Then it's unreasonable for you to assume any intervention to stop Amazon is unwarranted. You've already read the motivations, so there is no point in me re-stating them; but you prefer efficiency above Parisians' quality of life and economic stability. So I say fine, let's prefer efficiency above everything.
I've not attacked anybody, I've just shown you the limits of a system of thought based on economic efficiency. It's not my fault if they look bad.
I do not assume that. Maybe they can figure out a reasonable intervention. But the reasons in the article just don't sound honest or strong to me.
>but you prefer efficiency above Parisians' quality of life and economic stability.
I don't. I think that giving Parisians the option to buy their groceries in more ways, should increase their QOL. And I don't see how it could significantly threaten economic stability. I would love to hear a real argument to the contrary. But it's also fine for me not be convinced, and for you to be.
>I've not attacked anybody, I've just shown you the limits of a system of thought based on economic efficiency.
Yeah, which no one in their right mind proposes, I certainly did not, and is therefore irrelevant, and an utter strawman. And, as I said before, a classic slippery slope fallacy.
Follow those arguments with coherence, and you can quickly and painlessly reach the conclusion that older people "had a good life but it's time to go now". Why don't we do that? Because we hold other values apart from economic efficiency and other systemic measures. This is just a very quick and direct way of stating it.