In the arguments that pop up regarding how to have things be better, in life, society, the political realm, economics, etc... there is talk about "don't punish the successful", "end welfare, because it encourages people to be lazy", and other things.  In this is also said that there is need for free markets and to create a feedback loops.  In this, the idea is to make success something strive for, and also deter people from maing wrong decisions.

This argument also follows for punishing crime.  The belief is that, if you make the cost of crime severe, you end up reducing it.  You end up making prison harsh, and you make things bad.  You want to scare and deter bad behavior, so you make things extremely harsh as a consequence of bad behavior.

So, I will ask this: Does doing all produce more success?  Does making the consequences of failure more severe result in more success?  By decreasing the amount done to assist the failures in life to mute their bad behavor only cause them failures to continue to do what they do?  Or can reduce ths consequences of failure give people a chance to recover from bad decision making and be able to start heading in the right direction?

you dont need to increase the consequences of failure or punish success. just let things be and have as little involvement from government as p[possible. Usually failure in and of itself should be punishment enough, what has happened is we have removed the normal consequences of failure. The same can be said for success, usually having success should be enough, but we have punished success so now its not enough. Just stop intervening and problems will fix themselves.

If government getting out results in the consequences of failing economically, not being employable and so on, results in things getting worse because of government not involved, would that increase the amount of success?

I know i work harder when i know the consequences for my failure are harsher.

If you know the consequences of failure are harsher, are you more or less likely to take risks?  You know, if you don't try to do something, you won't suffer negative consequences, but if you try and fail, you will end up worse off.

Depends on the reward.

I'll be less likely to take risks, though it's not like it's an even distribution of less risks.  To be more precise i'd be less likely to make rash, ill thought out risks.

Though honestly, i'm not the kind of person that takes a lot of risks period.  In general I don't tend to make bets I'm not positive i'll win, largely because i'm really content and happy with my life despite making the equivelent of $17,888 a year.

If I was unhappy, there wouldn't be any amount of risk that could keep me from attempting to be happy,  I'm unhappy anyway so who gives a crap.  This is why harsher penalties don't stop crimes, they just force criminals to try and think harder.

However you can bet greater risk means i'd be more likely to research it.