Is it an equality kind of a thing to claim that whoever appears 1st in a queue is before the 2nd, 3rd, and so on?
What if the queue is for something todo with health – should it not then be dependent on time and need rather than time only?
Time? Interesting.. What if money from a temporal view, is a way to manage social resource allocation over time?
If X costs 100 and a person has 100 – they can either get X now (temporarily), or get in the queue with people that can afford 100, right?
Oh! Is it not that the more people have 100, the longer the queue will be?
Sure. However, the more expensive X is compared to what most people can afford, the quicker the queue, no?
Yes.. Temporarily speaking, I think its quick, right? 😉
Does this mean that with a system that manages queues wait periods, there will always be people given priority based on numbers rather than queue time arrival and/or need?
A bit like easyjet priority queue?
Does it not cost more to fly on priority queue?
Hummm.. So.. Unless we think of having more money as a fair situation, how can there be equality?
Perhaps having financial disparity is an equal situation to have on a social scale?
Well.. Since we can not afford resources all at the same time, how else can we manage the temporal availability of resources?
Indeed, how else?
Indeed, what happens if intact, for most people, its impossible to ever get to a priority queue?
If rugs to riches is impossible?
Is it ever impossible?