Judge this situation.
Somebody I know doesn't have a parking pass at LU and in the the past year got $30 in tickets and paid them, which is still cheaper than the annual parking pass fee ($90). So, discuss the morality of this. In some sense, it is allowed to park in the lot, but the risk is the ticket. If no tickets are given, that would seem to be the responsibility of LU. But I am personally not sure about this issue so I brought it up here. It is an interesting topic.
Some points: I would consider myself mostly a libertarian or a utilitarian. I could never counter any points made by Ayn Rand in philosophy, Currie in economics, or Mike Mentzer in bodybuilding.
Then one day it hit me - I can't counter their points because they were right and I was wrong. Ouch. That was a tough pill to swallow. Especially in Currie's case, lol. In short, I didn't go on my previous economic of morality tirades because I expected to change my opinion. I was trying to educate people. If you wish, print out what I said and show it to the leading experts in the economics and philosophy community. I'll tell you right now that the sweeping majority of experts in both fields would side with me. By all means, print out what I said and bring it to any professor at your local university and see for yourself. In some sense, I feel that my comments fell on deaf ears though, because I don't think anyone wanted to open their mind to my point of view or knew enough about the topics to further their education with my comments. It would be like teaching stochastic process algebra to someone who had no previous math training. You could argue that I am the close minded one, but I've already debated this topic and made my conclusions after much research and learning about both sides. On the other hand, I suspect the people disagreeing with me had a preset notion and hadn't ever looked at the other side as I did. I also think that if they did they would change their opinions.
It seems very ironic, but my point of view brings greater benefit to the greatest number of people. Any argument against it is actually the selfish one because fewer people benefit and more people are harmed. Ironic, that selfishness can do that, but it is simply reality. So if you want to "live differently" and take the other side, be aware that you end up hurting more people for the sake of yourself in the long run. Again, it must be the mother of ironies, but any economist would tell you the same thing - doing what you think is altruistic sometimes turns into the most selfish decision of them all. This is one of those times.
Some points: I would consider myself mostly a libertarian or a utilitarian. I could never counter any points made by Ayn Rand in philosophy, Currie in economics, or Mike Mentzer in bodybuilding.
Then one day it hit me - I can't counter their points because they were right and I was wrong. Ouch. That was a tough pill to swallow. Especially in Currie's case, lol. In short, I didn't go on my previous economic of morality tirades because I expected to change my opinion. I was trying to educate people. If you wish, print out what I said and show it to the leading experts in the economics and philosophy community. I'll tell you right now that the sweeping majority of experts in both fields would side with me. By all means, print out what I said and bring it to any professor at your local university and see for yourself. In some sense, I feel that my comments fell on deaf ears though, because I don't think anyone wanted to open their mind to my point of view or knew enough about the topics to further their education with my comments. It would be like teaching stochastic process algebra to someone who had no previous math training. You could argue that I am the close minded one, but I've already debated this topic and made my conclusions after much research and learning about both sides. On the other hand, I suspect the people disagreeing with me had a preset notion and hadn't ever looked at the other side as I did. I also think that if they did they would change their opinions.
It seems very ironic, but my point of view brings greater benefit to the greatest number of people. Any argument against it is actually the selfish one because fewer people benefit and more people are harmed. Ironic, that selfishness can do that, but it is simply reality. So if you want to "live differently" and take the other side, be aware that you end up hurting more people for the sake of yourself in the long run. Again, it must be the mother of ironies, but any economist would tell you the same thing - doing what you think is altruistic sometimes turns into the most selfish decision of them all. This is one of those times.