🇳🇱
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.
@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.
