Here’s an unpleasant memory for most: the last time standing on a long line waiting
to be served or allowed to pass some obstacle.
While waiting, does one think he/she is engaged in a moral
challenge? According to Michael J.
Sandel,[1] there is
a morality angle to one’s discomfort.
What
lines? It seems like modern life is
offering up more and more of them. Of
course, there are traffic lines, lines at the TSA security setups at the
airport, lines at cafeteria dining facilities, lines at the supermarket,
sometimes lines to place your order at fast-food outlets, etc. Sandel reports that such lines, according to
economists, are examples of market failures.
They are inefficient – people on those lines are wasting time and, if
the line finds a person in a car, for example, there is the waste of gas, clean
air, engine proficiency, and the like.
In short, this
inefficiency, in its various forms, is simply a market not functioning as it
should. What is happening is that to
eliminate the lines one only needs to up the price of whatever people are
waiting for, be it a hamburger or being “inspected” at a TSA line. Actually, this latter case demonstrates how
this type of inefficiency can be minimized.
In this approach,
TSA with the cooperation of the airlines has instituted a way to allow certain
passengers to be pre-cleared allowing these passengers to, in effect, jump the
line (some call it the “TSA pre-line”).
Economically, the effective element of this strategy is that those who
are willing to pay for this pre-clearance
are given this preferred treatment.
More generally, the existence of
lines can be eliminated or minimized if a pricing mechanism is set up so that
those who value not standing in a line can pay to avoid that line. This also helps non-payers since, by
eliminating the payers, there are less people on line. But are there problems with this
approach? And if so, is there a moral
angle to those problems?
One problem is that the TSA is a
government agency providing a governmental service. As such, all citizens and through legal
extension all legal residents have a right to equal treatment. After all, the service is payed by everyone’s
tax money and the Constitution
guarantees equal treatment. So, any
process that treats some in a preferred way, even if the paying process by
which the preference is determined is open to all, is questionable. The law or process should not advantage some
over others. At least not in the opinion
of this writer – but he is not a constitutional lawyer.
Another problem is that if this type of approach in handling
lines is generally instituted, as is the want of some policy-makers, a moral
concern does arise. It takes one away
from a moral perspective of “first come, first served” sensibility to one that
holds “he/she, who will pay, pays to avoid the line.” Or, as most scarce goods and services are rationed,
that rationing would now rely on a price mechanism, not a timing mechanism.
And last, the concern is over the
availability of a needed service or good – at times life-sustaining service or
good – to those who can’t pay the price or pay it under undue hardship. Is there a moral obligation by society to
make those types of goods and services – from housing and food to medical care
or education – is available to all regardless of their ability to pay? The mental construct promoted by this blog,
federation theory, holds that there is such an obligation – a moral obligation. In some cases, such rationing means some will
not attain the asset.
This last question is currently a
concern being debated. Under the rubric
of education, does everyone have an equal right to have access to fast internet
service? This is in terms of the
consumer and the provider of information online. There is a new policy – as of yesterday – that
places such access under a threat; that is, the current regulatory board – the
Federal Communication Commission (FCC) – that polices this service, yesterday
eliminated what is known as “net neutrality.”
Without this neutrality, large
corporations, such as Comcast, can pay to jump the traffic lines on the web
“highway.” By doing so, these companies
can sell advantaged payers, such as Facebook, access that allows for faster
internet interface than those who cannot pay such fees. The latter could and probably will be
relatively small, startup businesses or other providers of information not able
to pay. This renders these deep-pocket payers
having a significant upper-hand in getting their online offerings to the
consumer.
There are technicalities involved
with this debate that this writer is not knowledgeable enough to totally
explain. But he knows enough to know
that it is a “line” problem and one, that up till now, had to do with what is considered
a public service (like TSA) or utility.
As such, it was to be – under Obama supported provision – provided to
all equally – hence the title, net neutrality.
The writer also knows that the overall concern is that by changing the
relevant regulations, equal treatment will be potentially affected.
Here is another development
concerning lines. One place that lines
are noticeable is doctors’ offices.
According to Sandel, some are suggesting that a service to avoid such
waits in waiting rooms is to establish a concierge type service. For example, what if a person is willing to
pay from $1,500 to $25,000 a year so that on a 24 hour-a-day basis that person
has a medical doctor available? No
waiting.
Is this moral? It assigns, to some degree, a limited asset,
medical care, away from general access, lowering the supply for those who
cannot or will not pay this premium.
With a lower supply, the price of medical care rises for those
patients. Health care is an essential,
and such a plan raises a moral concern.
Is this concierge service more
efficient? Yes, but other problems are
either created, enlarged, and/or maintained and, if such a service becomes
common place, it can even become potentially fatal for some.
But that is getting a bit more tragic
than is the case today. So, a more
humorist take on this topic is a good way to end this posting. As talented humorists can find humor in such aspects
of life. This posting leaves the reader
with such an account.
It is Sandel describing a Larry David’s
plan to avoid a line problem and it has to do with highway traffic. In the 1980s, fast lanes were
introduced. Those “car pool” lanes were
to encourage car pooling and to help ease traffic in most other lanes of a
given highway such as an interstate.
Here is the description:
Solo drivers caught using the car
pool lanes faced hefty fines. Some put
blow-up dolls in the passenger seat in hopes of fooling the highway
patrol. In an episode of the television
comedy Curb Your Enthusiasm, Larry
David comes up with an ingenious way of buying access to the carpool lane: faced with heavy freeway traffic on route to
an LA Dodgers baseball game, he hires a prostitute – not to have sex but to
ride in his car on the way to the stadium.
Sure enough, the quick ride in the carpool lane gets him there in time
for the first pitch.[2]
Does this represent a moral concern? David’s character is by-passing the intent of
the law, but he gets points for innovation.
Never say there is no humor in all cases of “immorality,”
No comments:
Post a Comment