> No independent decisions is a completely unattainable scenario even for maximalist autocrats.
Sure, but you could still try to minimise independent decisions as much as possible.
Have a look at the article I linked for a more eloquent argument.
No it isn't. Very false dichotomy.
The benefits of doing something have to be balanced against its costs. People's longevity and freedom both matter.
And something impossible can't have valid arguments for it. No independent decisions is an unattainable scenario even for maximalist autocracies.
What, that I actually said, do you disagree with?