Describing a scene

You accidentally slip and start falling from the roof of a skyscraper. It just so happens that you’re able to hold on to a small statue of sorts. You’re about to slip and can barely hold on. Suddenly, Batman appears and stands on top of the statue. You start to call to him for help. However, unbeknownst to you, Wayne enterprise is going under and therefore, Bruce needs money to keep his vigilante life going. So, what he does to you is - hand you a piece of paper that you need to sign, before he saves you. That piece of paper says that you’d have to give Batman 20% of your income, until the day you die. You find it weird, but you’re about to die, so you sign the paper and thus, Batman gets to take 20% of your future income. You sign the paper because, well, dead men can’t cash out salaries. I’m still yet to find a case in which a dead man got monthly cheques. I don’t know of any people who died and got monthly payments. Not that any of them would have been able to tell me anyway.

Question
Is what Batman did here good, or bad? Of course, if you’re reading this then you’re thinking, “What? He took advantage of a person in need. Of course it’s wrong! Batman is an asshole.” Okay, that’s a valid way of thinking, but, didn’t both of you (you and Batman) benefit from this? I mean, you were going to die (and it’s not his fault that your clumsy ass slipped.) He did end up saving your life, so you both benefited from the situation, right? All that Batman did was offer you a choice - you could have not taken it. And think about it, what’s a better way to die than telling Batman to fuck off, especially if it was the one portrait by George Clooney. Yeah, Bat credit card and Bat nipples; FUCK YOU, Clooney.

BAT-FUCKING-NIPPLES!!!!

George Clooney’s Batman rant aside, what we’re looking at here is called an ‘exploitation paradox’. Let me just calm down a bit about the fact that Clooney got 10 million dollars from that piece of garbage movie...Okay, I’m calm now. Exploitation paradox consists of two parties - one that’s taking advantage of the other (party A), and the other, of course, is being taken advantage of (party B). By the way, Arnold Schwarzenegger got 25 million dollars for that movie (last rant, I promise.) However, despite the fact that one party is being taken advantage of, they (party B) are still benefitting. And, if you try to stop the party that is taking advantage of them (party A), then, the party that’s being taken advantage of (party B) will actually be the one stopping you from doing that. 25 MILLION FUCKING DOLLARS for The Room of a comic movie, unbelievable. Okay, now I’m honestly done. Fuck you Joel Schumacher.

So, by helping the person that’s being taken advantage of, you’re actually harming them. Going back to the Batman example - if we were to pass a law that prevented Batman from getting you to sign the paper, he might have just walked away from you and let you fall to your death, much like what Clooney did to the Batman franchise before Nolan showed up. But, basically, despite us seeing an immoral thing happening right in front of us: A) Both parties are gaining. B) By interfering, you’re actually harming the ones who need the help. Let’s move on from Batman, so I can write properly without rage. Let’s take a look at a factory that’s taking advantage of its workers: making them work for up to 70 hours a week and underpaying them. Even hiring children and forcing them to leave behind their education for the factory work. Now, if you were to pass a bill that prevented them from doing those things, it’s probably the workers that will be outraged and attempt to stop you. It’s like when you try to help your mom out in the kitchen and she kicks you out because you just empty the dishes in the oven and put the lasagna in the dishwasher.

According to the 2008 Nobel Prize winner, Paul Krugman - in 1993, a U.S congressman suggested that America shouldn’t import any product from a country that lets children work at factories. A factory in Bangladesh saw that and began to fire 50,000 children who were working for them. Pretty noble, right? The kids aren’t forced to work anymore and the only way this would be better is if someone from Men In Black shows up and erases the Batman and Robin movie from my brain. Bear in mind, this is coming from a guy that saw the entire human centipede trilogy. Ironically, watching Batman and Robin made me relate to the characters in the human centipede movies. But, you’re wrong. It wasn’t pretty noble. An organisation by the name of OXFAM followed the children who were let go by the factories and found that many of them took up either prostitution or begging. Two lines of career I’m personally considering should the Steem prices remain the way they are now. UNICEF followed up on that report and confirmed it to be true. So, by making a law like that or even merely suggesting it (a law that is meant to help those children), they caused those children to go to an even worse living situation. It’s like hearing your wife complaining about how much work she puts into cleaning the living room and you solve that by burning the house down.

It’s not just poor countries that have stuff like that. 34 U.S. states have what is called “price gouging laws” - a set of laws that are put to protect consumers from being taken advantage of during crises. This is because some companies would take advantage of the crises and raise the prices up. Basically, if you usually drink tap water and a factory leaks a poisonous substance into the river, then, bottled water companies would raise their prices by a large margin; what’s stopping them? Which is the equivalent of the neighbours showing up to the house that you burnt in the previous example - just to roast their marshmallows. That’s where price gouging laws come into play. Basically, the laws would prevent your neighbours from exploiting your situation by roasting marshmallows. The thing is, they do that by preventing EVERYONE from coming in - including the people who are trying to put out the fire. So, you’d be standing there in front of a burning house along with some of your neighbours with water hoses, who’re not able to get in to put the fire out. And the worst result of humanity would occur...A furious wife.

That’s exactly what happened. Between August 25 and 31, hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana, the hardest to blow through the state since your mom (Damn it! I really wanted to get through this without a blowjob joke, sorry @llfarms.) Hurricane Katrina cost over 1800 fatalities and a cost that went over a billion dollars. What equals 6th of Iraq’s gross national income was blown away to nothing, much like Iraq’s gross national income. Michael Munger of Duke university says that - national guards surrounded New Orleans, preventing Duke’s students from entering the city with aides that they gathered through donations from each other. Why? Because even though those were alleged donations, the city itself wasn’t able to know whether those would be free or the students would pull the asshole-ic Batman move and actually sell the stuff they brought in and sell for high pricing, as per the price gouging laws. So, it’s either having assholes roasting marshmallows on your burning house along with people putting the fire out, or, spending three years on the couch as a punishment from your wife. Which is not the worst punishment, as she could always force you to watch Batman and Robin.

This is not just about innocent students looking to help people in crises. There’s an economic rule here: in order for you to have cheap stuff, expensive stuff have to exist in the market as well. Think about it - for every black Dolce & Gabbana shirt, there’s that black shirt sold for 30$ and for every $30 shirt, there’s a $20 and so on. Companies selling expensive stuff and taking advantage are important because they’re basically screaming, “I’m here, high prices! There’s a place for cheaper product here”, which results in more companies looking to take advantage with less expensive prices. So by the end, the more companies looking to take advantage, the cheaper the prices will eventually be. So, when you want to help those being taken advantage of, you have to let those who are looking to take advantage of people to do what they do. This is because, once there’s a place for one of those (party A), there will be many more. This will result in competition between those (party A) by decreasing their money demands, leaving those who were originally taken advantage of in a place where they take advantage instead. You understand what I’m saying? It’s okay, neither do I. But it seems to work and we seem to have many stuff that cost pretty cheap. My 30 cents shirt is a prime example. Another is the phone I’m writing this with, which has more power than NASA’s 3.5 million dollars computer in 1969. What does that last part have to do with anything? Nothing, I just wanted to feel better about my shitty life…

This concept carries through to the relationships between females and males in the animal kingdom, and sometimes human. I mentioned in previous posts that biological success stems from multiplying and passing on a creature’s genes. So, a donkey’s biological success comes through multiplying and if that wasn’t considered as a goal, donkeys wouldn’t exist today, for us to talk about them, or them talking, or one of them writing this post. So, a male’s goal was to have sexual encounters with as many females he could find. However, females can’t do that the same way, as females have to go through pregnancy and raising the child. So, a female’s goal becomes holding on to that male as long as they can. In the end, the male is in a powerful place, as they can always leave, with their genes safely behind. The females wouldn’t be able to exact revenge as, they also want their genes to carry on. If you leave them the way they are, those sleazy genes would carry on. If you wanted to punish them by cutting their genes, you’d also be punishing and cutting off the female’s genes as well. So, males pretty much got it going on and no one can mess with them (hurray us??) and by punishing them and the fact that they’re taking advantage, you’d be punishing the female as well and destroy the entire system. You’re okay with destroying the entire system? I’m not. The reason I’m saying that part is pretty simple. Come on ladies, I’m willing to commit, I’m not an asshole, just any date? Blow a kiss from a far? DM me? Friendzone me? Anything. GOD I’m so desperate...

In Summary

We have a weird situation in our lives - one that ensures that people who’re taking advantage of others remain that way. Because, by interfering, you’d be harming the one taking advantage, yes, but it will happen on the expense of those who were being taken advantage of and you’d be putting them in a worse place. This is a paradox that leaves us with three questions: A) Should we follow our moral guidance and ensure that no one takes advantage of others, even with it costing more losses? B) Should we be pragmatics and encourage that, as long as taking advantage of others benefits them as well? Or C) Should we just mind our own goddamn business and let those two fix things between them? Answering these questions can be pretty hard. But there are couple of things you can do……………… Upvote, resteem and comment. Take a look at the sources below, this has been quite the subject, hasn’t it? Let me know what you think in the comments below and make sure you say ‘Fuck you Clooney’ to ensure a response from me.

I nominate the receiver of this post payout @llfarms to OH GOD PLEASE have an entry already. As well as @traf/ @trafalgar.

Finally if you like what you read here, I'm currently not able to find job. If you want to feel free to donate.
Here is my BTC Wallet
171RjQ6wjkVE1ViVUhdznGkTYtsivrLYYJ

Sources: 1, 2, 3. 4, 5