🇳🇱
I dont buy things based on what I need... if that were the case i wouldnt be buying a game or fancy shirt in the first place I dont NEED those at all. I can wear a potato sack for a shit and it would meet my **needs**. But I do usually WANT it overnight, because i get excited and I dont enjoy waiting for something im excited about.. may not be a need, but it is what i want, and im the one with the money. Business is all about giving people what they want, if people want it overnight (which is clear they do) and you dont provide it, expect all the business to go to amazon (as it tends to).
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @thenewoil Another ethical issue with the overnight shipping: that usually means UPS or FedEx. FedEx ships shark fins, slave dolphins, and hunting trophies, which is abusive to animals and the environment. FedEx is only limited by what they can get away with, whereas FedEx competitors are relatively more ethical. So I favor USPS. If shipping method is undisclosed, I add a note to the order.
While I am against trophy hunting I also dont feel that is the place or the right of the shipping company to get involved in. In fact in my view there should be legal protection and privacy over the content of my package.
@freemo @thenewoil @realcaseyrollins Is this what you envision: (courier) Is that a dolphin in that box of water sir? (seaworld) No, that's just a heavy box of water, don't worry about it.
No, I envision that any enforcement would come down to the local government. Yes they will fail to enforce it sometime and stuff will get through, but that is no excuse to violate what I view as privacy rights.
That said a blanked ban on all trophy hunting is itself counter productive. While we obviously want to eliminate poaching of animals illegally there is legal trophy hunting which is ultimately beneficial to the species. Distinguishing between the two would not be practical for any shipping company and indeed that is what we see where companies that have banned shipping of animals as the result of a trophy hunt do so blindly to the nuance (whether it was actual poaching or not).
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @thenewoil when you say "enforcement", you're implying that there's a prohibition to begin with. It's an ethical problem not a legal one. IIRC, FedEx said they would stop shipping shark fins if it becomes illegal to ship them to/from the land they operate in. That is, FedEx is not limited by ethics, only law
No I am implying that it **should** be illegal, and enforced. It is not FedEx's place to create their own set of "laws" they enforce seperate from the countries being shipped from. If its legal to hunt shark fins in a country then fedex should be ok shipping it.. if we feel sharkfins should be protected (and I would support that) you should be fighting for that at the governement level not fedex.
You can effect laws without voting rights.. refuse to buy anything from the country until they ban shark finning, if enough people do that it would put pressure on them changing their laws.
You can also seek to ban the import of shark fins in your local country, which will go a long way to reducing it.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @thenewoil "refuse to buy anything from the country until they ban shark finning" <= noble move but boycotting a whole region is much more blunt than boycotting the bad actors. Let's say shark finning happens in Vanuatu. You would get behind a boycott on bagels made in Vanuatu, but not FedEx who ships shark fins from there, in an anti-sharkfinning action? That's not using your pwr effectively
I'm not saying its a good way to boycott, but i am showing the failure in your assertion that you cant effect laws in countries you have no voting power, which isnt true.
The other point is, boycotting fedex wont do a damn thing to prevent shark fin import anyway. They arent hurt in anyway to have to use different companies for their shipping, or even to need to provide their own distribution as is quite common. Its wasted energy that wont get you any closer to solving the problem anyway.
@freemo @thenewoil @realcaseyrollins I never said you can't affect foreign laws. I said the opposite. I said you can lobby. Our power to affect law is weak even locally in a 2 party system, so you're putting a lot of stock into something unlikely to pay out. This is why it's important to use your consumer power
@freemo @thenewoil @realcaseyrollins "If its legal to hunt shark fins..fedex should be ok shipping it" <= this presumes complete alignment with law and ethics. My ethical views are very much not aligned. There are prohibitions that shouldn't be in place, and tolerance where there shouldn't be
> this presumes complete alignment with law and ethics
No it doesnt. What it does presume (as I already pointed out) is that when the law and ethics are not in alignment the correct way to address that is by putting pressure on governments to change their laws, not by requiring FedEx to take the roll of a government and legal system by determining for themselves what they will deem appropriate or not.
@freemo @thenewoil @realcaseyrollins the law is a different tool that calls for different actions. You need to elect officials who will ban shark finning. If you don't have voting rights where it's happening, then all you can do is lobby in that area. Luckily we are not limited to election voting power. As consumers we have power to vote with our feet. We'd be fools to disregard that power.