Since no one here is suggesting that any one person is entitled to the fruits of another's labors, you post doesn't relate to the conversation.
Good luck to all,
The Old Bookaroo
The suggestion of ending for profit endeavors is based on the belief that one is entitled to the fruits of another's labor.
It's just that you're not comfortable admitting to it. Nor should you be.
I've noted your desire to control previously. While I appreciate your effort to make decisions for me; I'll not delegate the task to you, and will maintain my right to decide if my thoughts are relevant to the conversation.
There's a huge difference between fair compensation and "profit" (an accounting opinion). When it comes to American healthcare, profit represents inefficiencies in the system we all pay for - in far more ways than one.
Good luck to all,
The Old Bookaroo
Who decides what is a "fair compensation"?
In the US that decision has traditionally been the market; which drives competition, advances, and lower prices for the end consumer.
"Profit" is merely the means of reward for risks taken and goods/services provided. It isn't up to you to decide if that profit is fair, or not. Your choice begins and ends at the point of determining whether you wish to participate by purchasing a good or service from a particular company/individual.
When it comes to American healthcare, profit represents inefficiencies in the system we all pay for - in far more ways than one.
Good luck to all,
The Old Bookaroo
And we're back to you thinking you're entitled to the fruits of another's labor.
So called inefficiencies in a for-profit business are quickly taken advantage of by the competition. That is not the case with a government ran monopoly - where inefficiencies are so incredibly rampant that nobody has any real ability to fully account for all the waste.
The very thing that you're against - profits - are the driving force behind nearly all medical advancements. Profits drive the best and brightest to make sacrifices that most wouldn't dream of. Profit drives companies/individuals to take monetary risks. Profits drive the advancements that we're all benefitting from.
I get it. You operate from the realm of a fantasy-land where all labor/investments are on an equal footing, and the capacity for harm can be removed by exchanging citizenship for serfdom. On paper the fantasy has great appeal; in reality it has never worked, will never work, and the results are horrific for all but the very few who are in control.
Since this is a forum largely dedicated to metal detecting, let me make the point using that subject.
The machines we use are - without exception - the results of monetary investments in engineering, research, development, labor, marketing, sales, etc... All with a profit-driven motive. It is that profit-driven motive that pushes companies to meet/exceed the capabilities of their competition - in the market segments that the particular company participates in.
Naturally there are machine winners/losers - some machines are believed (by consumers) to be superior to competitive products. Those "superior" machines tend to change (in the public mind) as companies bring out new offerings and customers gravitate to or from specific companies/machines.
That push - for profit reasons - to offer a machine that is well received (by the public) results in advancements across the spectrum of market segments (low cost to high cost) and we detectorists benefit as a result. If company A has a winner (a machine that the public purchases in ample numbers) the competition (Companies B, C, D, etc..) take steps to meet/beat the abilities of the machine offered by Company A - again, the consumer wins.
As a result of all these profit-driven advancements, it isn't uncommon (on this very forum) to see posts where the owner/user of a lower cost machine makes a spectacular find - a find that most of us would be overjoyed to make.
Another thing made very obvious (on this forum) is the fact that not all of us are equal. It isn't just the machines that have differences - the users themselves are different. There are some detectorists who could out hunt me (and perhaps others) with the least capable machine available. Even if/when I was using the most capable machine available.
It is what it is.
In the US we are guaranteed equal treatment under the law - not equal outcomes in life.
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
A system where outcomes are determined so all are equal, automatically plays to the weakest link - bringing all to that lowest denominator.
We should all be very thankful that we do not have such an absurd system.
I have zero doubt that you would chafe at the prospect of being restricted to holding only the ability of the person least capable of finding a good target while metal detecting - despite your apparent craving for imposed equality.
If you're the better detectorist - so be it.
My choices would then consist of...
1. Learning and becoming a better detectorist
2. Quitting the hobby
3. Accepting mediocrity and expecting the same of others
Our system places a strong preference on the first option.
Your system (of choice) demands option #3.
