Okay so it is a utilitarian justification that makes sense under certain situations. This is a fine theoretical example although it should once more be pointed out that there is relatively rare. For instance I support the violation of property rights if there is no alternative but starvation but I believe in a modern free market economy this is so rare it’s not worth speaking about.
Perhaps you are right on this count, maybe people would have to be fored to save this much, we cannot know a priori, for instance if many of the richest in society saved a massive amount then the goal might be achieved, it depends upon the values of people under the situation, it could become a social norm to “spend your paycheck on the meteor”. It should also be noted that people would, all else equal, save more as the meteor came until a few years before the meteor hit the savings rate might reach as high as 80%. It would depend upon the circumstance and I find it easier with such ultimate case-scenarios putting “and people will not save enough to stop it.”
