Re: Price gouging is beneficial. Price gouging is great!

Bob LeChevalier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> "Robert N. Newshutz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> >> "Byron Canfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> 
> >>>If price gouging were limited to disaster areas, perhaps the support of it
> >>>would no be so questionable, but that is typically where it occurs.
> >> 
> >> Whenever a libertoonian posts that kind of tripe, I am moved to pray
> >> that they are struck destitute, left handicapped, or otherwise suffer
> >> some sort of problem wherein their mere existence requires the support
> >> of society.  
> >> 
> >> Whereupon society should "gouge" them.
> >> 
> >> Then I remember that I am a Christian.
> >
> >On 9/11 I decided to top off my gas tank, just in case. I was 
> >disuaded by the newly elevated "gouging" price.
> >
> >"Price gouging" is an effective means of countering hording.
> 
> I don't think it is.  Allowing price gouging merely encourages people
> to attempt to corner the market on needed supplies, whereupon they can
> hoard goods until the price reaches truly exorbitant levels.

He didn't ask you if you think it is, but using the cliches of
totalitarian socialism, you volunteered that you would want the
government to intervene in the situation he describe, which in his
case meant that he would be able to buy or even hoard gas, thanks to
you (and your cliches of totalitarian socialism), and that it turned
out he didn't need and didn't buy extra of, because of economic
freedom.  You have just proved how the cliches of totalitarian
socialism are idiotic, and produce poverty, shortages, misery and the
massive starvation, killing and deaths that characterized the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics, Communist China and the National Socialist
German Workers' Party.  And you are too dense to even know it. 
Thanks, it was hilarious to read it.

> >Do you have an alternative solution to hording?
> 
> No.  But hoarding is at best a secondary problem in a crisis.  making
> sure that everyone has food, clothing, and shelter is preeminent, and
> I for one would have no problem with government confiscation of vital
> supplies from both hoarders and gougers in an emergency, providing
> that compensation at fair market value is given after the fact in
> accordance with due process. 

hording is related (because it prevents) "making sure that everyone
has food, clothing, and shelter is preeminent."  You cause hording
because you use government violence to prevent selling valuable goods
at the price people will gladly pay, either to buy them, or to sell
them.  You are the one who makes sure that everyone goes without food,
clothing, and shelter. You for one  have no problem with government
violence in an attempt at confiscation of vital
supplies from both hoarders and gougers in an emergency, and you
naively think that you and your socialist government will omnisciently
know where they are, and you miss the fact that no one will produce
more nor go great distances to obtain more, because of your violence.
You are the one who makes sure that everyone goes without food,
clothing, and shelter.
   You have again proved how the cliches of totalitarian socialism are
idiotic, and produce poverty, shortages, misery and the massive
starvation, killing and deaths that characterized the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics, Communist China and the National Socialist German
Workers' Party.  And you are too dense to even know it.  Thanks, it
was hilarious to read it.

>Private property rights are secondary in a true emergency
> where lives are at stake.

You are saying that you don't believe anyone has private property
rights in food, clothing, shelter or anything.  And you demonstrated
it above with you advocacy of government violence to steal.  You are
worse than a thief.

> For this I will surely be called a totalitarian fascist, but I don't
> much care. 

You always use the classic reasoning used by totalitarian socialism. 
If the issue is education, food, clothing, shelter, TV, widgets or any
goods or services, then a freedom advocate will point out how people
provide for needs in a free market economy, and the response of the
classic totalitarian socialist is that everything that people have in
a free society can be provided by a totalitarian government because
"Don't government providers have to answer to citizens too? Or at
least to the provider board, who the citizens elect?"

It is frightening how commonplace that response has become and how the
people who provide that response to one subject (e.g. schools) NEVER
OPENLY expand the response as was done in the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics, Communist China, the National Socialist German
Workers Party, Cuba, etc. It is as if the people who use that
simplistic response do not know all the horrible ideologies that have
used that same response.   Very frightening.

You do not think philosophically about the range of your own comments,
and you simplistically rubber-stamp government programs that others
start (because you are not enough of a creative thinker to come up
with your own socialist ideas).  Point to any website or even other
group posts where you attempt to explain any political philosophy or
philosophy of government that you hold (you hold none, other than
rubber-stamp statism) or point to any philosophical defense of liberty
(calling for the reduction of government programs, laws, socialism)
that you have ever made.  You can point to nothing.  You are a
rubber-stamp statist who uses the cliches of totalitarian socialism.


> (If it matters, my stance on this derives from gougers who trucked in
> water after the last big LA earthquake, and claimed it was moral to
> turn away the thirsty. 

If it matters, my stance on this derives from all the totalitarian
socialists did not truck in water after the last big LA earthquake,
and the totalitarian socialists claimed that it was moral to do
nothing about the thirsty.  Instead, the totalitarian socialists stood
around advocating/wishing violence against so-called "gougers" who
actually did truck in water after the last big LA earthquake. The
totalitarian socialists claimed that it would be moral to
turn away the thirsty after they confiscated the water trucks that
were there and then (surprise!) no more water trucks showed up.
   You have again proved how the cliches of totalitarian socialism are
idiotic, and produce poverty, shortages, misery and the massive
starvation, thirst, killing and deaths that characterized the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics, Communist China and the National Socialist
German Workers' Party.  And you are too dense to even know it. 
Thanks, it was hilarious to read it.


 By contrast, in the recent Isabel storm,
> electric companies bought up all the dry ice available for hundreds of
> miles around and distributed it for free on a rationing basis.  They
> may have been less than ideally efficient on getting the power back,
> but at least they did take the immoral corner the market and then rip
> everyone off stance that most libertarians think is perfectly fine.

By contrast, in the recent Isabel storm, electric companies bought up
all the dry ice available for hundreds of miles around and distributed
it for free on a rationing basis.  They have the right to do that. 
Oh, and in economic freedom, the dry ice companies have the right to
try to provide generators or wire in electricity.  They were much more
efficient at providing goods and services than the totalitarian
socialists who did not provide electricity, dry ice, water, nor
anything, and instead stood around advocating/wishing violence against
people who actually did truck in water, dry ice, generators, etc.
after the last big LA earthquake.  At least the economic freedom did
prevail over the immoral violence of socialism with its
rip-everyone-off stance that socialists think is perfectly fine.

   You have again proved how the cliches of totalitarian socialism are
idiotic, and produce poverty, shortages, misery and the massive
starvation, thirst, killing and deaths that characterized the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics, Communist China and the National Socialist
German Workers' Party.  And you are too dense to even know it. 
Thanks, it was hilarious to read it.