4 ms·

And your opinion is "it should be done the way it has always been done"? > other people do like it and keep doing it Well, a lot of people seems to not like i

• smsm42 13y ago
  My opinion is government has no place in choosing the exact arrangement of how to pay servers (or anybody else for that matter), and should not enforce one way at the expense of the other because some columnist doesn't like it. >>>> That was how slavery was abolished. No it's not. Slavery was abolished when the state refused to recognize that human being can be owned by anybody and so nobody could make a person to work for another person unvoluntarily. Since then, all employment is voluntary. What the article asks for is to ban voluntary employment of some sort because of some stupid ideas of this columnist about how everybody else should behave. >>> Well, a lot of people seems to not like it, but keeps doing it not to be seen as an asshole. So to ask for the government coercion to force people to change the whole way their business works - on the way probably putting a lot of people out of business and out of work is not being asshole, but actually standing up for what you believe in - is being asshole? Talk about perverted ethics... That's like saying the only moral way of doing charity is if you hire a thug to mug somebody and then donate the proceeds. Then again, that seems to actually be very common opinion that charity can not be done without being coerced, so I shouldn't be surprised. >>> Can you offer any counter argument to the actual points in the actual article? I just did. I can do it again and very briefly: it absolutely does not matter if you don't like how other people pay for their services and how other people earn their money, and how they behave in general, provided these people are happy with the arrangement. If you don't like tipping restaurant - open non-tipping one and have the happiest servers in the universe and put all others out of business. Or eat at the McDonalds - I have never seen anybody tipping McDonalds cashier.
  • geon 13y ago
    >>>> That was how slavery was abolished. >>No it's not. Slavery was abolished when the state (...) It seems you misunderstood my point. Slavery was abolished when the state declared it illegal. That kind of thing is what the state is for. If there is a majority of support for "abolishing" tipping, that is where the state can step in and enforce it. That is the point of democracy. > So to ask for the government coercion to force people to change the whole way their business works - on the way probably putting a lot of people out of business and out of work is not being asshole (...) This smells very much like the logical fallacies used by the copyright industry. No business would have to go out of business and no costs would need to change. It is simply about making the implicit explicit and to stop pretending it is a gift. You yourself gave a great examples of how McDonalds manages to run their restaurants without tipping. >>> Can you offer any counter argument to the actual points in the actual article? > I just did. No you didn't? The article had very specific arguments. They are even nicely numbered. Your "counter argument" is basically "I like it the way it is and no one should tell me to change", backed up by a vague claim that people would somehow lose jobs and business.
    • smsm42 13y ago
      I understood your point completely and I disagree completely. The point of the democracy is not to enforce majority's views on the minority, at least if we're talking about modern democracy. The point of the democracy is to protect people's rights. Since you have no right to tell the restaurant how to pay their servers, or to restaurant patrons if they should leave tips of not, no democracy can or should give you this right, and it shouldn't matter how many people agree with you - otherwise slavery would be OK as long as slave owners are the majority. On the contrary, one has the right not to be enslaved (or, made to work for other man involuntarily and without mutually agreed compensation) - which makes slavery not OK. It is rather ironic that you invoke slavery - i.e. work forced, ultimately, by government coercion - in support of applying government coercion to mutually agreed trades between people. >>> No business would have to go out of business and no costs would need to change. Of course they would need to change - changing the structure of charges would require changing all the prices, and as any price rise, perceived or real, would cost business. >>> You yourself gave a great examples of how McDonalds manages to run their restaurants without tipping. I don't go to McDonalds, but I go to other restaurants. So converting all restaurants to McDonalds would cost them my business, that's kinda the point. That'd the difference between our positions - I advocate that both models can work for different people and different situations, and people should be allowed to choose which one they prefer. You advocate that only one model is right for everybody and all others should be banned by the threat of government coercion, and nobody should be allowed to choose what you dislike. >>> I like it the way it is and no one should tell me to change It's called freedom. There was time it had some value in America. Now one has to explain what's so valuable about it.