View Single Post
Old October 9, 2012, 09:50 AM   #31
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbatchelor
This is a good analysis of the problem in my mind. It's a variation of the problems of the Commons, i.e. no one and everyone owns the chestnuts in the village commons. If you spend the effort to pick up a bucket of nuts your labor makes them yours, and I cannot take them from your front doorstep just because "the chestnuts belong to everyone." But if you hoard the chestnuts needlessly, denying the rest of the village what were once common property that now goes to waste, then the whole village suffers.

Now, I can't say if the OP is talking about his own brass or range brass. Doesn't matter; he knows that detail. I think it's pick up, though, reading it again.

But I do think there is merit in dacaur's thinking.

So, as an alternative to the labor issue in the original post, can you sell the 9mm and .40 without the cleanup, and expect the purchaser to do it themselves? Or is it just not a viable product? I see from the comments that other calibers are reasonable to clean and sell at a margin that's not a loss.
A good solution, in a world of omniscient people. At the members-only range where I shoot, the brass rule is that anyone who wants the brass can pick it up and that which does not get picked up goes to the recyclers. It would great if Guy A could know that Guy B will be here tomorrow to pick up and reload the brass so he could leave it rather than take it. Guy A is taking it to the recyclers just like the range would do and there's no rule that says "Only take it if you're going to reload it". Guy A might leave the brass, hoping that Guy B will be along to get it but he never shows, so it goes to the recycler. Next week, Guy B gets there first and gets the brass before Guy A, now he's depriving Guy A of income from recycling.

The whole thing is a weird sort of circular argument based on arbitrary priorities that shift from one person to the next. It's not a matter of ethics. There's Right, there's Wrong and there's Opinion. This one is opinion. Don't assign "Right" and "Wrong" to arbitrary opinion.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04559 seconds with 7 queries