There is nothing in this discussion about advocating stealing in any way. Libertarians oppose stealing more than anyone else, is that a bad thing ?
I think this has been answered by bored silver. Basically, you're a jerk if you make a profit from someone's suffering, and conversely you're a jerk if you make someone suffer because you demand something and don't agree to meet their price. The welfare of your children has no relevance to the welfare of my children on a personal basis. Your children are not more important than mine, therefore you do not have moral superiority over my family. What is important is the realisation that the welfare of my children do not outweigh the welfare of your children and that if you value the wellbeing of your kids and mine, and the market price dictates that you need to spend $30 in order to buy a torch, you do so. The alternative is that you retreat home and spend the next 96 hours stewing in the dark - with your cold and hungry kids, while mine eat baked beans.
Errol43, Auspm did this? Do you happen to know the thread because he gave me a serve against "price gouging" just before he was banned (for the last or second to last time I think). Note to others - auspm/Auspm was definitely not an Austrian economist, Libertarian or Anarcho-capitalist (or a classical liberal) even though many of his ideas overlapped quite strongly.
The logic of a storekeeper ripping off the citizens of a small town and conversely the citizens breaking the legs of the storekeeper and raping his wife after a catastrophic event is the stuff of Hollywood scripts. It's written by those who have never lived in a small town.
I hope you are somewhat open minded newtosilver. There are a few libertarians here and we like to set the socialists (democratic or otherwise) straight. Nothing annoys us more than logical retardedness (I'm not saying you are logically retarded, but most socialists are...)
Actually as I said the reason price gouging is illegal is because it helps prevents a break down in law and order: "In the United States, laws against price gouging have been held constitutional at the state level as a valid exercise of the police power to preserve order during an emergency" The laws are there to prevent a breakdown of law and order, the issue of it being immoral is a secondary issue, the state wants to maintain control. I know a bit about the theory and practical side of it, also relates to counter insurgency.
For If the state looses control you have the potential for insurgencies, state looses control you have civil unrest, destruction of infrastructure, looting, shootings, bombings etc. Services fail, shortages of food, fuel, small groups start to form, power vacume presents, lack of social cohesion, kangaroo courts pop up, executions, old scores are settled. Individuals pop up and try and gain power over certain regions. From there issue motivated groups or religious groups start to try to fill the vacume and and gain popular support. This can lead to long periods of instability or civil war or you have certain provinces for example try and go on their own usually the ones with resources or different religious or ethnic groups. If the govt can not regain control you then have failed states such as Somalia or insurgencies that roll on for years. Australia is a long way from that and I could never see it going that way due to a large number of factors. Happens around the world and that is why certain Governments try to maintain such strict control of their citizens. Very short, basic explanation but you should get the idea, think globally. It does not need to go right through the whole process, the state can regain control and bring it back at any time depending on a number of factors. It may just get to the stage of civil unrest, looting, shortages, for example then they pull it back in. If it gets to the stage where you have something like Somalia your kind of lost the battle and the place is down the gurgles and ain't coming back
North Korea, Zimbabwe, Burma, Russia, Nazi Germany, Venezuela, etc All have governments. What is the difference between the countries of these horrible corrupt dictators and the wealthy western governments? Your logic seems to point that that as long as we have government all will be peaceful and good. The countries I mentioned all have(had) governments in very tight control of the people. One of your points was that control was important. The government of Nazi Germany had pretty tight control don't you think ? I just did, and came up with the answer above. Did you know Hitler was elected by a democracy ? Why do you think that was? Why do you think it would be unthinkable for Tony Abbot to murder millions of Jews, when Hitler did it only 50 years ago ? Ill give you a hint: It has something to do with the people
I don't think it's your place to tell others what is moral or not, do you ? Isn't it up to the individual to decide their morality in a free market ? In a free market individuals should be free to price gouge during a disaster, but others in the community are also free to think those people are scum sucking maggots and refuse to ever deal with them again. Free market at work.
