Subject:
|
Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 27 Sep 1999 21:35:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1187 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Weeeelllll... I know I'm walking into the same old debate as before!
Old debates die hard :)
> But it seems SO clear cut to me. In my opinion Heinz doesn't have the
> right to the drug.
I certainly agree here. Heinz doesn't appear to me to have any right to the
drug; and neither does his wife. Rights don't really seem to dictate proper
ownership in this case other than the druggist. After all, the drug DOES belong
to the druggist-- he DID buy it.
> If this drug really truly is somehting Heinz is
> incapable of inventing for himself, it's not just or right to defraud
> the druggist from his due. The druggist presumably went to school for
> years to learn how to make it. This may be the only chance he has to
> recoup that investment.
>
> Now, were I the druggist I'd happily take a time payment scheme if Heinz
> was credit worthy. But the druggist may not care about his reputation
> within the town and that's his right.
Here's some valid points... if it is the case that the druggist's own person is
at stake, I certainly agree. If he had to go through hell and high water to
obtain the drug (even though he only 'paid' $400 for it) he can certainly
justify his prices. If he's dependant on it for survival, same thing-- i.e., he
needs 4000 to live, himself; if he charges only $600, then he goes hungry. If
he doesn't trust Hienz for some valid reason, like if Hienz is a known criminal
or something, the druggist is still ok. Where we disagree is when it goes
beyond that:
> Heck, even if Heinz shows up with
> the entire 4K in cash the druggist is within his rights to refuse to
> sell.
In other words, what if the druggist is just being selfish? In this case, let's
suppose someone else got the drug for the 4K just like Heinz wants. Now Heinz
comes along (let's say the druggist has a virtually unlimited supply of the
drug) and the druggist denies sale (or Hienz tried first, doesn't matter). I'd
say that the druggist doesn't have the right to deny sale, based on the fact
that Hienz and the other buyer 'should' be treated equally. If the situation
has changed (i.e. the druggist's supplies are running low, he doesn't trust
Hienz for some valid reason, etc.) then perhaps he can deny sale rightfully,
but assuming nothing's really changed, I'd say no.
I think the other issue here that I'd disagree with isn't so much the rights of
the conduct of sale, but that the druggist DOESN'T have the right to let the
woman die. Now, not selling it to Heinz might not guarantee his wife's death,
but suppose for some reason it did... I'd argue that the druggist was in the
wrong for letting her die for the sake of his own profit. Again, it's null and
void if the druggist's situation is otherwise than him only seeking profit. But
this is a life-and-death matter. Certainly it doesn't apply with the McDonald's
set thing.... Unless I've been uninformed, nobody was at death's door for a
Lego set. :)
Point of fact though-- Hienz still doesn't have a *right* to stealing the drug.
His action of theft would still be evil. Perhaps it would be a *lesser* evil
than the druggist denying the sale, hence it would be BETTER, and it tries to
counterbalance the evil of the druggist, but it's still an evil, I think.
It kinda sounds, however, like you're arguing against your own actions... let's
say the McDonalds set was the cure... wasn't the point of your action to
prevent some poor idiot from buying the set at 10x the regular cost? It kinda
sounds like you thought the seller was in the wrong for not providing the set
number, and you were trying to prevent victims from this wrong. You can say
that since you were providing only neutral info you were behaving neutrally,
but I still think the point of your action was to undermine the sale at such a
ridiculous price. Hence it sounds like you were interfering the seller's rights
of business conduct. Hmm... maybe that sounds unclear. My point is there that
you may have committed a neutral act, but your intent was otherwise. But I
digress... after all, you never claimed that your actions were
moral/immoral/neutral to begin with.
I agree with your actions, though... I'd've been tempted to still post the set
number and availibility, because I think the buyers have the right to be
treated equally. That's not to say that some guy SHOULDN'T pay some ridiculous
price for it, and that the seller SHOULDN'T sell it to them for that-- indeed,
the buyer can be mistreated at his own fault, and it's not right or wrong. But
purposely hiding the set number certainly made it easier for people to be
mistreated. Hence, that's not really being morally evil, it's just not being
very charitable. But I have a tendancy to want to be charitable... I think most
people do.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
81 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
