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

Greetings All,

Bob LeChevalier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> "Robert N. Newshutz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> >> "Robert N. Newshutz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>>Would it have been better if they had stayed home and not brought 
> >>>>>water into LA?
> >>>>
> >>>>It would have been better if they had a shred of human decency.
> >>>
> >>>Sure, but that is not one of the choices you get.
> >> 
> >> Of course it is.  I consign those without human decency to the
> >> category of "subhuman".
> >> 
> >Irrelevant. You can either accept the conditions under which they 
> >will be willing to undertake the task, or you can force them.
> 
> Or I can consign them to the pit of oblivion and deal with someone who
> is a human being.
> 

Very Funny Mr. LeChevalier! This is your response to those who
disagree with your value system and engage in voluntary consensual
free trade between each other in ways that don't profit you enough.
Quite telling of your worldview.

> > > >
> >>>Even if you force them to behave as you would wish they behave,
> >> 
> >> Force?  I wouldn't force them to do anything.  I am more interested in
> >> *preventing* crime against humanity.
> >> 
> >Interesting hyperbole. Strange such a simple question has brought 
> >you such discomfort.
> >
> >You leave me with the impression that you do wish no one had brought 
> >water rather than have someone profit by bringing water.
> 
> I am quite sure that plenty of people could and would bring water
> without gouging, given a strong moral and legal stance against it.
> 

IF plenty of people were giving water away for less than what the
seller was asking, then why would a buyer pay the difference? And what
business is it of yours if they do?

What you completely fail to comprehend is that "price gouging", so
long as it involves NO forced selling or buying, is automatically a
self-limiting situation, the opposite of creating and maintaining a
monopoloy. Indeed it is through the ability to price gouge that
monopolies can be broken. As long as the person holding the monopoloy
has no more recourse to violence as the person price gouging, then
there will be no conflict as long as there are willing buyers. No
matter what the price.

>>
> >Then why the caps on "ONLY"? Maybe you could have aknowledged that 
> >you missjudged me, rather than this lame avoidance.
> 
> You're a libertarian, therefore I have not misjudged you.  You are
> consistent with your ideology, which is beneath humanity.
> 

You reveal the essential character of yourself. You publically call
someone less than human merely because of a word, libertarian. Why is
this Mr. LeChevalier? Where does this desire of yours to make someone
less than human come from?


> > > > >
> >>>>Libertarians prefer greed, however.
> >>>
> >>>Nope, libertarians prefer people to be free from force.
> >> 
> >> Translation: they prefer selfish greed.
> >> 
> >if the alternative is violence, sure.
> 
> They prefer selfish greed whether there is violence or not. 
>

And of course you have examples to back this up, yes? Libertarians
calling for the use of violence to further their own selfish greed?
Since you manage to get the entire concept of libertarian reversed
with this definition, one can only conclude that you are actively
trying to promote the opposite of libertarianism, i.e. your own desire
for violence to appease your selfish greed.

How transparent.

>
>  At least
> the most extreme libertarians, the objectivists, admit it.
> http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/Heroes/JohnStossel.asp
> 

Please quote the portion that links selfish greed to the legitimate
initiation of violence. YOU are making that connection Mr.
LeChevalier, not any libertarian.



> >
> >They prefer the kind of society that tolerates greed, over the kind 
> >of violence that would be necessary to suppress it.
> 
> I suppress it without violence.  
>

Then you are basically acting as a libertarian, for it is when you
decide to use violence to stop other peaceful people from freely doing
what they choose that you violate the non-initiation of violence
principle. Very good of you.

>
> I look down my nose at those who
> champion it.
> 

Perfectly acceptable in a libertarian society.

> >>>
> >>>Your plan to force other people to behave as you wish is not charity either.
> >> 
> >> I have no such plan.
> >>
> >This is your plan in your words:
> >
> >"I for one would have no problem with government confiscation of 
> >vital supplies from both hoarders and gougers"
> >
> >How do you "confiscate" without the use of force?
> 
> That isn't forcing THEM to behave as I wish. 
>

Come again? If you have something the government wants, and they
confiscate it against your will, you don't see this as a use of force?

>
> That is simply removing
> one means of their behaving criminally, for the benefit of society.
>

Society can never benifit if any peaceful person is violated by the
use of force to do something against their will. Only some other
people are benifited, NOT all people, which is implicit in the word
society.

You seem to catagorize hoarders and gougers as less than human so you
can justify having their property violently removed for the benefit of
those who aren't hoarders and gougers.  Am I wrong in this assesment
of your position?

>
> How they behave thereafter is none of my concern.
>

How should someone who is being robbed behave Mr. LeChevalier?
Elaborate again how you plan to have hoarders and gougers give over
their property without using or calling for violence to be used?

> 
> Since property is a social artifact, and government is the formal
> embodiment of society, redefining ownership is not "force".
>

Oh, I get it. Simply redefine the words. Nice try Mr. LeChevalier, but
this is the lamest attempt I've seen to justify theft in a long time.
Hey, I think I'll get myself elected to office so I too can redefine
other peoples ownership over what used to be their property, before I
came along and changed the rules with my threats of jail if they
didn't conform. Is that how it is?

> 
> >> Bullshit.  Libertarians are thoroughly amoral when it comes to their
> >> own actions.
> >
> >This is just sad. You really have no concept of what libertarianism 
> >is do you?
> 
> I know what libertarians claim it is.  
>

No, you have provided ZERO evidence that libertarians think it is
moral to use violence to appease their selfish greed. YOU came up with
this approach Mr. LeChevalier, not the article you linked to above.

>
> I also know what they end up
>  with given their claims. 
>

Elaborate, with references to actual libertarians words, not your
imagined version.

>
> I reject the conclusion as thoroughly
> immoral, and therefore the entire ideology is pure bullcrap.
> 

Your rejection seems to be lacking an actual conclusion made by a
libertarian. You are rejecting your own construct of what you imagine
the word libertarian to mean,  since you have completely failed to
provide one sentence linking the use of violence to further selfish
greed.

>
> As I've said, I don't necessarily require logic in order to reach
> conclusions.
>

Since you are starting from false premises, the use or non-use of
logic won't really matter. Your simply wrong in your assumption of
what you claim the word libertarian to mean.

>
>  Libertarianism generates a visceral disgust in me.
>

The visceral disgust in inherent in you, not in libertarianism.  

Try again Mr. LeChevalier.

William C Colley