Free = Crappy
November 26, 2009Free stuff is usually poor quality, over used and generally undesirable. Most of the time, free stuff is worth exactly what you pay for it.
At the Public Farmer’s Market in Los Angeles, a hippy likes to hang out and offer up free hugs. Why? Who the hell knows? Maybe he is trying to spread love. Maybe he is a perv. In this video, an enterprising young man proves that a good number of people appreciate salesmanship and that quality services don’t come free. It is also hilarious.
The serious lesson here is that people understand that free goods are suspect and likely of poor quality. Any product or service worth having is worth paying for. This, of course, applies to health care and Obama is essentially a filthy hippy offering free hugs as the ruse in order to cop a feel and pick your pocket.
Jim 22 :
Date: November 26, 2009
Interesting responses from the people. Also interesting responses from the hippie: “Don’t interfere with my wierdness”. I particularly like the donation. No hug necessary. Many of us, however, learned something from the repeat customer. Decided that hugs were not enough, I guess.
Pure fun, anyhow.
Tatersalad :
Date: November 27, 2009
Breaking News! Just in:
The United States Constitution has just been found in a dumpster behind the White House. Complete details later!
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=UZkvkLmkYVg
THL :
Date: November 27, 2009
Is there a place for the concept of fairness in a capitalist society?
R.D. Walker :
Date: November 27, 2009
Capitalism is eminently fair. What is unfair is the government’s theft of the rewards of the industry, hard work and skill of one man to give to another.
THL :
Date: November 27, 2009
In a capitalist society, should individuals base their actions upon the principle of fairness or the principle of personal utility maximization? Or do these two principles coincide? If yes, how so?
R.D. Walker :
Date: November 27, 2009
I am guessing that you and I define “fair” very differently. In any case, what people should or shouldn’t do is mostly irrelevant. The reality is that most people will attempt to maximize their personal utility. No system of economics has more effectively channeled individual self-interest into the greater good than does capitalism.
THL :
Date: November 28, 2009
My impression is that liberals regard any type of societal inequality as fundamentally unfair, regardless of the source of the inequality. Since being unfair is usually considered morally wrong, they want to transform inequalities into equalities. This is of course achieved by taking something from the “heavy” side of the inequality and giving it to the “light” side of the inequality. I see two problems with this view:
First, inequalities can be the result of differences in performance. In this case, the inequality is not unfair, but trying to making it an equality is itself unfair to the “heavy” side.
Second, no wealth is created by taking something from the “heavy” side and giving it to the “light” side. When this happens, the “light” side of the inequality is a passive recipient of something created by the “heavy” side. This passivity makes it un-necessary for the “light” side to pursue its own self-interest. Then, since according to Adam Smith as quoted above, self-interest goes hand in hand with the un-intended consequence of public interest, this means that the lack of incentive to pursue self-interest results in the absence of the promotion of public interest. In other words, no wealth is created.
Does this accurately capture the essence of the liberal philosophy and its major flaws?
R.D. Walker :
Date: November 28, 2009
A shorter way of saying that is that liberals are interested in an equality of outcome regardless of inequalities of effort, industriousness, entrepreneurialism, delay of gratification, risk acceptance or wisdom.