3 ms·
"Ultimately you should not be able to buy these, at least in their current form, as they serve no purpose whatsoever besides inflating their owner’s ego at a si
by Bostonian 3y ago
"Ultimately you should not be able to buy these, at least in their current form, as they serve no purpose whatsoever besides inflating their owner’s ego at a significant cost to others."
I am wary of this statement, because it could justify banning a wide range of consumer goods and services.
On another note, if SUVs are much more dangerous to others than other cars, insurance claims against SUV drivers and insurance premiums that they pay should reflect this. Why hasn't this happened?
- praptak 3y ago> it could justify banning a wide range of consumer goods and services GP qualified their statement pretty precisely: no purpose other than ego, significant cost to others. What's the harm in banning anything that ticks both of these boxes?
- sethammons 3y agoOn the surface, it seems to make sense. I'm wondering if it falls apart quickly. "I like it" and "because ego" is a hard line to carve. I usually hear ego-purchase and translate it to "you like it and I don't." Lots of things are provided at a cost to others. Some argue the modern economy can't exist without exploiting someone. And there is all the things that ticks tragedies of the commons. What could be made illegal using such a lens? Fashionable clothing seems fit (hell, the US killed off an entire species of pigeon because their feathers looked good on a hat; a hell of a cost to everyone). Mountain climbing or hiking to summit could be viewed as an ego thing and the trails have to be maintained and emergency personnel available -- all at significant costs. Depending on how sensitive "cost to others is" and depending on how willfully something can only be attributed to ego makes this more slippery.