4 ms·
> how can you ethically defend everyone not getting a minimum ration To me, the fairest way to distribute any good is to the highest bidder. If someone is tru
by someguydave 7y ago
> how can you ethically defend everyone not getting a minimum ration
To me, the fairest way to distribute any good is to the highest bidder. If someone is truly desperate for food, they will find a way to get the money to pay for it. I would rather that food be instantly available to that highest bidder with a true need, rather than having to jump through some kind of Soviet bread line to get their “ration”.
Are you saying it is “ethically” better to have an empty shelf with government price controls than a full shelf with prices set by your high-bidding neighbors?
With an empty shelf there is no negotiation possible, simply the will of the government bureaucrat or store manager (with a government gun to his head). They don’t have any personal knowledge of the hungry.
With a full shelf the food is right there, and it’s only money. The hungry can communicate their immediate need for food on the spot by forking over the cash.
So hell yes the capitalist system is the most ethical. Hunger is a private matter that affects individuals - not a faceless mass to be treated as robots with a government program.
- Nursie 7y agoHistorically ignorant and hysterically unethical. This is one of the saddest things I've ever seen on HN.
- quotemstr 7y agoThis is why the label "ethical" has become semantically meaningless. People, as you have done here, just define "ethical" as their own point of view and "unethical" as any point of view they reject.
- Nursie 7y agoIf that helps you sleep at night. Try re-reading the post I replied to. If it's not making you feel a bit sick, might want to spend some time on introspection. Qu'ils mangent de la brioche though I guess.
- someguydave 7y agoCan you address my arguments? My post is based on the ethical principles of dignity and self-determination.
- Nursie 7y agoYour post is bullshit. "If someone is truly desperate for food, they will find a way to get the money to pay for it." Just wow. Ignorant and awful.
- dhhwrongagain 7y agoSounds like you’re just having an emotional reaction instead of engaging his point in good faith. If you’re so empathetic, maybe you should remember that the person who made that point is a human being and not a monster.
- Nursie 7y agoThere's not really a point there, just ignorance on display. People throughout history have starved in gutters for want of money for food, yet here he is espousing the idea that if you just want it hard enough, you'll find the money to eat, regardless of price gouging, shortage or whatever else. This is just factually wrong. And if you end up going without, that's your issue. Not only that, but that's the best and fairest system, the way it should be! This is a pure expression of "Fuck everyone else, I got mine" > maybe you should remember that the person who made that point is a human being and not a monster. Yes, totally, because saying their posts are ignorant and cruel is totally the same as treating them like something other than human.
- dhhwrongagain 7y agoThere actually was a point. His point is that, while it might seem counterintuitive, allowing suppliers to price with demand may improve the situation for the majority of people, even if that permits a minority of individuals to fall by the wayside. He’s making a plea to look at this from a systemic angle. You totally missed that because you jumped to demonizing him for even suggesting the idea. If you’re hearing “fuck everyone else” that’s pure projection. You’re obviously putting words into his mouth. That seems cruel to me and counterproductive. You should be more empathetic when you discuss with people on the internet, assume good faith.