5 ms·

Not op but I also agree with the framing assuming you add “and they provide a vital service” to both. If a vital service is being used to extract profits it sho

Not op but I also agree with the framing assuming you add “and they provide a vital service” to both. If a vital service is being used to extract profits it should be regulated so that equal access to the vital service can be provided. If a vital service is being provided but cannot make money it should be regulated so that it can be sustained since it is vital. Now what is vital? Is Spirit vital? That’s the hard to define part.

card_zero 5mo ago
1. "We want to have this, but we don't want to pay for it!" 2. "We won't pay for this, but we still want to have it!" These are of course both fair points. Why should we "pay for" things, what's that all about? We should just naturally have the natural things that we naturally want, supplied by pixies.
- sailfast 5mo ago
  I think they're both actually "We want to have this, but we don't want to pay too much for it just so a CEO can make 10,000x their workers and potentially ALSO still lose money."
  - card_zero 5mo ago
    Right, but what makes that viable? Something so topheavy ought to go the way of the Irish elk. Edit: maybe a piñata is a better metaphor. :(
    - nixon_why69 5mo ago
      Culture. Today's CEOs aren't more valuable than those of 30 or 60 years ago but the going rate is way higher, so they're paid what's expected.
  - eru 5mo ago
    How much of the money goes to CEO vs shareholders is something they can work out between themselves. If the airline goes bankrupt, that just means that the creditors get less than they otherwise expected. That's something to haggle out between creditors and management and shareholders. (Or do you want to imply that if the shareholders saved money on CEO compensation, they would give the money to ordinary workers?)
    - anticorporate 5mo ago
      It's funny how any time something comes along suggesting consumer choice should play a role in a market economy, these types of comments come along to suggest its not their place. There's no fundamental rule of a capitalist society that consumers have to make their choices out a narrow selection of options provided by corporate oligarchies between the criteria they would prefer to compete on. As a customer, I can choose which airline I want based on whatever criteria I want. Maybe I pick it based on pay ratio between executives and average workers, maybe I pick it based on whichever has the font I like best on their homepage.
      - eru 5mo ago
        Go for it. You can also pick them based on the colour of their livery.
    - jodrellblank 5mo ago
      It JUST means that the creditors lose money? It doesn't stop the planes flying? It doesn't stop the humans and freight from being transported? The plane maintenance? The airport's budget isn't affected, the airline employees aren't affected?
      - eru 5mo ago
        Actually, yes: Airlines have a knack for going bankrupt all the time, but still keep flying their planes. And planes are also fairly fungible: when one airline goes bankrupt, another airline can quickly snatch up the planes and fly them.
- achierius 5mo ago
  > We should just naturally have the natural things that we naturally want, supplied by pixies. Is this how you see roads? Are we entitled for wanting those to be paid for by the state? What about the police? Should we have to pay whenever a police officer stops a mugging -- or is the wage of that officer, too, supplied by pixies?
  - card_zero 5mo ago
    These have remained unresolved questions, for me, for decades. When an internet pal was trying to found a libertarian (what noun should I use) locale, in Awdal in Somaliland (that detail of whether it was really in Somaliland or not was more debatable at the time), he first founded the Awdal Roads Company. https://web.archive.org/web/20040603010444/http://awdal.com/faq.html https://web.archive.org/web/20040603010444/http://awdal.com/... So obviously there are theories about how these things can be privately funded. But I can never remember the theories. Looking at that link, it was going to be toll roads. People dislike this, understandably. One problem with private roads is that you can't exactly use a competing road, which might entail moving house, or changing your plans for the day, or your job. I have a vague notion that roads could be funded by a group of businesses that benefit from them, sort of like the W3C or a mall. Non-profit, sponsored roads, or something. (Now I'm thinking of runestones, several of which are near bridges and say "He made this bridge for his soul" or a similar statement.) Don't ask me about police, I don't even understand crime and punishment, really. I should maybe add that I meant "We should just naturally have the natural things that we naturally want" somewhat unironically. I feel that way, the same as anyone else. The difficulty, as observed up the thread, is in working out what's natural, or vital, or wanted and feasible. There are no pixies to magically know the answers, to my regret, only governments, and they only pretend to know. By buying and selling we can almost figure out the answers, contingently and approximately, but a lot goes wrong with that, including the friction of having to do it all the time, and "rent-seeking", whatever defines that really.
    - nixon_why69 5mo ago
      Lots of roads in the USA are built by private developers, then they're deeded over to the municipality for "free" so its on taxpayers to do maintenance.

card_zero 5mo ago

1. "We want to have this, but we don't want to pay for it!" 2. "We won't pay for this, but we still want to have it!" These are of course both fair points. Why should we "pay for" things, what's that all about? We should just naturally have the natural things that we naturally want, supplied by pixies.

sailfast 5mo ago
I think they're both actually "We want to have this, but we don't want to pay too much for it just so a CEO can make 10,000x their workers and potentially ALSO still lose money."
- card_zero 5mo ago
  Right, but what makes that viable? Something so topheavy ought to go the way of the Irish elk. Edit: maybe a piñata is a better metaphor. :(
  - nixon_why69 5mo ago
    Culture. Today's CEOs aren't more valuable than those of 30 or 60 years ago but the going rate is way higher, so they're paid what's expected.
- eru 5mo ago
  How much of the money goes to CEO vs shareholders is something they can work out between themselves. If the airline goes bankrupt, that just means that the creditors get less than they otherwise expected. That's something to haggle out between creditors and management and shareholders. (Or do you want to imply that if the shareholders saved money on CEO compensation, they would give the money to ordinary workers?)
  - anticorporate 5mo ago
    It's funny how any time something comes along suggesting consumer choice should play a role in a market economy, these types of comments come along to suggest its not their place. There's no fundamental rule of a capitalist society that consumers have to make their choices out a narrow selection of options provided by corporate oligarchies between the criteria they would prefer to compete on. As a customer, I can choose which airline I want based on whatever criteria I want. Maybe I pick it based on pay ratio between executives and average workers, maybe I pick it based on whichever has the font I like best on their homepage.
    - eru 5mo ago
      Go for it. You can also pick them based on the colour of their livery.
  - jodrellblank 5mo ago
    It JUST means that the creditors lose money? It doesn't stop the planes flying? It doesn't stop the humans and freight from being transported? The plane maintenance? The airport's budget isn't affected, the airline employees aren't affected?
    - eru 5mo ago
      Actually, yes: Airlines have a knack for going bankrupt all the time, but still keep flying their planes. And planes are also fairly fungible: when one airline goes bankrupt, another airline can quickly snatch up the planes and fly them.
achierius 5mo ago
> We should just naturally have the natural things that we naturally want, supplied by pixies. Is this how you see roads? Are we entitled for wanting those to be paid for by the state? What about the police? Should we have to pay whenever a police officer stops a mugging -- or is the wage of that officer, too, supplied by pixies?
- card_zero 5mo ago
  These have remained unresolved questions, for me, for decades. When an internet pal was trying to found a libertarian (what noun should I use) locale, in Awdal in Somaliland (that detail of whether it was really in Somaliland or not was more debatable at the time), he first founded the Awdal Roads Company. https://web.archive.org/web/20040603010444/http://awdal.com/faq.html https://web.archive.org/web/20040603010444/http://awdal.com/... So obviously there are theories about how these things can be privately funded. But I can never remember the theories. Looking at that link, it was going to be toll roads. People dislike this, understandably. One problem with private roads is that you can't exactly use a competing road, which might entail moving house, or changing your plans for the day, or your job. I have a vague notion that roads could be funded by a group of businesses that benefit from them, sort of like the W3C or a mall. Non-profit, sponsored roads, or something. (Now I'm thinking of runestones, several of which are near bridges and say "He made this bridge for his soul" or a similar statement.) Don't ask me about police, I don't even understand crime and punishment, really. I should maybe add that I meant "We should just naturally have the natural things that we naturally want" somewhat unironically. I feel that way, the same as anyone else. The difficulty, as observed up the thread, is in working out what's natural, or vital, or wanted and feasible. There are no pixies to magically know the answers, to my regret, only governments, and they only pretend to know. By buying and selling we can almost figure out the answers, contingently and approximately, but a lot goes wrong with that, including the friction of having to do it all the time, and "rent-seeking", whatever defines that really.
  - nixon_why69 5mo ago
    Lots of roads in the USA are built by private developers, then they're deeded over to the municipality for "free" so its on taxpayers to do maintenance.