Subject:
|
Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 3 Dec 1999 04:11:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1737 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> ** sigh ** Well I didn't say you said it was bad. I'm just asking "why,
> exactly, is it nicer"?
Bah, you've got the bigger sigh, you win. No more sighing for me then.
*sulk*
I was responding mostly to:
> > > So in that case, why is it wrong for Paul to allocate goods as he sees
> > > fit? They are his goods, after all.
Which I read as you saying that I said it was wrong/bad whatever, but I've
confused myself now, and it's probably not that important, so I'll just try and
answer your question.
Why is it nicer? Or why do *I* think it's nicer?
(general notice - the footnotes aren't neccessary, but may hopefully avoid
going down pointless discussion avenues)
My view is that if you can share a Lego deal equally between X people who want
it - great. If someone buys lots and lots then less of those other people will
be happy. (1)
Your view is that you *want* it more because you have more money. That money
comes from ability and working hard. Therefore anyone with ability who works
hard to make opportunities for themselves, will make the enough money to want
it as much as you do. (2)
My view is that we live in a society where not everyone works with computers
and makes silly amounts of money(3) - we have nurses, bus-drivers,
road-workers, teachers, receptionists, quality-controllers at tooth-pick
factories (4).
Most of these people will have ability and will work hard and will perform
services vital to the community, but don't get paid as much. In *real*
emotional terms they may want a Lego set as much as anyone else, but are
somehow less deserving?
At which point you may say, "No they aren't less deserving, but we live in a
economy where goods and services are dolled out accor....."
I've heard that argument before and I believe that it is a crutch, using
economics as a mechanism to avoid the issue; that's nothing new in itself!
So who, regardless of income, is more deserving of a Lego set? Visiting reality
for a change - you can't tell, the easiest thing to use is money - hence the
popularity of its use in settling such events.
But - if you *study* the premise that you can't tell, the 'nicest' thing to do
is assume that everyone deserves it equally. Thus buying 1 of a limited stock
is fair to everyone else, increasing the amount that you buy of a limited stock
is increasingly unfair to everyone else.
Before the harpies and wolves descend, this is from a personal viewpoint. If I
saw a balloon seller at a fairground and bought up every last balloon for
Laura, would that mean I was unfair to everyone else? Yes! Would that make me a
bad person? Probably not. What if I saw a disappointed child and gave her a
nice red balloon?
http://www.lugnet.com/market/buy-sell-trade/?n=2699
There is no conflict between saying it would be nice if everyone had a fair
share of Lego deals and saying that Larry is a decent guy.
Richard
(1) Simplistic argument, but that *isn't* the important thing, trust me.
(2) This is probably a generalisation too - correct me if it's way out
(3) A value-judgement, not against you - as a computer-student myself, I can
see myself making silly amounts of money in the future too.
(4) In that list there are well-paid examples and badly-paid examples of each,
no need to quibble? Great. (5)
(5) Again, *not* against anyone in particular, it just gets tiresome having to
argue silly things which miss the point :)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
| (...) You know, while my basic response to this would be, "yeah, I know, some people, through no fault of their own and through no lack of hard work, will simply never make a fraction of the money Larry makes, but that's just reality, we deal with (...) (25 years ago, 3-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: e-commerce (was Technic shuttle etc)
|
| (...) *sigh* I really wrote: -- My personal view is that it's nicer to give 20 people 1 thing, than give 1 person 20 things (related specifically to Lego deals in this example). That doesn't logically extend to saying that the one person who has the (...) (25 years ago, 2-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
163 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
|
|
|
|
