Imagine having a nice amusement park built in your very own city, with the latest and greatest rides, gizmos and attractions the city can ever offer. Now imagine that the park is opened exclusively for people who don't live in the city, but who are wealthy enough to pay the entry fee and for the rides.
The people in the city are shut out, and told that this is for their own good. There could be an addiction to rides, and the city's officials don't want anyone to get hooked and possibly waste their lifesavings on the rides.
Okay, they give in - people from the city can go, but they have to pay a hefty entry fee before they get in, much higher than what outsiders would pay. And the city's officials will post counsellors on site to spot would-be addicts, and haul them out of the park.
Gives me the jitters everytime I think about it - is there an affront to the freedom of choice and individual rights of the citizens? Strangely enough, there are people who live in the city who would happily choose to be shut out, for all kinds of reasons. But there are others who are insulted at the way they are treated.
What to do? Is there merit to discrimination, and should it be condoned in this case?
What are the benefits to the city's people if the park was a roaring success? What are the consequences should the park fail miserably?
No comments:
Post a Comment