3 ms·
I get the point in your scenario. The simple matter of "degree" in this case might be simple but it is very big. First of all, i would say that your scenario is
by thecopy 11y ago
I get the point in your scenario. The simple matter of "degree" in this case might be simple but it is very big. First of all, i would say that your scenario is unrealistic. It is made up and it would never happen in actual real life. First of all, what psychopaths would leave a dying man, woman or child like that? Also, how would these ambulances get customers? Thirdly, who would sign up for their ambulance service? Yes, if we accept your premise of a society where this psychopath ambulance service has a monopoly and everyone is forced to use it, then sure, it is exploitation. But on the other hand, someone with authority has therefore sanctioned this psychopath monopoly ambulance service. Where did this authority get this mandate? Democracy? If you want to argue that this scenario would happen on the free market, i would like to see your arguments to why this ambulance service would still have customers.
If you control the premise of the arguments, it is easy to "win".
- crdoconnor 11y agoThe largest fortune in the Roman empire was amassed in almost exactly the same manner (Marcus Linnus Crassus - he ran a fire service). Desperation is a rich source of profit. Neoclassical economics, instead of analyzing this sordid detail, masks it with assumptions. That's why you view it as an unrealistic scenario despite the massive amount of historical precedent. Under econ 101 models (perfectly equal wealth; perfectly competitive market) it is an unrealistic scenario.
- pyrale 11y ago> First of all, what psychopaths would leave a dying man, woman or child like that? Apparently, the same kind that would leave children living in a cardboard box in front of their job. Life as described in the article sucks, but it's still orders of magnitude better than living on the street.