| HN Mirror

Discrimination can be very harmful, yet all things have opportunity costs. The logical terminus of what you're advocating is that all companies should be required to sell all products (perhaps with some export restrictions respecting natural security) to all countries (again with some restrictions respecting trade embargoes).

Is that correct? Because if so, what you're going to do is increase the cost of doing business, as the costs of both absorbing scamming, and increased anti-scamming efforts, increase. Which will eventually in some form or another impact either the employees of companies, the cost of goods, or both.

Increasing the cost of goods and suppressing wages can also have tragic consequences–somewhere, someone will starve to death. Or be unable to afford health care (the costs of which have been poorly mitigated by our attempts at doing so by way of changing the health care apparatus). Or be unable to afford an experimental procedure that might change their child's life, but isn't covered by insurers. Or lessen charitable contributions to organizations keeping people alive in impoverished places. Reduce taxable income thus reducing federal assistance program budgets. There are countless more similar scenarios.

If you equate increasing health insurance costs based on anything an insurer knows about the ones they're insuring with fatal consequences, then it isn't a stretch to see your idea also has fatal consequences.

One couldn't even discriminate to do more good, in such a system.

Except it would be using American law to improve the lives of Romanians and Nigerians (both the honest and dishonest, tho probably proportionally in favor of the dishonest, since the thing preventing Nigerian access to American exports has less to do with shipping policies and more to do with basic economics, and Romania is part of the Schengen Area, so they're hardly cut off from the world), at the expense of American voters, taxpayers, citizens.

Which strikes me as an awfully difficult thing to justify ethically, and a short slope away from a globalized system that would have to redistribute all benefits to everyone, regardless of whether they wanted them or not, would benefit from them or not, be corrupted by them or not, be weakened by them or not, and it would probably start with transferring wealth from developed nations to developing ones until parity is reached.

Which is a noble sentiment, but going from theory to implementation would be something between a train wreck and a blood bath.

Or, we allow people who make things to decide whether they want to sell things to certain countries.

Incidentally, I have a shipping insurance provider I use that won't allow shipping to certain zip codes in the US. Those zip codes tend to have high levels of theft of packages off doorsteps. Is that ethical for them to stipulate that I can ship to some zip codes, but not others, based on the effects of the behavior of some people in those zip codes? For the record, looking them up I saw no major correlation with race, gender, or poverty. But it's still discrimination.

I think your basic idea is noble and worthy, but I think it ignores the realities present in how policy shapes reality. Great ideas have sometimes resulted in horrifying human tragedy, and with the world improving in most places by most reasonable measures, I'm not inclined to throw out what's been elevating humanity pretty effectively for something that is akin to systems that have been shown to debase humanity pretty effectively, when practiced.