Quote:
Originally Posted by micomicon
In an ideal, platonic world -- maybe. In the real world, the definition of concepts like fairness changes quite a bit depending on the society and context it is being used in. It was once thought "fair" to base an entire economy on slave labor.
|
No. In the real world, people who don't want to play fair try to redefine 'fair' so it meets their needs. Like calling slave-owning 'fair' when it never was, obviously. That's why slave owners in the South were not compensated for their 'property' when the slaves were freed. Or, justifying taking something that doesn't belong to you because you think the price is too high.
Again, the owner has the right to set any price for his product, and that price has no relationship to cost. It is related to demand.
The consumer has the right to be fully informed of all of the terms and conditions relating to purchasing that product. Then, if the choice to buy is made, the customer has the agreement to the terms and conditions and cannot unilaterally change them without being in breach of contract and therefore subject to liability. If the consumer thinks the price, or the terms, are unfair, then
don't buy the product! The seller will either modify the deal to appeal to consumers, or he will not sell anything. That is fair.
Quote:
|
In the real world, power defines what rights you have. For an example of the consequences, look at this quote which has thus far gone unquestioned:
|
Again, I disagree. I know that's what many people think, and what many people say, but this doesn't make it right. For instance, the right to free speech is not protected in North Korea, but North Koreans still have the right to free speech even if that right is denied by their government. Similarly, the right to own the fruits of one's labor is an inherent right, even if it is violated because the violator has a gun.
The ends does not justify the means... or else Hitler was right.