Subject:
|
Re: Blue Hopper Car Mania...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 18 Oct 1999 00:07:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1211 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > Oddly, the service you'd claim to be providing here is
> > as much as anything a redistribution service - from
> > people who want sets now to people who may want
> > the sets next year (ironically
> > since redistribution in a different context is something
> > I normally favour a lot more than you or Larry do :) )
>
> Cute. I think the difference is that one is voluntary.
I'm not so sure of that. Once you've got the sets that you're
(hypothetically) planning on holding for a year, there's nothing anyone
who wants to buy the sets earlier than that can do. This redistribution may
have been instigated by a private individual rather than the Government
but that doesn't seem to have made it voluntary, as far as
people who may want the set in 1 months time are concerned. :)
> > Whether you're benefitting people I guess depends on
> > factors like whether people who had the sets now would have
> > got bored with them after a year and sold them anyway. You'd
> > certainly be denying people the chance to play with the sets now.
> I guess what you're talking about is whether there is a net benefit.
> Clearly I'd be benifitting some people - the ones who buy them from me.
Yeah there'd be certain people who would benefit in your example.
But is that outweighed by other people having been harmed? And if
so then is a transaction still morally justified if the overall effect of it
(taking the effect on _everyone_ into account) is negative, although the
particular people directly involved with the transaction benefit?
(Just something to think about - personally I'd answer 'don't know'
to the first question for this particular example, and 'no' to the
second question about the general principle)
> > I'm not certain either way on that one. I think my view of
> > whether what you were doing was morally right might depend
> > on your motives
>
> This must be why I prefer the market to work things out. I don't think
> motives matter at all. It is demonstrated to be 'good' because the
> market rewards that behavior.
Ha ha - I thought I'd get challenged on that one. I think when assessing
the morality of an action, it's crucially important in principle to take
motives into account.
For example:
Fred is driving back from work. It's been a hard day, which is why he's
tired. He makes the mistake of driving a bit faster than he ought to, given
his weariness, which is why he runs over Sam (who was just crossing the
road) and kills her.
Dave is driving back from work. He spots Paul up ahead, crossing the road,
and thinks 'that's the git who used to pull faces at me in school'.
So instead of slowing
down to let Paul cross, he deliberately accelerates,
and runs Paul over and kills him.
Both actions have exactly the same consequences. In both cases the driver
was in the wrong - but is anyone seriously going to argue that Fred's
'wrongness' is as bad as Dave's?
> My making a profit isn't part of it being right...just as long as we
> both/all agree to it it's right.
Good point. I shouldn't have put the 'making a profit' bit in there.
> > - no
> > matter what the wider consequences of that transaction are, then
> > you'd end up having to conclude that the people who push hard drugs
> > (often by getting their customers addicted to the drugs) are
> > doing nothing wrong,
>
> Wrong? I'd call it unsavory, but I wouldn't legislate against it.
> Unless you mean they're addicting their customers by force. Then I'd
> advocate extreme prejudice.
Err - what does 'extreme prejudice' mean here?
> > or people who sell criminals weapons, knowing
> > what the criminals are going to do with them, are also doing nothing
> > wrong[1])
>
> Right you are. In both cases, I feel that the activities are OK. And
> how can you KNOW what some 'criminal' is going to do with any given tool
> that you might sell him?
Because he's told you what he wants the weapon for? (I'm sure that must
happen in criminal circles)
> > [1] perhaps an example that's more relevant to countries in Europe where
> > it's very hard to get guns legally.
>
> I don't want to tell Europeans how to operate their lives, so I'm not
> sure how to approach this.
I don't have a problem with that. I'm not going to be offended if you
express an opinion about how things work in Europe - just as
I often express opinions related to the USA in this debate. All the
countries
in the world do have some degree of interdependence, so we all
have some interest in things that go on in other countries. Besides,
learning from how other countries do things can be a good way of
seeing how to improve our own laws etc.
So if you've got an opinion - feel free to express it.
Simon
http://www.SimonRobinson.com
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Blue Hopper Car Mania...
|
| (...) OK, it's as voluntary as anything ever is. I don't feel responsible to make things better than they can be. (...) Well, I don't think anyone is harmed - unless I spend so much that I can't buy groceries. So the net benefit of the transactions (...) (25 years ago, 18-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Blue Hopper Car Mania...
|
| (...) Cute. I think the difference is that one is voluntary. (...) I guess what you're talking about is whether there is a net benefit. Clearly I'd be benifitting some people - the ones who buy them from me. (...) This must be why I prefer the (...) (25 years ago, 13-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
178 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
