Well, we could allocate each American the US Standard Car and the US Standard Breakfast Meal and they can wear the US Standard Clothing, but there are societies that tried that and there are societies that have done what the US has done and our poor people are better than their 75th percentile, so I think having different incomes and charging more for more services is okay.
Can you explain how this relates to my comment above? There was no sentiment there that all people should have the same possessions and experiences. The point of the post was that objective price can't be evaluated without consideration of the actual subjective cost it represents to people.
I think you should be able to query it for comprehension. I wrote it from your perspective to get you started.
I tried it out with a conversation and it was able to have a very reasonable discussion about the subject. Should be easier than having to wait for my reply.
You didn't even try to explain. At no point did you even phrase your idea in the language I used, or connect your idea to the broader conversation. You brought in a conclusion without any hint of the work you put in to get to that conclusion. The conclusion may very well be valid, but you have to show your work or else others won't be able to follow.
You're taking gradient of availability but he's talking about the fact that this gradient is dependent on pwrsonal income. You're missing his point.
If a medicine costs one million, you probably will agree it's only for the wealthy? Now, it's just a question of the price limit you assign to "reserved to the wealthy", that's all. You may have a different threshold here, but I find it hard denying there is a threshold.
You stating the "wealthy threshold" is not reached, you're not celebrating a threshold which has not been reached according to your standards.
What you are writing in your previous answers makes little sense, it almost sound alike random words. I won't answer if the next reply doesn't make just a little sense, it feels too much like trolling on your part.
The retort to extremes by bringing failures of Communism do not address any of the key points from the parent comment. Red scare is a concept from the 1950s, time to update the boogeyman.
Of course it's ok to charge for more services but there's a limit until your whole society is divided into an underclass and an overclass sharing the same spaces, the same rides in a theme park, the same social contexts and can see the divide. That generates social unsatisfaction, people have an inherent sense of fairness (and many animals as well) which can create social tension, boil that to the limit and you have the violence and crime you see in the USA but not in many other developed countries.
The statement about what the US does is the right thing because it's one of the richest countries on Earth is ignorant, or simply naïve. Also, a comical clichê of Americans worldview.
