Editorial: A Logic Puzzle

I'm confused.

If a promoter raises prices or cuts their purse because the costs of the track have increased, be it food, insurance, maintenance, whatever - the racers complain because they don’t think that they need to be paying the promoter’s costs.

OK, I can see their point, since they’re not responsible for those companies charging the promoter the additional money.

On the other hand, if racers are asking for an increase in purse or lowering of fees because their class of car is becoming more and more expensive, the promoters complain because they don’t think they need to be paying the racer’s costs.

Hmm…I can see that one too, the promoters aren’t the part suppliers or in many cases, the rule makers - even if the promoter is the rule maker, rules changes are fought because of money previously invested in equipment that will be illegal, or money it will take to conform to the new rules.

So, is there a logical difference between the two arguments? I’m not asking about motors, food, tires, insurance, weight limits, taxes, rules, beer prices, and so on. You don’t have to go to all that detail.

I’m just asking the general question: in both cases isn’t someone else being asked to pay for the cost of others?

Step back and think of this from the point of view of someone who has no interest either way since they don’t own a car or a track — perhaps that of a casual fan? I'm not stating a position one way or another in the debate.

I still can’t see the difference. Maybe someone else can help me out here?

-Jason