3 ms·
>Every town has an American Free Diner in it. The music is great and there’s a buzzing neon sign. I think that latter sentence is telling. No music is "great"
by mrob 9y ago
>Every town has an American Free Diner in it. The music is great and there’s a buzzing neon sign.
I think that latter sentence is telling. No music is "great" to everybody. In some cases any music at all may make the diner unusable, eg. for autistic people with sensory processing difficulties. The author appears not to have considered this. Centralized food provision will necessarily reduce choice, and reduced choice will harm many people.
Of course capitalism isn't perfect either, for all the reasons described, but it makes more sense to address specific market failures with regulation than replace the whole system. Eg. I don't see why corporations should be considered people with free speech rights, so I'd support heavy restrictions on advertising.
- orblivion 9y ago> I think that latter sentence is telling. No music is "great" to everybody. I'm imagining the same people who run the DMV choosing the very best in royalty-free elevator music.
- addicted 9y agoI don’t necessarily agree with the article or the solutions proposed (and definitely not the subhead that free markets are a disaster) but your comment actually nearly illustrates why we need to address basic needs (health, food, shelter) differently from other stuff. Because while you are right about music, any food is almost always better than no food, unlike the music scenario.
- mattmanser 9y agoThat's a big jump from a tiny percentage to "many". How many autistic people with sensory problems would even attend a general populace diner and not their own state run diner attached to their adult care home? I think you should put aside your music objection. Of course, the NHS, which he used as an example, accommodates a wide range of people. I'm sure as they'd be so many diners needed they'd have rooms available without the music you've latched on to. I would imagine in the UK you might have one room on radio 1, another on radio 2, some silent, etc. While I doubt it would ever happen I'm pretty certain he's right that this would help far, far more people than it would hurt. And, bonus, if they don't like it they can go buy their own groceries and cook.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mrob 9y agoThe music will affect only a small minority, but the music is just one of many choices the author proposes the government make for people. The number of people affected by at least one of those choices will be much higher. Even if there's a private option, the public option has to be funded somehow. If you can opt out of paying in exchange for losing access to the service then it's no longer "free". And in my experience, while the NHS is superb for common physical ailments, if there's anything unusual wrong with you then they're close to useless. Healthcare is in any case an atypical market because it's already so heavily regulated.