You say that it's a question of individual choice. And yet when he makes a choice, you want to punish him for it.
How many times do I have to repeat myself. I don't want to punish him.. there is nothing else to be said about this matter. I don't want to punish him. Accept that and move on with a valid argument please.
So it's not really a matter of individual choice for you, but rather a matter of punishing someone who wasn't compelled to make the choice you wanted him to make.
LOL... every choice somebody makes has consequences. I am not advocating a government or legal consequence. I am stating the obvious that there will be a consequence if this behavior continues. I don't have to play a hand in either the behavior or the consequence.. it's a matter of human agency, hence it's a natural consequence, not a government enforced one that I am advocating.
It is too a matter of economic structure. In our capitalistic society, if you are able to pay for a good or service you are able to acquire it. If you are not able to pay for a good or service you are not allowed to acquire it. It's as simple as that. It is also not my fault that our society is that way.
I agree with you about acquiring goods and services, but pricing is subjective... and so are individual circumstances. Also pricing isn't just a capitalistic structure, everything has a cost or some form of opportunity cost.
In Soviet Russia, government set price
In Soviet Russia, private market or CVS clerk couldn't lower price without government punishment
So, again, you are against people behaving in a certain way but you don't want to use laws to regulate that behavior. If it's not worth making a law about then it's not worth punishing the people who pursue that behavior.
I do want people to behave a certain way, we all do. There doesn't have to be a government consequence for everything.. there are natural consequences.
I expect the children I babysit to be respectful in public places and not scream at the top of their lungs. I don't have to ask the government to get involved.
Do you mind if I act a certain way by taking a crap on your bed? If you don't like my behavior you better call the government and tell them to regulate.
So either you don't want to enact a law, which means this clerk was in the right, or you do want to enact a law in order to prohibit his behavior. Which is it?
I don't want to enact a law.. as I always said. Why can't you believe me?
You're right. If the girl and her boyfriend acted responsibly for themselves and carried enough money to deal with emergencies for their own medical conditions, they wouldn't be trying to put the blame on a clerk or a store for their lack of responsibility.
Speaking of punishment.. when you use words like responsibility you are trying to morally justify behavior of one party over the other. You are making a moral judgement, and saying the clerk had a moral duty to punish the couple for lack of responsibility.... How ironic.
I don't believe in social punishment or even social punishment is absolute.. It is not a collective agent. As I have said before I am a libertarian or a minianarchist (I am not too big on labels and it isn't important), but I believe social compassion should take precedent to social punishment, and it naturally does when government is drastically removed- it's a common survival instinct.
I am against this form of social punishment that you advocate. The government always steps in to punish and guide punishment.. the government's authority here is absolute, not the societies. I don't think punishment is necessary for human beings to thrive in a social setting with limited to no government. Trying to create an agency that seeks to punish others, is a self sustaining cycle of government bondage. Keep this behavior up and the government soon be here to help this woman and others like her.
Yeah, and then that clerk would be able to file assault charges on the boyfriend. It's not the clerk's fault the store fixes the price of the inhaler. It's not the clerk's fault we live in a capitalistic society. To punish him for it would be totally unfair.
Of course they will press assault charges on my bf.. lol. That isn't the point. The point is is that people's loved one's don't stand around to watch them die without action or reaction. If the clerk chooses to stand there and watch me die rather than help, then he isn't helping society. If CVS protects this behavior, then CVS isn't helping society.. and if the behavior continues, consumers will find a another pharmacy to take their business to
So at first you say how the clerk is in the moral wrong for not being charitable, but then you say violent backlash is justified when someone doesn't act charitable. So then you go from the moral right of charity to moral-induced extortion. "Be nice, or I'll punch your face in." How is that morally justified?
I am not talking about violent backlash.. I am talking about consumer backlash..
And in the case of myself and my boyfriend, you wouldn't feel morally justified in violently reacting to somebody refusing to help your loved one? It's matter of subjectivity, but when our lives are threatened and we see an individual as a threat to that life, we usually react to that individual with violence. It's act of survival and preservation. I am not saying I am morally correct and others are wrong. It's not a matter of understanding morals, but the sociology of humans. You really are misunderstanding my beliefs.
There may be consumer backlash, yes. But that is not the job for the clerk to deal with - that is the job for the manager.
I am not saying anything otherwise.. The manager judges for themselves the scope of this clerk's behavior. If I were the manager, I know what I would do. I am not saying this clerk should be punished by law. I don't agree with the clerk, but I don't expect a clerk to understand business so well that they understand this concept either. That is why there is management. If management protects this clerk's behavior, then they can deal with a potential consumer backlash.
You say that there doesn't have to be legal consequences, but then you mentioned that if this happened to you and you died your family would take someone to court. So you've just contradicted yourself. So which is it? Should their be legal consequences regarding these things or shouldn't there? What should be the guidelines for those legalities?
If I
died I know
my family would go to court. There are lawyers in my family, it's no question.
Until the public forgets about the whole incident, in which he can be fired nice and quietly, without the public backlash.
It depends on who it happens to and how quietly it is resolved between the two parties..
But you didn't say that he should stay hired or be fired because of productivity. You said he should be fired because of this one incident. So according to you, and many others, it doesn't matter what his employee history is - is you want him punished for this one event.
If I said he should be fired.. that isn't the only thing that I have said. In my own idealistic society, under my idealistic form of social structure- this would not have happened and if it did, it would not be tolerated. Firing him would be acceptable, and it is acceptable within the context of society as it is now. However, it really is up to mgt but it should be addressed in some fashion.
