The (new) Official Political Compass Thread - All Users of VGC join in!

[sapphi_snake]

Kasz216 said:

sapphi_snake said:

 

From a strictly economical POV, disregarding human beings and considering them mere figures on some table, your ideea is perfect. If that's the answer you wanted to hear then there it is. Sadly for you, it's a very limited POV, but alas, we all must chose which lords to serve.

Saving more lives is disregarding human beings?  I think we have very different definitions of what "disregarding human beings" means.

For me... it's letting people die for meaningless ideals that aren't even served by the laws inacted. (Since the poor are still likely to be screwed, and more poor will die.)

Ask most family memebers, and i think they'd say they'd rather people save their relatives then their inheretance.

Most would rather live out of government emergency shelters as a family, then be missing people and have their possessions largely intact.

There are other ways to avoid the people dying situation, of course they require time, and socialism-type situations, both of which are a big no no for soem people I guess. Ironically, the research paper you quoted said that the reason products run out very quiclkly is because people buy lots due to the fear of prices increasing. In the end it's all a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.

The part in italics is a typical compromise that only takes into consideration the short term. It's not about keeping you possessions intact, it's about not losing EVERYTHING. You may lose your house to the tornado, but must you lose your money to greedy speculators too? This isn't some grand Hollywood narrative where the victims are heroically save, then End Credits. Life goes on, and it's one thing to lose most of your possesstions to a natural disaster, but to loose what little you have left afterwards to immoral sharlatans? I'm sure that can be avoided.