• jwmgregory@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        restaurants provide a service the same way landlords do. just bc you privatized an essential commodity does not immediately make your privatized entity a useful or essential service, and i detest the notion that it does. it’s circular logic.

        EDIT: i’m getting downvoted but idc. i still think im right. weep all you want, but at its core, the buying and selling of goods/services represents an ethical dilemma at best and an atrocity at worst. the argument that restaurants are entirely a choice to go to is both overly broad and a straw man. restaurants often do impact people’s budgets and lifestyles, believe it or not. you can’t just blanket say they have no culpability in this arena because reasons. it is the mechanisms of the market and economy themselves that oppress us. it is not inherently human. it is not the only way to organize ourselves. we can do better, and we deserve better. who the fuck cares how much “value” literally anything has? i’ll trade you five smogels for a smilji. yay, everyone magically gained bc of the incantation! grow the fuck up. outdated ideas have no place in modern, civilized society. any imagined net benefits of money you can come up with are a drop in the bucket compared to its power as a stupid fucking thoughtworm

        • masinko@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Very different. Restaurants don’t buy up every food resource out there or cause artificial scarcity to make them the only option. Groceries are still a cheaper and healthier option 95% of the time.

          • jwmgregory@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            that’s a monistic point of view. you clearly have never lived in or near a food desert, or somewhere where fast food is the only option, because oftentimes at a local scale restaurants do buy up all available food resources. sure. these people could subsist off of wild fucking berries outside instead. why not. the choices of large restaurant megacorps weigh heavy on millions.

        • FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Restaurants aren’t fighting regular folks to make food supplies scarce and jack up food prices. You can choose to not go to a restaurant and that won’t affect your grocery bill. They don’t privatize food, they offer an actual, non-essential service which is to cook it for you, which deserves compensation. A restaurant organized as a worker coop is ethical.

          OTOH, parasitic landlords are responsible for the scarcity/prices of housing. If you don’t rent their appartments, you’re still affected by their greed because the prices are high because of them.

          It doesn’t compare at all.

    • psmgx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Everyone knows 4 of 5 restaurants will fail, and soon.

      AI hype train is still going. The difference is people need to eat.