Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Kids these days…
As I discussed in a recent post, sometimes our adult children do things we’re not proud of. It’s even more painful when you catch them in the act yourself. So you can imagine my distress when I saw my beautiful little girl in a compromising position (see picture). Ok, she’s 21 years old, and is normally a virtuous person of sound judgement. And we all have the occasional lapse. But you can imagine how upsetting it was for me to see her lifting the top layer of chocolates, which was still half full, so she could steal a chocolate from the bottom layer.
Me: “What are you doing?!?”
Her: “What?”
Me: “You can’t take chocolates from the bottom layer! Not until we finish the top layer!”
Her: “Why not?”
Me: “It’s just wrong.”
Her: “It’s wrong to take chocolates from a box of chocolates?”
Me: “There are right ways to do that, and there are wrong ways to do that.”
She rolled her eyes, and continued her distressing behavior. Right in front of me. I’ve been upset ever since.
If anyone would like to chime in below, and help me explain to her why this is so wrong, I’d appreciate it. She won’t listen to me. She says I’m being ridiculous. If you can imagine.
It’s not easy being a father, sometimes.
I’d console myself with a piece of chocolate, but the only ones left on the top layer are yucky.
Published in General
If there are enough women in the house, the top layer will be gone soon enough.
OB, your analysis exposes a presumption of a highly unlikely demand distribution regarding confectionary preferences. IF it were true that demand was distributed approximately equally — if, for example, demand for milk-chocolate jelly filled candies was equal to the demand for, say, the premium single-origin ganache — THEN you and Jerry would both be making valid points.
But this is obviously not the case. The desirability of confections is not uniformly distributed, but rather approximates the normal distribution so prevalent in considerations of human preference.
Jerry, with his ersatz utilitarian argument, and you with your perhaps more noble yet equally misguided moral hazard analysis, are promoting perspectives at odds to human gustatory nature, a recipe (no pun intended) almost certain to both compound the current crisis and, ultimately, plunge society into spiraling disarray.
Henry says there’s a steep moral price for taking what you want. We’re not just talking about delayed gratification, though, we’re talking about consumption of items some may feel are unconsumable, like that strange one with the orange and white stuff in it that somehow isn’t orange creme filling. This isn’t merely utilitarian, it’s downright sacrificial in terms of one’s interests, particularly when some of the market is removing the bottom-layer motivation to engage the mystery chocolates at all!
My advice, Doc? Go get your own box and eat it in any manner you wish, though it may be less interesting and fun. We share many things in our house, but when it comes to consuming sweets, it is an individual affair. We dare not tread on one another’s path.
I agree – one way to avoid the tragedy of the commons is through private property rights.
My household’s favorite humorous tweet surrounding this past Easter:
Poster: So I just spent a half hour helping my gf look for the Stouffer’s chocolate bunny she can’t find.
How can I tell her I ate it last Thursday?
Well, dietetic- the box is yours.
There is nothing in my analysis that suggests or requires an equal demand distribution. It is more likely that a highly selective minority is disadvantaged by the rule at issue. If that consumer has to also take less desirable top tier items to make the preferred item finally available then our analysis is similar to an antitrust analysis of a tying arrangement.
OB, you have missed the point of my observation regarding the unequal distribution of demand for different varieties of chocolates. The point is not so much that individuals prefer different chocolates, but rather that certain chocolates are differentially favored by a substantial majority of individuals.
In other words, it isn’t a “highly selective minority” that seeks to circumvent the normal order of selection and launch a premature foray into the virgin layers of the selection. Rather, most consumers of the chocolates would like to root out the favored treats and forego the less desirable ones. It is precisely because of this asymmetry of desirability that the social contract exists and that regular order must be preserved.
Note that there is no tying involved: no one is obligated to partake of a pedestrian hazelnut cream in order to enjoy the pleasure of a dark chocolate champagne truffle. Rather, participants are merely asked to resist the impulse to storm and pillage the sugary citadel like so many sweet-toothed barbarians.
You and others here are encouraging a figurative and literal race to the bottom.
I think Dr. Bastiat ought to list the specific flavors that nobody in his family wants to eat. I bet there are volunteers on Ricochet who would be willing to eat them if he mailed them out — for the sake of Bastiat family harmony.
You guys still don’t get it. For every chocolate that you take from the bottom, you replace it with a chocolate from the top. (And the word “surreptitious” exists for a reason.)
That can work, as long as there’s no diagram showing what is where.
I know this is meant to be tongue in cheek, but the arguments presented are a bit terrifying especially presented on a political website.
We also had a rule in many USMC units that you had to take the first MRE in the box that you touch. No one followed that rule either.
Best thread I’ve read in a long time. Wonderful, everyone.
Even though this post has cycled down the main feed, I’m reading these comments first every morning. And feeling pretty guilty about it. Don’t tell my daughter.
Why do you think I have been in the chocolates? They are completely full on the top half of the box!
I have a sister-in-law who pokes the bottom of several of the filled chocolates with her thumbnail until she finds one that she considers good enough.
She puts the inspected, but not selected, chocolates back in the box. As she explains it, “I don’t want to waste my calories on something I don’t like.”
She once gave my wife, her sister, a box of chocolates. I got to it first to inspect. As you might guess, there were a few with the trademark punctures in the bottom of the candy.
No one’ll ever know. It’s the perfect heist. People will think it may be a mistake at the factory, perhaps a box assembled by illiterates. Meanwhile she is sitting pretty and smiling, with chocolate on her breath.
This thread has certainly been useful. It has made clear to me which of you I would not trust with my Bitcoin account number. (For the rest of you, it’s 9b3dc28517f948c1bb87e61173e9526d.)
Thanks!! Just to let you know, I borrowed a little. I’ll pay you back soon.
Just so you only borrowed from the bottom layer, it’s okay.
That is just selfish and evil.
She doesn’t get any credit for not actually biting them?
I have said as much. With a grin.
Another sister-in-law only eats half of treats like candy and cookies. No matter how small, she only eats half. I have caught her eating three halfs.
This rather absurd thread (mea culpa etiam!) prompted a browser wandering that led to this video about the history of Whitman’s sampler.
And this unexpected celebrity endorsement….
Would Rick Blaine care if you took candy from the bottom row? Discuss. As I recall, the caramels were brown, the almonds were blue. The Germans wore gray.
Women have some ability to claim that’s a “diet.”
Rita Rudner admitted it. “If I’m eating out, and I get dessert, I’ll only eat half. But if it’s a good dessert, I’ll order two.”
No, she doesn’t. That’s the line there is no return from: loss of individual chocolate integrity. Examine the chocolate all you want, but sample and return only if the box is yours and no one else’s. Who wants to eat a chocolate you punctured with a fingernail?
Man, that picture shows me how much the Whitman Sampler has changed over the years. The top layer has more than a whole box has now. The paper cups used to keep them in place. Now the formed plastic takes up space between each piece.
And, does any of them have more than one layer, now?
Ewww
I tip my hat to you.