Artifact Report

Chapter 50: Some Questions and Answers about the Artifact Report World Setting

Because I saw several similar questions in the later VIP chapters, I decided to write a separate chapter to answer them before the paid chapters.

If you think it makes sense, read on and subscribe for no loss (of course, if the plot is not good... there is no way to refund the ticket).
The main doubt is: why is the government not involved in hunter affairs, or in other words, why does the government not regulate?

I would like to explain this question in two aspects: one, whether it is possible; two, whether you are willing to do it.

1. Can

Pathways are completely random, rare, and tricky things.

Whether a person can find his own way depends entirely on luck. The government's power is of no use in this regard.

Because the government cannot call on citizens in big cities to try to jump off buildings or hit TVs one by one... The existence of channels fundamentally determines that the government cannot form a national team, because it is extremely private and cannot be controlled by external forces.

Without a national team, there's no way to enter the lair; if you're isolated at the source, you don't know what's being brought into the human world, and it's impossible to control the circulation of artifacts. (It's not ruled out that artifacts occasionally find their way into official hands.)
So is it possible to organize/regulate existing hunters?
First, the Pseudo-Image Report World references the American political landscape. Regulation requires a series of steps: bills at the National People's Congress and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, legislation, congressional funding, the establishment of regulatory agencies, and public oversight.

But 99.9% of humanity is unaware of the existence of nest artifacts and hunters in the world.

If you were a member of parliament, how would you explain to your constituents why you voted for a plan that seemed like nonsense and why you spent a lot of tax money on something that "didn't exist"?
How to ensure that political opponents do not take this opportunity to attack?

Of course, if you want to privately let secret agencies or similar departments capture/monitor hunters, then technically speaking, it is indeed possible.

But this is only possible under the premise that "you know who the hunter is."

The randomness of discovery paths means that as a regulator, you never know who will become a hunter tomorrow, and there are no prior signs.

Besides, hunters aren't stupid. Once this kind of action begins, they'll definitely dive deeper underground to protect themselves, even resorting to counterattacks with pseudo-powers—where's the benefit? (This involves willingness, which I'll discuss in the second part.)
As a hunter, when you risk your life to get a false image and you can sell it for a high price, what are the chances that you will hand it over to the government, be recruited, and receive a civil servant salary of several thousand dollars a month?
What's more, the lair is a lawless place. Once you enter the lair, only those who come out alive will know what happened. The national team went in and never came out. What should we do?
Ultimately, government power is made up of people. When more than 99% of people are isolated outside their nests and illusions, it means that the government is isolated outside.

2. Are you willing?

The short answer is no.

Let's assume the government is capable of managing hunters and their nests: Party A comes to power this time, establishes a Department of Counterfeiting, and virtually eliminates civilian counterfeiting, leaving all counterfeiting in the hands of the government. Then, Party A loses re-election the next time, and Party B takes power.

You said that after Party A became the opposition party, it could no longer even trace the edge of its image. Doesn't it feel like it's shooting itself in the foot? (This kind of competition for office also happens within the party.)
What if a false image suddenly emerges at this moment, allowing the ruling party to remain in power forever, or the opposition party to remain in opposition forever? Would Party A be willing to withdraw from the historical stage?

What’s more, the political environment referred to in this article is the United States, and the ultimate goal of black gold politics is still money.

Would the financial backers behind the legislators be willing to see them legislate to regulate this? If they were to regulate it, they would have fewer ways to obtain false information and it would be inconvenient. Even if a candidate is willing to give you a backdoor, would their political opponents agree?

As a donor, would you support a candidate who raises taxes on you after being elected?

If not, then you certainly won't support a candidate who, if elected, will prevent you from buying fake images.

Would a candidate push for such a thankless task even for political donations?

Considering real-world examples, American private health insurance isn't just profiting from the loss of human life; it's directly profiting from it. So why are both parties unwilling to touch private health insurance just to win votes? Because they're the big money bag.

Therefore,
1. The vast majority of people are unaware;

2. Regulation is difficult;

3. Hunters only want money. If you have money, you can buy the artifacts in their hands.

4. Allowing hunters to come and go from their dens benefits all, including high-ranking government officials themselves;

5. The consequence of your supervision may be the loss of political donations and helping your opponents.

If you were in power, what would you do in a situation that has only difficulties and disadvantages but no benefits?

(End of this chapter)