pull down to refresh
I mean, I did pitch it as a dichotomy even when it's not, so that part is fair.
Perhaps the word is simply moral repugnance. I always assign this article to my Public Econ students, to remind them that economic efficiency and your personal moral sensibilities are different things, and that they can sometimes conflict, and that policy is as much about economic efficiency as it is about people's moral feelings. (Not in the sense that we should always listen to our moral feelings, but to understand the interplay between the two when it comes to politics)
Maybe we need a market for making side payments to people to get them to stop doing things we find repugnant.
Then we can align the two things.
I ain't paying someone to not stand in line for someone else
Obviously not. You should pay someone to not pay someone else to stand in line for them.
It’s the wannabe aristocratic who’s grossing you out, so that’s who needs to be paid to stop.
My indignation is off the charts
Ok, I misunderstood the juxtaposition you were making.
I’ll bail you out then. You have a bizarre egalitarianism in your utility function that violates transitivity in these cases.
Edit: on second thought I don’t think it’s a transitivity problem.