Is Price Gouging Immoral? Should It Be Illegal?

[SilverSaviour]

There is nothing in this discussion about advocating stealing in any way. Libertarians oppose stealing more than anyone else, is that a bad thing ?

 

[bordsilver]

I have no doubt there are people here who would take the lunch money off a 10 year old and try and justify it as being the right thing to do.

Yes there are. But these people are definitely not the Libertarians on this forum.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

If someone wants to charge 5 times the amount for a play station or packet of chips I do not care, I would walk away. Try and benefit off the misfortune of another human being and there is a very, very big problem in my opinion. For example if the product was a basic staple like rice and someone jacked up the price and people were going hungry and suffering.

As for violence there are certain times when it is appropriate, it is nearly always controlled in how it is applied by "the state". Things like "justifiable violance" I think it is called from memory.

I personally would have no problems using extreme violance if it meant protecting the welfare of my children for example.

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.

 

[bordsilver]

He gave you a serve for helping flood victims?

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.

 

[Newtosilver]

I have no doubt there are people here who would take the lunch money off a 10 year old and try and justify it as being the right thing to do.

Yes there are. But these people are definitely not the Libertarians on this forum.

I was thinking specifically of you I am trying to find an ignore button but I can't find it.......

 

[bordsilver]

I have no doubt there are people here who would take the lunch money off a 10 year old and try and justify it as being the right thing to do.

Yes there are. But these people are definitely not the Libertarians on this forum.

I was thinking specifically of you I am trying to find an ignore button but I can't find it.......

I am sad and disappointed that you cannot see the very obvious differences.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

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.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

It all would have happened anyway - long before the shit hit the fan.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

I have no doubt there are people here who would take the lunch money off a 10 year old and try and justify it as being the right thing to do.

Yep. If the little cunt used my tax dollars to buy his tuckshop then too right I would.

 

[Newtosilver]

I have no doubt there are people here who would take the lunch money off a 10 year old and try and justify it as being the right thing to do.

Yep. If the little censored used my tax dollars to buy his tuckshop then too right I would.

I don't believe you would I just think you are trying to act all tough and mean

 

[mmm....shiney!]

I have no doubt there are people here who would take the lunch money off a 10 year old and try and justify it as being the right thing to do.

Yep. If the little censored used my tax dollars to buy his tuckshop then too right I would.

I don't believe you would I just think you are trying to act all tough and mean

You're right.

 

[SilverSaviour]

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...)

 

[bordsilver]

Yep. If the little censored used my tax dollars to buy his tuckshop then too right I would.

I don't believe you would I just think you are trying to act all tough and mean

You're right.

He's just a big softie. Shiney's Christmas photo from last year:

 

[mmm....shiney!]

Fk off with your softie bit bored silver.

 

[Newtosilver]

Govts make of illegal because they (and most people) thinks its immoral. We just need to educate people that it isn't immoral and that it actually helps increase supply of the goods in the fastest time.

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.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

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.

And what are your opinions of the State wanting to maintain control? In favour or against?

 

[Newtosilver]

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.

And what are your opinions of the State wanting to maintain control? In favour or against?

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.

And what are your opinions of the State wanting to maintain control? In favour or against?

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

 

[mmm....shiney!]

I'll get back to you when I am more capable ie sober

 

[SilverSaviour]

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.

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 ?

think globally.

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

 

[trew]

We just need to educate people that it isn't immoral and that it actually helps increase supply of the goods in the fastest time.

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.