Very weird comparison
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.
agelord@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
masinko@lemmy.world 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 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.