Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by saint_fiasco 3105 days ago
I would totally buy the food from the random person if it was cheap, convenient and had good user ratings.

People who can afford to only buy things with background checks and quality control and insurance should be free to buy those things, but it's a little mean to decide for everyone else. Some people can only afford the shitty version.

2 comments

A random person cannot sell food to random person.

uber eats and deliveroo are only working with restaurants, they couldn't do otherwise.

Yes they can. It happens all the time, just not through a company. Probably not in Europe, though.

I am making a normative argument. I am aware that regulations prevent that sort of thing for good reasons. I say that there are also good reasons for not regulating. In everything there is a tradeoff.

Yeah, but the society calculated and decided that it is worth some extra cost to have clean food places and personnel then have to pay with lives or medical care. As a society we decided that this rules are better globally, even if some individuals would risk eating expired food because is cheaper.
Society rarely gets its calculator out. Rule making tends to be a political process. Oftentimes, the rules are suboptimal. The “calculation” is just a convenient rationalization.
I assume even if I get an exact measuring function for cost vs benefits you will find a minority that will ask to use a different measurement function.
If the society provides free medical care then I guess that is fair.
Yes, I am not from US so yes for US in Europe is fair to have this kind of rules and taxes on things that are bad for health like cigarettes and alcohol
I'm from the third world, where these sort of rules would just remove poor people's access to cheap stuff for no benefit.

I think even in US and Europe there is a significant minority of poor people for whom these sorts of rules are a net negative.

Sure, until you get sick.