The Price of Water, Part II
[When last we left our hero, he was tottering on the brink of purchasing water from the company drink-o-mat...]
Inserting 5 quarters (Yes. Five. For WATER.) into the apparatus yielded the expected 16 ounce bottle (Which comes out to roughly 8 dollars a day if I was to get my total quota in this fashion. If you're counting.), but was also followed by a series of *clink* noises in the coin return slot. Upon checking the slot, I discovered that the device had, in fact, refunded the entire purchase price of my water.
Now there are those among us who would simply take the money and chuckle gleefully at their good fortune, but I am stuck wondering if taking the water under such conditions is actually theft.
I mean, if I was to walk into, I don't know, Victoria's Secret, and discover it entirely vacant of sales folk and all surveillance cameras had inexplicably exploded, would I consider that good fortune? Would I shout "Woohoo!" and run out with a fistful of free lingerie? Probably not.
Is the water situation different because of the amount? Because I would only be shorting the beverage company $1.25, instead of the $125 a piece of fancy lingerie might cost? Not really, because I think I would still feel pretty shifty tucking a magazine or a comic book under my arm without paying for it. And that costs about the same.
I think the real reason is that my point of contact is a machine. If the expected mercantile exchange involves people, taking something without paying becomes a personal affront. If it's a device, and it screws up, big deal. It's a robot, and if it gives me back my money, it's its own fault. I mean, what is a machine going to do with my money, anyway? Buy electricity? Stupid robots.
So, as you can see, my real problem is not economic ethics, it's prejudice. You know, against the robot hordes.
And since I think civil rights for automatons are beyond my lifetime, well...
I took the water and the money.
And walked away chuckling.
Inserting 5 quarters (Yes. Five. For WATER.) into the apparatus yielded the expected 16 ounce bottle (Which comes out to roughly 8 dollars a day if I was to get my total quota in this fashion. If you're counting.), but was also followed by a series of *clink* noises in the coin return slot. Upon checking the slot, I discovered that the device had, in fact, refunded the entire purchase price of my water.
Now there are those among us who would simply take the money and chuckle gleefully at their good fortune, but I am stuck wondering if taking the water under such conditions is actually theft.
I mean, if I was to walk into, I don't know, Victoria's Secret, and discover it entirely vacant of sales folk and all surveillance cameras had inexplicably exploded, would I consider that good fortune? Would I shout "Woohoo!" and run out with a fistful of free lingerie? Probably not.
Is the water situation different because of the amount? Because I would only be shorting the beverage company $1.25, instead of the $125 a piece of fancy lingerie might cost? Not really, because I think I would still feel pretty shifty tucking a magazine or a comic book under my arm without paying for it. And that costs about the same.
I think the real reason is that my point of contact is a machine. If the expected mercantile exchange involves people, taking something without paying becomes a personal affront. If it's a device, and it screws up, big deal. It's a robot, and if it gives me back my money, it's its own fault. I mean, what is a machine going to do with my money, anyway? Buy electricity? Stupid robots.
So, as you can see, my real problem is not economic ethics, it's prejudice. You know, against the robot hordes.
And since I think civil rights for automatons are beyond my lifetime, well...
I took the water and the money.
And walked away chuckling.
posted by Dean at 9/09/2005 11:05:00 AM
3 Comments:
hey, i don't shop at victoria's secret. i knit my lingerie.
just kidding.
seriously.
How do you know what fancy lingerie costs, Dean?
Research. It's important for me to have all my facts accurate, as you no doubt have noticed.
You wouldn't believe how much it costs to get good lingerie that fits a 6'5" 280 pound frame, incidentally.
Post a Comment
<< Home