FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

at Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:35:39 GMT in >,
(Dave Smith) wrote :

>Alex Rast wrote:
>
>>
>> >Being sued can be a big deal. It can put companies out of business.
>>
>> Perhaps, then, that's what's necessary... The basic point is, Lawsuits
>> Happen.
>> It's pointless to go to obsessive lengths to stop them...
>
>On the contrary, due diligence can be a defense in a law suit. Failure
>to do otherwise may be deemed to be negligence.

If you follow that line of reasoning, you've already succumbed to the fear
of lawsuits. Spending time considering how a situation might best be
positioned legally in advance of actually having a lawsuit amounts to the
kind of paranoia I'm talking about, that leads to irrational behaviour.

....
>> There are many ways to contribute. If you don't really *like* giving
>> of your time and resources in order to contribute, another way is to
>> give your money - i.e. by buying the baked goods other people made.
>> Nobody's forcing you to bake for their sale.
>
>I did not have a problem providing the ingredients or the time and work
>to do the baking. I expected that they would attach a price that would
>consider the value of at least the ingredients.

It's up to them to decide what pricing to attach to an item. Since they're
the ones running the sale, they're the ones who should make the final
decisions. The idea is - in contributing to a bake sale by providing baked
goods, you don't provide them with all sorts of restrictions placed on them
like how much they can charge for them or who to sell to or what tables
they must set them on. If you did, then it would become more your sale
instead of theirs, in which case, again, you're perfectly free to set up a
private bake sale and forward the proceeds on to them. But if you donate to
their sale, then what price they decide to set is up to them.

>> If, for you, every action is in essence an
>> investment for which you expect a return, then, by all means,
>> contribute simply by buying other peoples' stuff. ...
>
>I would tend to view simply buying the baked goods at below cost of
>ingredients along the same lines as a parasite.

Well, if you'd feel parasitic in buying somebody else's stuff, then again,
the option of simply donating money is always there. But begrudging others
because they don't price according to what you would price is trying to
impose your will on somebody else's decisions.

....

>> >They could have considered the value of the goods and priced them
>> >accordingly. ...
>>
>> One way to contribute would have been indeed to give them $5.00. But
>> as you point out, then other people, either more bargain-oriented or
>> perhaps not otherwise in the financial position to buy more expensive
>> baked goods, would not have been able to enjoy the items which they
>> did.
>
>As I said before, it is a bake sale, not a food bank. The idea was to
>raise money for the association. I expect that they would consider
>contributions to be on a value added basis.

Just because their sale wasn't being operated in the "official" capacity of
a charity doesn't mean they can't price at rates that include more people
rather than fewer. If an organisation pursues activities that have an
unintentional quasi-charitable effect I think this is altogether for the
good. Why not have the maximum benefit come to the maximum number of
people?

> I suppose that I could just
>go with money and make my contribution by getting the bargains on things
>that I could buy cheaper than I can make at home. But if everyone did
>that there would not be anyone stupid enough to go to the expense and
>the work to provide a contribution.

Well, if everyone did that it wouldn't be a matter of that was no one
"stupid" enough to make a contribution - it would rather be a simple matter
of fact. If everyone is going with money rather than baked goods, then, by
definition, there's no one providing a baked-goods contribution.

One of the ways society operates is under the premise that there are some
people who will give freely of their time, effort, and resources in order
to help other individuals or institutions without expecting any physical
compensation in return. In this case, the Association trusts that there
will be a certain number of people who will gladly provide baked items
without asking to be paid for the items they provide. That's the whole way
by which these kinds of events make money.

If you take the opposite viewpoint and require that everybody receive
compensation for their contributions, this is the pure free-market
capitalist economy, without any not-for-profit entities whatsoever. A pure
free-market economy is a model some people advocate, but this would make it
impossible (essentially, by definition) for Associations and other such
entities to operate. So such organisations assume from the start that there
will be those who will contribute unconditionally.

--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)