> If it didn't satisfy anyones desire, it was pointless.

I dunno.

There's a lot of PHBs who have petty tyrant syndrome. They desire their employees in the office.

Then there's a lot of people in the CBD who desire to continue selling their wares to the people working in the CBD.

There's letting companies who desire income from the letting arrangements, landlords who desire income enough to pay the city tax ...

On the whole, I agree with WFH; I just don't think it's a good exercise to justify anything based on what people desire.

I don't agree. It's totally fair to disqualify some desires as less important than others. I think we all agree that a tyrants desire to be a tyrant isn't worth taking into consideration.

Someone selling wares don't usually desire selling wares. They desire income. Everybody wants income. Buying something we don't want/need is waste + redistribution of currency.

Redistribution of currency is a zero sum game unless we have some reason to particularly value the desires of the ones receiving. I don't see why we should particularly value the desires of landlords.

> I just don't think it's a good exercise to justify anything based on what people desire.

What alternative do you propose?