The Interests of Consumers are the Interests of Humanity

[Xerographica]

A lunch lady over in a Swedish public school was reprimanded for doing her job too well. But not only did she have the audacity to do her job too well...she also had the audacity to summarize the value of capitalism too well...

The food on offer does not always suit all pupils, she explained, and therefore she makes sure there are plenty of vegetables to choose from as well as proteins in the form of chicken, shrimp, or beef patties.

Right now the schools on offer do not suit all pupils...just like the books on offer do not suit all readers...just like the movies on offer do not suit all watchers...just like the musicians on offer do not suit all listeners...just like the clothes on offer do not suit all the fashionistas...just like the medications on offer do not suit all patients...just like the plants on offer do not suit all horticulturalists...and so on and so on.

As consumers we never want less options. Instead, we always want a larger selection of different things. Why do we want different things? Because we are an extremely heterogeneous bunch. We are a melting pot of diverse perspectives, cultures, preferences, tastes, values, interests, concerns, hopes and dreams. Our amazing diversity is our greatest strength because it leads to a greater abundance of the things we value.

Over 100 years ago Bastiat explained this concept too well...

If we now turn to consider the immediate self-interest of the consumer, we shall find that it is in perfect harmony with the general interest, i.e., with what the well-being of mankind requires. When the buyer goes to the market, he wants to find it abundantly supplied. He wants the seasons to be propitious for all the crops; more and more wonderful inventions to bring a greater number of products and satisfactions within his reach; time and labor to be saved; distances to be wiped out; the spirit of peace and justice to permit lessening the burden of taxes; and tariff walls of every sort to fall. In all these respects, the immediate self-interest of the consumer follows a line parallel to that of the public interest. He may extend his secret wishes to fantastic or absurd lengths; yet they will not cease to be in conformity with the interests of his fellow man. He may wish that food and shelter, roof and hearth, education and morality, security and peace, strength and health, all be his without effort, without toil, and without limit, like the dust of the roads, the water of the stream, the air that surrounds us, and the sunlight that bathes us; and yet the realization of these wishes would in no way conflict with the good of society. - Bastiat, Abundance and Scarcity

The problem is...just like superman...our diversity has a kryptonite. If somebody takes away our freedom to choose...then they'll render our diversity powerless. Without being able to choose how we spend our money...then how can producers know when they are producing something that we find suitable? Without an accurate feedback mechanism then limited resources will be wasted. This is the problem with representative economics.

Right now we elect 538 people to represent the economic interests of 150 million taxpayers in the public sector. In other words...we permit 538 people to spend 1/4 of our nation's revenue in the public sector. That's over $3.5 trillion dollars being spent without an accurate feedback mechanism.

Clearly we don't all agree on how that $3.5 trillion dollars should be spent in the public sector...but that's a good thing. Yet...people think it's a good thing when conservative and liberal representatives set aside their differences to solve the problems that our country faces. Eh? It's a good thing when we force 538 representative to agree on how they spend our money in the public sector?

If our diversity is our greatest strength in the private sector...then why is it a good thing to demolish our diversity in the public sector? How does forcing people, who have very different perspectives, to tackle the same problem from the same angle help anybody? It doesn't. It hurts us all. We all benefit from multiple approaches because it increases the probability that one approach will be successful.

The value of heterogeneous activity...aka hedging our bets...aka not putting all our eggs in the same basket...helps us understand why it would be an improvement to allow taxpayers to choose which congressperson they gave their taxes to and why it would be an exponentially greater improvement to allow taxpayers to choose which government organizations they gave their taxes to.

Bastiat offers an excellent overview...

1. Our economic representatives aren't superior enough to override our choices
2. Public goods, like private goods, are simply acts of exchange
3. The choices of consumers are the driving force behind abundance

1. Economic representatives aren't that superior...

Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority. - Bastiat

If our economic representatives were truly superior enough to know better than millions and millions of consumers...then this would be as true in the private sector as it is in the public sector. But if you value the options you do have...then you should know for a fact that this is not true. The options that we have in the private sector are a direct result of our freedom to choose how we spend our money. Take away our spending decisions and our diversity, which is our greatest strength, will be as useless as superman swimming in kryptonite.

2. It doesn't matter whether a good is public or private...it's either worth exchanging your money for...or it isn't...

Thus, considered in themselves, in their own nature, in their normal state, and apart from all abuses, public services are, like private services, purely and simply acts of exchange. - Bastiat

Public goods are only different from private goods because we want more of them than we believe that the private sector would be able to supply on its own. It's not that a non-profit militia couldn't provide national defense...it's just that most people are relatively certain that it wouldn't provide enough defense. It's not that the non-profit sector doesn't provide welfare...it's just that liberals are relatively certain that it doesn't provide enough welfare. This just proves that the demand for public goods exists. Therefore, the problem is on the supply side. More specifically...the supply would be inadequate because people can free-ride off of other people's contributions to non-profits. We solve this problem by forcing people to pay taxes and by allowing government organizations to produce public goods. But once these steps are taken...it's completely unnecessary and extremely counterproductive to take the additional step of demolishing our diversity by allowing representatives to determine how our taxes should be spent in the public sector.

3. Human flourishing absolutely depends on protecting the interests of consumers...

Treat all economic questions from the viewpoint of the consumer, for the interests of the consumer are the interests of the human race. - Bastiat

Taxpayers bear the cost of public goods which is why they alone are capable of determining which public goods are worth the cost. Will they find all their options in the public sector to be perfectly suitable? No...of course not. This basic fact will guarantee that taxpayers will support the audacious lunch ladies of the public sector. It will ensure that the most successful approaches will gain funding and failed approaches will lose funding.

Diversity + choice = progress.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Copypasta

http://pragmatarianism.blogspot.co.uk/

http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics ... -race.html

[Tubbsalot]

Right now we elect 538 people

Speak for yourself, cultural imperialist.

What you fail to understand is that while consumers superficially represent most of humanity, consumer behaviour occupies only a relatively small piece of the pie chart of human behaviour. So given that people sometimes act as consumers, it doesn't follow that we should mould our society around some sort of consumer ideal.

Of course, even if you were right, it would still be false that untempered consumerism was good for humanity. That much should be obvious. Resources aren't infinite.

Copypasta

Yeah but it is copied from himself, though, so I think we can find it within ourselves not to give too huge of a shit.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Copypasta

Yeah but it is copied from himself, though, so I think we can find it within ourselves not to give too huge of a shit.

Perhaps they are paid to do this.

[Xerographica]

Copypasta

http://pragmatarianism.blogspot.co.uk/

http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics ... -race.html

Errrr...what's your point? I can't post anything here that I also post to my blog? Is that really a rule?

[L Ron Cupboard]

Copypasta

http://pragmatarianism.blogspot.co.uk/

http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics ... -race.html

Errrr...what's your point? I can't post anything here that I also post to my blog? Is that really a rule?

I didn't notice that the blog was yours initially, so I thought it was covered by the copy and paste rule from the one stop rules shop. So I am going to shut up and leave it for a Mod.

[Xerographica]

Right now we elect 538 people

Speak for yourself, cultural imperialist.

Actually I don't vote...I was just speaking in general. Not quite sure what you mean by cultural imperialist.

What you fail to understand is that while consumers superficially represent most of humanity, consumer behaviour occupies only a relatively small piece of the pie chart of human behaviour. So given that people sometimes act as consumers, it doesn't follow that we should mould our society around some sort of consumer ideal.

Every human action is in response to some scarcity that warrants our effort. Therefore, every action is consumption...if in no other sense that you're spending your limited time reading this. Aren't there better things you could be spending your limited time on? Aren't there better public goods that you could be spending your taxes on? If I believe I know the answers to these questions...then I'll share my information with you in the hopes of persuading you. Take away persuasion and there's no information.

Of course, even if you were right, it would still be false that untempered consumerism was good for humanity. That much should be obvious. Resources aren't infinite.

The "best" use of limited resources can only be determined by all our opportunity cost decisions. Take away our opportunity cost decisions and scarce resources will most certainly be wasted. In other words...if somebody takes away your spending decisions (which reveal your true preferences) then the distribution of resources will no longer reflect your preferences.

[Xerographica]

I didn't notice that the blog was yours initially, so I thought it was covered by the copy and paste rule from the one stop rules shop. So I am going to shut up and leave it for a Mod.

LOL...you conducted a search just because you wanted to bust me for being a copypasta? Heh...that's funny. How much would I have to pay you to copy and paste one of my blog entries to 100 forums?

[Tubbsalot]

Actually I don't vote...I was just speaking in general. Not quite sure what you mean by cultural imperialist.

538 is only for Americans, who make up ~50% of this forum. (also i was joking)

Every human action is in response to some scarcity that warrants our effort. Therefore, every action is consumption...if in no other sense that you're spending your limited time reading this. Aren't there better things you could be spending your limited time on? Aren't there better public goods that you could be spending your taxes on? If I believe I know the answers to these questions...then I'll share my information with you in the hopes of persuading you. Take away persuasion and there's no information.

Well then you've fallen in to the trap of many 'purist' ideologies which attempt to describe all things in terms of one motivator; you've stretched the definition of 'consumer' beyond all sense and usefulness.

If you're arguing - in contravention of all linguistic convention - that consumption is literally everything, then yes, I suppose I have to agree that consumer behaviour makes up all human behaviour and we should mould everything around it. That just leaves you with the challenge of why, exactly, it is useful to say "in designing a socio-economic system, we should take account of things we care about."

The "best" use of limited resources can only be determined by all our opportunity cost decisions. Take away our opportunity cost decisions and scarce resources will most certainly be wasted. In other words...if somebody takes away your spending decisions (which reveal your true preferences) then the distribution of resources will no longer reflect your preferences.

The body of humanity is notoriously short-sighted and wilfully blind. Just look at popular reception to global warming - even in countries which aren't insane, there's a significant minority of people who reject everything we know. Asserting that this popular decision-making process will maximise happiness is not going to convince me.

[Xerographica]

If you're arguing - in contravention of all linguistic convention - that consumption is literally everything, then yes, I suppose I have to agree that consumer behaviour makes up all human behaviour and we should mould everything around it. That just leaves you with the challenge of why, exactly, it is useful to say "in designing a socio-economic system, we should take account of things we care about."

Errr...because that's the basis of abundance. You sacrifice your cattle to your god and I'll sacrifice my cattle to my god. Why would we sacrifice something we value? Because we are hoping to profit. To sacrifice/spend is where you give up something you value in exchange for another thing that you value even more. But maybe your god doesn't exist? Maybe my god doesn't exist? Maybe neither of our gods exist?

By being tolerant of each other's spending decisions...we're hedging our bets that we'll stumble upon profitability. So you give your taxes to your government organizations...and I'll give my taxes to my government organizations.

The body of humanity is notoriously short-sighted and wilfully blind. Just look at popular reception to global warming - even in countries which aren't insane, there's a significant minority of people who reject everything we know. Asserting that this popular decision-making process will maximise happiness is not going to convince me.

You either acknowledge that you're just a blind man touching something that you're certain isn't an elephant (when in truth it is)...or you swear up and down that there's no possibility that you're wrong.

But I don't necessarily embrace fallibilism or tolerance for their own sake...I embrace them because if I force you take my path...then it decreases the probability that we, as the human race, will discover new paths to greater abundance. That's why progress absolutely depends on heterogeneous activity.

[Tubbsalot]

Errr...because that's the basis of abundance. You sacrifice your cattle to your god and I'll sacrifice my cattle to my god. Why would we sacrifice something we value? Because we are hoping to profit.

Taking the example of someone giving up their possessions to attain 'spiritual enlightenment'... they're giving up everything of monetary value to satisfy an irrational emotional desire. Do you classify this as profit-seeking? If so, you have again stretched the definition beyond the point of usefulness. Profit is a monetary term.

By being tolerant of each other's spending decisions...we're hedging our bets that we'll stumble upon profitability. So you give your taxes to your government organizations...and I'll give my taxes to my government organizations.

I'm pretty sure we're tolerant of each others' spending decisions because we don't care, because it doesn't affect us. Not everything is down to some sort of social phenomenon.

You either acknowledge that you're just a blind man touching something that you're certain isn't an elephant (when in truth it is)...or you swear up and down that there's no possibility that you're wrong.

But I don't necessarily embrace fallibilism or tolerance for their own sake...I embrace them because if I force you take my path...then it decreases the probability that we, as the human race, will discover new paths to greater abundance. That's why progress absolutely depends on heterogeneous activity.

I entirely accept the possibility that climate change isn't a thing. However, the vast bulk of our extensive evidence supports the theory. This is neither the blind man's elephant, nor dogmatic certainty. We know, statistically, that the scientific method is a valid and very powerful tool for discerning reality (assuming that reality is something we can discern in the first place, which I will immediately assume, because that sort of problem is best left to hopeless pedants). So what you've done is, you've committed exactly what you were accusing me of.

And yes, I don't think anyone disputes that we're not perfect, and we can improve, and the more things we try the greater the chance we'll find an improved way to do things. Again, you now need to show that this is a useful observation - that is, one which other people have not made billions of times already.

[Xerographica]

538 is only for Americans, who make up ~50% of this forum. (also i was joking)

Oh oh...I just got the joke. Better late than never I suppose. Yeah...when I taught English in China I taught my students all about the value of transparency in the public sector. So I definitely can't deny the charge. But I'm way more of an economic imperialist...but in the sense that I apply economics to other fields of study.

[Trotskylvania]

As consumers we never want less options. Instead, we always want a larger selection of different things. Why do we want different things? Because we are an extremely heterogeneous bunch. We are a melting pot of diverse perspectives, cultures, preferences, tastes, values, interests, concerns, hopes and dreams. Our amazing diversity is our greatest strength because it leads to a greater abundance of the things we value.

False. An increased number of options makes it harder to choose anything, and makes the act of choosing between alternatives more psychologically stressful. People get worn out by shopping more now than ever because they are bombarded by a bewildering array of choices that have totally opaque consequences.

[Esternial]

Modularity is the new concept. Tanks, sandwiches, tank-shaped sandwiches, etc.

All of them start off from a basic template and offer modules to upgrade it to the buyer's specifications.

A tomato module, an active defense system module, ablative armour plating and extra mayo. All of it.

[Xerographica]

Taking the example of someone giving up their possessions to attain 'spiritual enlightenment'... they're giving up everything of monetary value to satisfy an irrational emotional desire. Do you classify this as profit-seeking? If so, you have again stretched the definition beyond the point of usefulness. Profit is a monetary term.

You are fundamentally misunderstanding why somebody would sacrifice something of value to a god. See that thread for my argument. When you chose to click on this thread you were engaging in profit seeking behavior. You were hoping to find something that was worth your time. All I can know is that right now you are sacrificing all the other things that you could currently be spending your time doing. So yes...I don't use "profit" in the strictly monetary sense...and it definitely does not stretch the definition beyond usefulness. It helps us analyze people's behavior from the economic perspective...which is, from my perspective, priceless.

It is through the gaze of my extinguished self that I realize the limitations that make scarcity necessary. Through this gaze into my own limitedness - a limit always established by the impending cessation of space and time for me - through this gift of death, I discover in nature the best way to be efficient. Thanks to death I must choose x rather than y. This has become a feature of 'nature' - a demystified 'nature' that bears no possibility of participation in the eternal. This is consistent with capitalism. - D. Stephen Long

By being tolerant of each other's spending decisions...we're hedging our bets that we'll stumble upon profitability. So you give your taxes to your government organizations...and I'll give my taxes to my government organizations.

I'm pretty sure we're tolerant of each others' spending decisions because we don't care, because it doesn't affect us. Not everything is down to some sort of social phenomenon.

Not really...read the thread I linked to above. Liberals don't support pragmatarianism because they would not tolerate conservatives spending decisions and vice versa. Errr...sorry for the cultural imperialism but I get dyslexic regarding how you folks use those terms across the pond.

I entirely accept the possibility that climate change isn't a thing. However, the vast bulk of our extensive evidence supports the theory. This is neither the blind man's elephant, nor dogmatic certainty. We know, statistically, that the scientific method is a valid and very powerful tool for discerning reality (assuming that reality is something we can discern in the first place, which I will immediately assume, because that sort of problem is best left to hopeless pedants). So what you've done is, you've committed exactly what you were accusing me of.

First off...I'm an atheist tree hugger (meaning I believe in climate change)...but I'm really capable of stepping outside my own perspective. Second off...I never accused you of being dogmatic. In a pragmatarian system you'd allocate your taxes according to your beliefs and other people would allocate their taxes to their own beliefs.

But personally...I find it extremely important to accept it as fact that the people in the future are going to laugh at us for firmly believing things that are absolutely not true. I don't think that climate change is one of these things...but nobody believes that their fundamental truths are wrong. It's always the other people whose fundamental truths are wrong. That's the challenge to overcome.

And yes, I don't think anyone disputes that we're not perfect, and we can improve, and the more things we try the greater the chance we'll find an improved way to do things. Again, you now need to show that this is a useful observation - that is, one which other people have not made billions of times already.

I argued that this observation is just as useful in the public sector as it is in the private sector. So the burden is on you to prove that we're better off by allowing our economic representatives to spend our money for us in the public sector. We're not perfect...therefore let's allow 538 people to spend 1/4 of our nation's revenue? We're not perfect so let's put too many eggs in one imperfect basket? It just doesn't follow.

The private sector, via our consumption decisions, weeds out the organizations that fail to provide people with more for less. The same is definitely not true in the public sector. Government organizations do not compete for our taxes. If a government organization fails at successfully, effectively, efficiently supplying a public good then you can't withhold your taxes from it. Like I mentioned in my original post...the accurate feedback mechanism just does not exist in the public sector.

[Xerographica]

False. An increased number of options makes it harder to choose anything, and makes the act of choosing between alternatives more psychologically stressful. People get worn out by shopping more now than ever because they are bombarded by a bewildering array of choices that have totally opaque consequences.

Sometimes when I'm reading an article I get overwhelmed when I have to read all the 100s and 100s of comments that people post. It's the same thing here...it takes up all my time to read every single post in every single thread. I wish people would post less...I barely have time to do anything else.

Like I said in my original post...nobody would force you to directly allocate your taxes. If somebody did choose to directly allocate their taxes...well then...evidently it's a priority for them to do so.

[Tubbsalot]

Taking the example of someone giving up their possessions to attain 'spiritual enlightenment'... they're giving up everything of monetary value to satisfy an irrational emotional desire. Do you classify this as profit-seeking? If so, you have again stretched the definition beyond the point of usefulness. Profit is a monetary term.

You are fundamentally misunderstanding why somebody would sacrifice something of value to a god. See that thread for my argument. When you chose to click on this thread you were engaging in profit seeking behavior. You were hoping to find something that was worth your time. All I can know is that right now you are sacrificing all the other things that you could currently be spending your time doing. So yes...I don't use "profit" in the strictly monetary sense...and it definitely does not stretch the definition beyond usefulness. It helps us analyze people's behavior from the economic perspective...which is, from my perspective, priceless.

But you're not analysing it from an economic perspective. You're attempting to analyse it comprehensively, in its entirety. Putting it into the language of economics doesn't change that. You can call it 'the economic perspective' when you're assuming a person is the traditional perfectly rational agent, you can call it the same when you include irrational emotional desires in the equation (as you might when looking at the entertainment industry), but once your equations are composed largely of factors outside the remit of economics, it becomes at best an inaccurate naming convention. Why call my clicking on this thread "profit-seeking behaviour" when it's more accurately described as "procrastination"? What's the point of abstracting everything to fit this arbitrary classification scheme?

Not really...read the thread I linked to above. Liberals don't support pragmatarianism because they would not tolerate conservatives spending decisions and vice versa. Errr...sorry for the cultural imperialism but I get dyslexic regarding how you folks use those terms across the pond.

I don't even know what pragmatarianism is. A brief google search suggests it's some sort of libertarian buzzword (no doubt something they consider good; no-one would ever name something "pragmatarianism" unless they really wanted it to be right. You might as well name it "perfectism").

Er, also, you linked to this thread.

First off...I'm an atheist tree hugger (meaning I believe in climate change)...but I'm really capable of stepping outside my own perspective. Second off...I never accused you of being dogmatic. In a pragmatarian system you'd allocate your taxes according to your beliefs and other people would allocate their taxes to their own beliefs.

But personally...I find it extremely important to accept it as fact that the people in the future are going to laugh at us for firmly believing things that are absolutely not true. I don't think that climate change is one of these things...but nobody believes that their fundamental truths are wrong. It's always the other people whose fundamental truths are wrong. That's the challenge to overcome.

This isn't the 1700s. Lamarckian evolution isn't considered a serious hypothesis any more. You need to have serious mathematics to back this stuff up, and the validity of mathematics cannot be described as a function f(t). That is to say, the future will not laugh at modern-day hard sciences, and we can say this with a great degree of certainty.

I argued that this observation is just as useful in the public sector as it is in the private sector. So the burden is on you to prove that we're better off by allowing our economic representatives to spend our money for us in the public sector. We're not perfect...therefore let's allow 538 people to spend 1/4 of our nation's revenue? We're not perfect so let's put too many eggs in one imperfect basket? It just doesn't follow.

The private sector, via our consumption decisions, weeds out the organizations that fail to provide people with more for less. The same is definitely not true in the public sector. Government organizations do not compete for our taxes. If a government organization fails at successfully, effectively, efficiently supplying a public good then you can't withhold your taxes from it. Like I mentioned in my original post...the accurate feedback mechanism just does not exist in the public sector.

Oh. Is that what we're talking about? I wish I'd been warned. The reasons a state is economically desirable are very much distinct from whatever it is we've been discussing so far.

I do have work to do though, and this explanation is taking a while, so I'm going to put it off.

[Red Razel]

Modularity is the new concept. Tanks, sandwiches, tank-shaped sandwiches, etc.

All of them start off from a basic template and offer modules to upgrade it to the buyer's specifications.

A tomato module, an active defense system module, ablative armour plating and extra mayo. All of it.

There is a poetic elegance here that stirs my heart and pastes a grin upon my face.

[Xerographica]

But you're not analysing it from an economic perspective. You're attempting to analyse it comprehensively, in its entirety. Putting it into the language of economics doesn't change that. You can call it 'the economic perspective' when you're assuming a person is the traditional perfectly rational agent, you can call it the same when you include irrational emotional desires in the equation (as you might when looking at the entertainment industry), but once your equations are composed largely of factors outside the remit of economics, it becomes at best an inaccurate naming convention. Why call my clicking on this thread "profit-seeking behaviour" when it's more accurately described as "procrastination"? What's the point of abstracting everything to fit this arbitrary classification scheme?

Why call it procrastination when you can call it failing to give up momentary pleasure for future benefit? Your behavior either results in a loss or a gain. All I know is that you're gaining something by engaging me in discussion...or else you wouldn't be doing it. Is it rational to live in the moment? Or is it irresponsible?

It doesn't matter because if you're going to consistently waste your time being unproductive then chances are pretty good that you're not going to be a taxpayer....therefore you wouldn't be relevant to my argument that taxpayers should be allowed to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to. I'm not referring to you specifically...I'm just speaking generally.

I don't even know what pragmatarianism is. A brief google search suggests it's some sort of libertarian buzzword (no doubt something they consider good; no-one would ever name something "pragmatarianism" unless they really wanted it to be right. You might as well name it "perfectism").

Pragmatarianism, aka tax choice, is where taxpayers can choose which government organizations they give their taxes to. It's what I've been arguing for all along.

Er, also, you linked to this thread.

That's strange...so when you click on this link that I posted above...why somebody would sacrifice...it linked to this thread?

This isn't the 1700s. Lamarckian evolution isn't considered a serious hypothesis any more. You need to have serious mathematics to back this stuff up, and the validity of mathematics cannot be described as a function f(t). That is to say, the future will not laugh at modern-day hard sciences, and we can say this with a great degree of certainty.

But that's what every generation says of their fundamental beliefs. Science is our new religion...and so is politics. Will our accepted scientific facts stand the test of time? Personally I wouldn't bet it on it...but I wouldn't stop you from doing so. But whether you like it or not...we're always in the middle ages.

But have you ever asked yourselves sufficiently how much the erection of every ideal on earth has cost? How much reality has had to be misunderstood and slandered, how many lies have had to be sanctified, how many consciences disturbed, how much "God" sacrificed every time? If a temple is to be erected a temple must be destroyed: that is the law - let anyone who can show me a case in which it is not fulfilled! - Nietzsche

Oh. Is that what we're talking about? I wish I'd been warned. The reasons a state is economically desirable are very much distinct from whatever it is we've been discussing so far.

I do have work to do though, and this explanation is taking a while, so I'm going to put it off.

The opportunity cost concept is the fundamental concept of economics...which is why it's all economics anyways...

By preferring my work, simply by giving it my time, my attention, by preferring my activity as a citizen or as a professional philosopher, writing and speaking here in a public language, French in my case, I am perhaps fulfilling my duty. But I am sacrificing and betraying at every moment all my other obligations: my obligation to the other others whom I know or don’t know, the billions of my fellows (without mentioning the animals that are even more other others than my fellows), my fellows who are dying of starvation or sickness. I betray my fidelity or my obligations to other citizens, to those who don't speak my language and to whom I neither speak or respond, to each of those who listen or read, and to whom I neither respond nor address myself in the proper manner, that is, in a singular manner (this is for the so-called public space to which I sacrifice my so-called private space), thus also to those I love in private, my own, my family, my son, each of whom is the only son I sacrifice to the other, every one being sacrificed to every one else in this land of Moriah that is our habitat every second of every day. - Derrida

[Xerographica]

Modularity is the new concept. Tanks, sandwiches, tank-shaped sandwiches, etc.

All of them start off from a basic template and offer modules to upgrade it to the buyer's specifications.

A tomato module, an active defense system module, ablative armour plating and extra mayo. All of it.

There is a poetic elegance here that stirs my heart and pastes a grin upon my face.

What's going on here? Who ordered spontaneous poetry? I didn't even know it was on the menu. What else is on the menu that I'm not aware of? Spontaneous interpretive dancing of consumerism? Are poetry and dancing really going to solve the problems facing our nation? In the absence of tolerance how would we ever truly know?

So go ahead and dance like nobody is watching. Make your sandwich like nobody will judge you. And spend your taxes on tanks and tambourines.

What's on the public menu should be up to all of us...but what you order should be up to you and you alone.