SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984
Sorry Amazon: Philadelphia bans cashless stores
This week, Philadelphia's mayor signed a bill that would ban cashless retail stores, according to The Morning Call. The move makes Philadelphia the first major city to require that brick-and-mortar retail stores accept cash. Besides Philadelphia, Massachusetts has required that retailers accept cash since 1978, according to CBS.
The law takes effect July 1, and it will not apply to stores like Costco that require a membership, nor will it apply to parking garages or lots, or to hotels or rental car companies that require a credit or debit card as security for future charges, according to the Wall Street Journal. Retailers caught refusing cash can be fined up to $2,000.
Amazon, whose new Amazon Go stores are cashless and queue-less, reportedly pushed back against the new law, asking for an exemption. According to the WSJ, Philadelphia lawmakers said that Amazon could work around the law under the exemption for stores that require a membership to shop there, but Amazon told the city that a Prime membership is not required to shop at Amazon Go stores, so its options are limited.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Tuesday March 12 2019, @10:20AM (8 children)
Yes, that means I have to support the rights of independent commodity vendors such as cake-shops run by medieval religious loons who don't want to sell cakes to gays/trans/blacks/uglies. I also reserve the right to never give them a cent of my money, and to treat the owners as pariahs, but it stops there, obviously.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by http on Tuesday March 12 2019, @01:56PM (1 child)
Someone taking that path has no reason to lie and call themselves retail. Do it out of your basement, maybe?
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday March 12 2019, @03:01PM
Me: People have the right to be bad at business.
You: That's hardly "business" then!
as that's all I'm getting at the moment - were my setup as such, then that response would be vaguely funny; but my setup wasn't that, and your response wasn't that either. The introduction of the concept of a "lie" being involved changes the implications greatly. So if it's not that, please provide your definition of "retail", such that the essense of the "lie" you mention can be revealed. A reference to a widely accepted economic text would be appreciated. I can't counter your argument without knowing upon what you're basing it.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 4, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Tuesday March 12 2019, @03:15PM (5 children)
Here's (one of the) problem(s):
Neighborhood has one grocery source. It's a poor neighborhood, and there's no prospect of another grocery source opening. This place refuses to sell to some arbitrary subclass of the local poor (Mexicans, gays, etc.)
These people now have no other first-order alternative for a food source until (unless) the "free market" manages to set one up. Do you think that will happen before they starve, or end up paying a proxy to shop for them, or end up robbing the existing grocery source?
How about hospitals? Would you be good with the local hospital saying "we don't practice medicine on Republicans"? Or Blacks? Or Women? Or Spanish-speakers? Gays? Trannies? Country-music fans?
That'd be kind of hard on the deprived-of-service individuals with, for instance, appendicitis or a serious snakebite, don't you think?
It's not just about who will bake a cake. It's about a level playing field for everyone when it comes to the ability to operate in our society.
This is exactly the kind of thing a government should stick its hand into, because there is no shortage at all of people who will refuse service for some asinine reason. The fact is that free market hasn't got either the flexibility or the speed required to take up the slack when these assholes start fucking up.
TL;DR: Your freedom to not sell stuff should not even exist, and the free market's effects are insufficient to justify any claim to such a thing.
--
What's the fastest way to tune a banjo or ukulele?
Wire cutters.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday March 12 2019, @03:52PM (4 children)
If there's one grocery store in town, and it's run by arseholes, then, counter to what you assert, there's quite probably a gap in the market for a grocery store that's not run by arseholes.
And where the heck does the shitty concept that there isn't a public (and thus not independent, so not covered my the above description) hospital come from? OK, I know the answer to that...
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 4, Informative) by fyngyrz on Tuesday March 12 2019, @04:48PM (3 children)
First, you're moving the goalposts. As I stated, it's a poor neighborhood, can only support one source, and the locked-out folks are one or another small minority of the poor. So there is no such gap. Consequent to that, you present no counter there.
Second, even if we go to the new goalposts, are these folks supposed to not eat until the new store manages to get open? What if that takes weeks, or even months? That's a deal-breaker right there.
The truth is there is no "fair" way to discriminate in retail for services that any citizen might want to take advantage of. Ergo, one should not discriminate. But since assholes will discriminate if left to their own asshole choice, then society should not let them make that choice.
If a business is reasonably construed to be one that serves the public, then it should be serving the public. If it isn't, it should be made to.
--
Anything you say will be misquoted and used against you.
(Score: 0, Troll) by FatPhil on Tuesday March 12 2019, @06:07PM (2 children)
I didn't put those goalposts there - you did. So you're moving the goalposts into the playing area, not me.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 4, Informative) by fyngyrz on Wednesday March 13 2019, @05:04PM (1 child)
Yes, I put those goalposts in a very real, many-times-duplicated circumstance across the US, and then I pointed out why the free market won't work in those circumstances.
Then, without addressing what I had pointed out, you moved the goalposts, presuming that there was a potential for another food source to come about (which may apply in some other cases, but not the ones I was pointing out), which was dodging the issue.
First I pointed out that you had dodged; and that your argument didn't address the problem I pointed out.
Then I pointed out that even under the different conditions you postulated, the free market still can't solve the issue at hand, because "there will be another store here someday" doesn't get the discriminated against individuals from here to there — they can't "just not eat" until the store is permitted, built/modified, stocked, and opened to the public.
So yes, I set the goalposts, but realistically so. You failed to address them in either the original, realistic position, or the position you moved them to.
Unless you want to argue that it's perfectly okay to arbitrarily deny services to whoever you want to, you don't have a leg to stand on.
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by FatPhil on Wednesday March 13 2019, @08:18PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves