Rant about the rights of a business.

[Pedersen]

Way Too Long, But Needed To Be Said

I know I said I was abandoning this thread, but I couldn't ignore it, entirely. Especially since new posts kept getting made, and the "New Posts" link pops up with this thread for me. For the most part, I don't care. However, I'm feeling fairly insulted by a couple of the comments in here. So, I'm going to try and put this out in unambigous terms, and also to explain why the wording matters to me.

I'll be using a USA centric point of view for this. For anybody not in the USA, then some or all of this may not apply to you.

First, the quotes in question that have me really riled up the most:

Oh, come on. You're playing word games here. This is pedantry at its worst.

In the ordinary meaning of the term, a "right" to do something means I can do it without regard to what anyone else thinks, without their interfering.

Actually, the better word for that is "freedom". We have the freedom to do something. We have a freedom to try and improve our lot in life. The freedom to try to turn a profit. The freedom to do something good for somebody else simply because we feel like it.

Yes, I prefer to use the word freedom there. Instead of it being my "right" to do something, I am free to do something. Why diminish my freedoms into mere rights? Rights give me responsibility. Freedoms don't. Rights matter. Freedoms matter more. Don't take away mine (or anybody else's) freedom simply to puff up your own rights. Heck, don't take away your own freedoms, just to puff up your rights. You diminish all of us by claiming a right to something that is really a freedom to do something.

No offense but it's my opinion that you are skewing the term "right" here and turning it into an 'absolute', unecessarily.

Not unnecessarily. Not even close. I'll talk about it more later this post, but recognizing more and more rights is resulting in more and more conflicts that would not exist if we acknowledged these items as freedoms instead of rights. Saying that we have a right to do something means that we have to make sure that everybody gets to do it.

As a business owner It is my right to charge whatever amount I see fit for the service or product that I am providing. It is my Duty to attempt to turn a proffit on said services and/or products, otherwise I can't stay in business. Now theres alot that people don't see that goes into the pricing for any product. You have all types of overhead, equipment, rent, taxes, employee costs (if you have employee's) etc, all this has to be covered by the prices you charge.

Now on the otherhand, as a consumer, I have the duty to try and find the lowest price/best deal on whatever product it is that I am purchasing. The costs involved in getting this product and service need to be figured in here as well, S&H, Gas, Time, etc. Does this give me the right as a consumer to be a jerk trying to haggle, bargin, or search out the lowest price? HELL NO.

And I'm the one who gets accused of semantics shenanigans? (see below) Wow. Businesses have a "right" to turn the profit, but consumers have only a "duty" to shop as best they can? Why does the consumer not have the right to get the best deal they can? Only a duty to do so? But I'M the one playing word games here.

You noticed the semantics shenanigans, too?

Semantics shenaigans? This one little dig, more than anything else, is what has ticked me off to no end. No, these are not semantics shenanigans. There is a real problem in this country where money and distribution of wealth is concerned. People want to work their way up a financial ladder? No problem. Have at it, more power to you. And if you're selling something I want/need, I'll come knocking, I can assure you. And I have no problems paying for what I'm buying, none at all. After all, you do have it, and I don't. Why shouldn't I pay you for it?

Want money for free from me? Sorry, no deal. There's only a very few people that get money for free from me. Family, friends, and the government. And I don't have any choice in the latter one, or the government wouln't get it, either. However, more and more people are screaming that they are entitled to money from the government. They have a right to it, since they pay into it so much. And the government gives in, and gives out more money. Which means the government has to take more from me, which leaves me worse off financially. But don't worry, that's only where I get started.

First off, check out the definition of a right: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...ition&ct=title

You'll notice that the vast majority of these definitions cover varying ideas of "correctness". Several of them indicate position. But the one that I'm trying to point out here is this one:

an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature; "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"; "Certain rights can never be granted to the government but must be kept in the hands of the people"- Eleanor Roosevelt; "a right is not something that somebody gives you; it is something that nobody can take away"

In fact, with this definition, it would be fair to say a right is an entitlement. Looking up entitlement on Roget's online thesaurus gives "right" as a synonym*. So, let's change the original statement, using the new synonym?

Its about the right that businesses have to make a profit!!!

becomes: Its about the entitlement that businesses have to make a profit!!!

I wonder, do any of those above have issues with entitlements of some sort? Let's check:

Pagan: http://www.customerssuck.com/board/s...285#post175285

I'm gonna have to agree with everyone else. You absolutely were not the sucky one here. Sorry, but closing time is closing time, and being in a wheelchair doesn't grant you "special make up your own shopping hours"!

digilight: http://www.customerssuck.com/board/s...051#post153051

The thing that always pissed me off when I worked at BK were the people who would order Fries "no salt" and then ask for salt at the window.

SuperB: http://www.customerssuck.com/board/s...803#post174803

I have a guy that's been coming in who seems to think that because he has a cup and bought a cup of coffee somewhere at some point in his life, that he's entitled to a "refill" anywhere he goes.

Auto: http://www.customerssuck.com/board/s...077#post151077

Members of minority groups are prone to BELIEVE (rightly or wrongly) that when a clerk falls back on company policy as grounds not to give them what they want, the real reason is something else.

Hmm, seems that they're all very much like me and much of the rest of the forums: Few (if any) like it when customers earn the label "Entitlement Whore". And yet, since it would be their business that's impacted, suddenly having an entitlement is a good thing. Sounds like a double standard to me.

Look, as I said before, there's a real problem with distribution of wealth. Add in that large corporations have the ability to bankrupt someone with a single lawsuit, and the corporations have more power than the common man. In case you doubt that, check some of these links:

• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...ts&btnG=Search
• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...ts&btnG=Search

Finally, corporations are starting to make, through case law, a "right to profit". Check this link: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...it&btnG=Search Dangerous precedent is already being set. And allowing regular people to use the phrase that "Businesses have a right to make a profit" can only accelerate that. They don't.

Business have the right to try to make a profit. Exercise that right. Refuse to sell to people below cost. Make money hand over fist. Make enough that you would make Scrooge McDuck jealous. I really don't care. What I do care about is allowing people to genuinely believe that companies have a right to profit. If they did have such a right, then the SCO Group would now be able to demand the government do something, since their stock is dangerously low, and they are in real danger of going out of business in the near future. Look them up if you want more information as to why, they're just a formerly large company that I happen to know is failing due to watching bits of the technology news sites.

Please, if nothing else, understand two things from this (way too long) post:

1. I have no objection to a company making profit. They absolutely should.
2. I have every objection to said company claiming a right to make a profit. Normal people are in deep enough trouble as it is. Don't go handing over more rights, please.

I don't doubt that this post will offend some. I apologize. I felt more than a little insulted by the comments being left about me, and what I perceived as a willingness to ignore the point I was trying to make. I hope there's no backlash from the mods, but will not argue it if there is. I probably deserve it.

*entitlement. (n.d.). Roget's New Millennium Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.3.1). Retrieved
August 20, 2007, from Thesaurus.com website:
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/entitlement

[Rapscallion]

Time for Fratching, folks. Thread closed.

Rapscallion