3 ms·
"This law doesn't prevent consumers from buying X, it prevents vendors from selling X" The bulk of your comment is just an explanation of why you think sumptua
by wyager 3y ago
"This law doesn't prevent consumers from buying X, it prevents vendors from selling X"
The bulk of your comment is just an explanation of why you think sumptuary laws can be good (which may be correct! Not arguing that), not a refutation of the idea that this is a sumptuary law
- defrost 3y agoIt doesn't prevent the sale of X - it incentivizes vendors from producing X + X^1 + X^2 + X^3 + X^4 etc with the additional production going to pure waste. Look at the nature of production to meet demand before and after fast fashion .. there's been a sea change to not simply meet demand or provide a little additional choice but to over produce as a means of changing consumer behaviour to milk out every cent with a by product of magnitudes more landfill than has previously existed.
- ethanbond 3y agoWhat, concretely, is the X in this case?
- wyager 3y agoI used 'X' per se specifically because I am making a generalized example. The proposition is absurd for all X.
- somanytta 3y agoThe law is clearly not preventing vendors from selling X, its preventing them dumping it if they can't sell it. Not sure how people can't see this difference. Preventing companies dumping or disposing of their (harmful) waste (in an unregulated manner) is pretty common practise and generally agreed upon good thing.
- wyager 3y agoRead the article, or any of the stuff I quoted. This is more widely-reaching than "you aren't allowed to throw things away" (which would also have a sumptuary effect, although more indirect).