Justice Department sues Uber for overcharging people with disabilities

Re:Justice Department sues Uber for overcharging people with... by whimsicalism on Wednesday November 10, 2021 @03:23PM (#29180170)

Yes, you are coming from a very objectivist/libertarian perspective that I reject.

It's not a straw-man description of Pareto efficiency, it's a toy example designed to answer a very explicit question by the GP. What I described was a Pareto efficient distribution, and not the most welfare enhancing one.

What if neither person can make bread and the other just happened to inherit it all from their parents? Who is burdening who?

And that's before we get into the real-world ethics of whether we can honestly claim that contemporary wealth distributions are really derived from consensual interaction. Why should the descendents of nobility be entitled to wealth deriving from what are effectively violent takings?

I don't know - the whole deontological libertarian project in this sense seems like it has gaping holes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Justice Department sues Uber for overcharging people with... by recursive4 on Wednesday November 10, 2021 @03:35PM (#29180349)

I share the objectivist standpoint that, as long as wealth is accrued through fair transactions, having occurred without coercion (including monopoly influence) and because parties provided equitable value to each other, it (and its distribution to heirs over time) is ethically acceptable.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Justice Department sues Uber for overcharging people with... by InitialLastName on Wednesday November 10, 2021 @04:20PM (#29180994)

So then you'll agree that in a society where people without jobs are precluded from survival, labor is (in effect) coercive. Thus, any wealth accrued by arbitraging the labor of others was unethically gained and fair game for redistribution up to the point where joblessness is no longer an existential threat?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Justice Department sues Uber for overcharging people with... by josephcsible on Wednesday November 10, 2021 @04:34PM (#29181194)

The fact that you need something to survive doesn't mean that every transaction providing it is coerced. Do you consider it coercion when you shop at the grocery store?

[ Parent | on HN ]