did you pay for the roads you drive on or your freedom others died for? Do you pay for insurance? It’s kinda hard not to indirectly pay for others bad choices.
But who bears the cost of this betterment? I certainly don't want to be responsible for paying a cost for someone else's bad choice, esp. if the bad choice gave them an advantage or "profit".
That's why all individual choices should have individual consequences, and only under some circumstances where there's a prisoner's dilemma should there be a method/regulation to enforce cooperation.