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

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William C Colley) wrote:
>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! 

I think so.  Laughter is the only appropriate response to
libertarianism.

>This is your response to those who
>disagree with your value system and engage in voluntary consensual
>free trade between each other

There is no such thing as free trade, especially once you move beyond
a barter economy.  There are always external social forces (not
necessarily those of government) constraining trade options.

>in ways that don't profit you enough.

Why do I care about how much I profit, when it is other people doing
the trading?

>> >>>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?

Lots of reasons.  The fact that libertarians can't think of them shows
their lack of imagination.  

Hint #1: human beings are not rational, and do not always (or even
usually) act to optimize their best interests.

>And what business is it of yours if they do?

Who said it was MY business.  I am not government.  I am part of
society, and everything done as part of society is to some extent
*society's* business.

>What you completely fail to comprehend is that "price gouging", so
>long as it involves NO forced selling or buying,

It does sometimes (perhaps even "often") involve forced buying.
Libertarians unfortunately don't accept that there are other sorts of
force besides a government gun.

>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,

But of course they do.  More importantly, they have even more recourse
to other sorts of force besides overt violence.

>then there will be no conflict as long as there are willing buyers.

Life always has conflict.

>> >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.

Yep.

>Why is this Mr. LeChevalier?

Because libertarianism has selfish greed as its fundamental
assumption, and greed is beneath human dignity.

>Where does this desire of yours to make someone less than human come from?

I have no such desire.  They do it to themselves.

>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 am.  I am unalterably opposed to any and all sorts of ideology that
are inflicted upon mankind.  The opposite of libertarianism is NO
IDEOLOGY.

>i.e. your own desire for violence to appease your selfish greed.
>
>How transparent.

How hilarious.

>>  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.

They support greed.  Violence is inherent to human nature, as are
other sorts of force.  I don't give a shit about whether the violence
has "legitimate initiation" or not; I'm just as dead whether if it is
not legitimate.

>> >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,

No, because I reject the greed that is fundamental to the ideology.

>> >"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?

No more than the force by which you acquired it from someone else
against their will by price gouging.

>> 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.

Since force is not limited to violence, and most people are forced by
circumstances to do things against their will, you have stated that
society can never benefit, period.

>Only some other
>people are benifited, NOT all people, which is implicit in the word
>society.

Sometimes all people are benefited by a benefit overtly received by
only some people.  (The "trickle-down" tax cut theory makes such an
assumption fundamental).

>You seem to catagorize hoarders and gougers as less than human so you
>can justify having their property violently removed 

I don't generally welcome violent removal.  Only if they violently
resist government's lawful authority would there be violence, and then
it is they who are initiating violence.

(Note that I say *lawful* authority - I don't approve of government
willy-nilly acting against private persons any more than you do.  The
constitution guarantees due process before search and seizure.)

>> How they behave thereafter is none of my concern.
>
>How should someone who is being robbed behave Mr. LeChevalier?

No one is being robbed.  Hoarding and gouging, when against the law,
are merely voluntary abandonment of one's property rights.

>Elaborate again how you plan to have hoarders and gougers give over
>their property without using or calling for violence to be used?

One hopes that the hoarders and gougers will not engage in violence
themselves, in which case there should be no necessity for violence
unto them.

>> 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.

Nope.  That is what libertarians do.

>Nice try Mr. LeChevalier, but
>this is the lamest attempt I've seen to justify theft in a long time.

It isn't theft if it is conducted under due process of law.

>Main Entry: theft 
>Pronunciation: 'theft
>Function: noun
>Etymology: Middle English thiefthe, from Old English thIefth; akin to Old English 
>thEof thief
>Date: before 12th century
>1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and
> removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful
> owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary)
> of property

>felony (for felonious)
>Pronunciation: 'fe-l&-nE
>Function: noun
>Inflected Form(s): plural -nies
>Date: 14th century
>1 : an act on the part of a feudal vassal involving the forfeiture of
> his fee
>2 a : a grave crime formerly differing from a misdemeanor under
> English common law by involving forfeiture in addition to any other
> punishment b : a grave crime declared to be a felony by the common
> law or by statute regardless of the punishment actually imposed c : a
> crime declared a felony by statute because of the punishment imposed
> d : a crime for which the punishment in federal law may be death or
> imprisonment for more than one year 

Thus unless one accepts the libertarian redefinition of the word, it
is impossible for the government to commit lawful theft. Since theft
is by definition "unlawful" (or "felonious", which is also a form of
unlawful), there is no such thing as lawful theft.

Except of course to libertarians, who try to redefine words.

>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,

It takes more than one elected person to make such changes in this
country.

>> 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,

I reject the results which libertarians claim derive from their
assumptions as being fundamentally immoral.  Therefore I know that the
assumptions are wrong.

>> 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.

"Libertarian" means "someone who claims to be a libertarian, or who
uses the libertarian redefinitions of words (like "theft" and
"government monopoly on force") to argue their political positions."

I don't much care whether you agree that someone who uses subhuman
libertarian argument really is a libertarian.  I claim the same
humpty-dumpty right to define words however I wish that the
libertarians do.

lojbab
-- 
lojbab                                             [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:                 http://www.lojban.org