"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true." - James Branch Cabell

***

2 views on why it's alright to get ripped off in the Third World:


Someone else on getting ripped off in the Third World: ahah expected
that I don't really think about it

Me: this is why I hate the third world

Someone else: haiyah
not like they can earn much
and not like it's that ex

Me: it can be
and it's the principle

Someone else: >_> that would be something I disagree with

Me: so are you against poor people pickpocketing you?

Someone else: geez
that's the extreme end of things

Me: same principle

Someone else: well, we come from a position of privilege

Me: that doesn't mean we owe those who don't a living

Someone else: I see how this is
well, it's a fundamental difference in opinion anyway

Me: no, you're being inconsistent

Someone else: go third world country of course have to pay more
hmm

Me: why?

Someone else: I guess because I expect different standards
of what is the right thing to pay or not

Me: so is it okay if I am a Malay who runs a nasi lemak stall and charges Chinese more?

Someone else: in sg?

Me: yes

Someone else: the malays here don't live in abject poverty
it's not a race thing

even certain parts of china, or africa
guess I would expect

why be stingy?

Me: the Chinese in singapore are in a position of Privilege

Someone else: hahahaah well, you hadn't lived in indonesia then

Me: yes, the normal indons thought the Chinese were in a position of Privilege
which was why they felt justified in stealing from them, raping them and kidnapping them

Someone else: but they were actually pretty marginalized

Me: that doesn't justify theft

Someone else: I don't see it as the same thing, to pay more for goods/services and theft

Me: again, I point to the nasi lemak example

Someone else: not in sg

Me: this is called special pleading

Someone else: okay lor
as I said, I hold 3rd world countries when travelling there to different standards

Me: I am against discrimination


HWMNBN on getting ripped off in the Third World: don't think of it as being ripped off - think of it as helping the less fortunate. That's how i console myself:)

Me: yes
monetary transfers to undeserving recipients - that's the definition of charity

HWMNBN: *smiles* ayn rand would agree with you
that's also the definition of taxation

Me: sorry
not undeserving
what's the word I was looking for

unearned

HWMNBN: food aid is often unearned

Me: unearned does not mean unjust
I believe in giving to charity

HWMNBN: so why is it okay to give to charity, but not to get ripped off by a taxi? in both cases, the person (arguably) *needs* it more than you do

and at least in the latter, you get a service in return

Me: because in one case it's voluntary

HWMNBN: you didn't have to take the taxi
didn' tyou ask him up front?

Me: that's like saying you don't have to eat

HWMNBN: in that cse, everything is coereced then

Me: I didn't say it was coerced

HWMNBN: willing buyer willing seller

at least you had the choice not to sit in the taxi
i have to pay my fuckin tax
(although arguably i could migrate to brunei)

Me: you can move to the cayman [islands]

HWMNBN: that's like saying i don't have to work

Me: if I didn't sit in the taxi I'd have to walk to my hotel

HWMNBN: willing buyer willing seller
if it's a natural monopoly
they'll rent seek

Me: I'm sure even you can see how that's different from charity

HWMNBN: i can see hwo it's different from charity
which is why i hate both charity AND being ripped of

Me: that does not follow

HWMNBN: yes it does

one is voluntary
one is less than voluntary
but they're both about the needy taking from the haves

i reject the principle that need prevails over merit

no scratch that

i reject the principle that other needs prevail over mine
:)

Me: no
one is the haves giving to the needy
very different

HWMNBN: well in the case of the taxi driver
he's probably needy too
(unless you're saying he's a multimillinoatire battened on the largesse of tourists)

Me: I don't dispute that he needs the money more than me

when the revolution comes and you rich bankers get your mansions looted, the needy will also benefit more from your jewels than you

HWMNBN: well, put it this way, while i accept that it should be voluntary rather than coerced, i just find it amusingly dissonant that some people are okay with voluntarily giving for free, but not with overpaying the needy for some pittance service.

however i accept the moral principle that voluntary choice trumps involuntary squeezing. i just find people holding the above inconsistent and irrational, even as i accept their right to be.

Me: there's no inconsistency and irrationality here

it's like a woman who engages in acting out rape fantasies making a police report when she gets groped in the MRT

HWMNBN: bad analogy. there's a distciontion in outcomes between fantasy and groping.

in the taxi case, the outcome is the same

the only difference is that in on ecase the outcome was voluntary while in the other it wasn't

Me: then rape fantasies and getting raped, if you like

HWMNBN: even more different outcome

Me: no
in both cases there's "rape"

HWMNBN: my point is, why is it "okay" to give something for ntohing *voluntarily*, but not to be ripped off for it involuntarily? :) if the outcome - ie. transfer of wealth to the needy is the same

Me: only difference is lack of consent

why is it okay to be raped *voluntarily* but not to be raped against your will if the outcome is the same?

HWMNBN: in the first place, "raped voluntarily" is an oxymoron
so that argument doesn't really hold

Me: you know what I mean

HWMNBN: well, female mate choice prevails. in "voluntary" rape the woman probably has chosen her rapist
in being raped against her will she hasn't

Me: then like that someone who gives to charity should be happy to be pickpocketed by a poor boy

in charity I choose my recipient

HWMNBN: poor people are fungible
mate choice isn't

Me: that's irrelevant
and in charity you choose who to give to, when, how much etc

HWMNBN: it's very relevant
ie. if you're going to give to a poor person, why not this one instead of that one?
wehreas if you'r egong to fuck someone, a case can be made that mate choice applies

Me: because it's your choice
like that you can choose which taxi driver to be ripped off by

HWMNBN: *thoughtfully* i intuitively accept that autonomy/volition/agency somehow make a moral difference here
i just can't figure out *why*

anyway
especially sinec the outcomes are, to my mind, fungible

ie. the same
anyway

Me: that's why no one is a pure utilitarian

HWMNBN: *grins* i prefer my own moral system here - they're all undeserving fuckers
at least it has the benefit of consistency

Me: consistency is a minor virtue

HWMNBN: not to me