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

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> "Robert N. Newshutz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> >
> > > I did not claim that I did.  I found the attitudes expressed at that
> > > time to be of subhuman morality.  My own feelings on the matter, and
> > > my utter antipathy to libertarianism, came as a result. 
> >
> > That is too bad, because you demonstrate serious ignorance of 
> > libertarianism.
>
>
> I know more than I want to know.
ROTFL, since what you seem to know is false, I would suggest 
forgetting it.

> > > > 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. You 
cannot instill your concept of human decency in them.

> > 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.

> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > Good for them, charity is often an appropriate response to tragedy. 
> > >
> > > It is the ONLY appropriate response to tragedy. 
> >
> > Not all tragedy can be mitigated by material goods.
>
>
> Of course not. 

Then why the caps on "ONLY"? Maybe you could have aknowledged that 
you missjudged me, rather than this lame avoidance.

> But when it can, greed is not an emotion I care to
> support.
>
>
> > > 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 the kind of society that tolerates greed, over the kind 
of violence that would be necessary to suppress it.

> > 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?

> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > Your ignorace of the libertarian position hurts your credibility.
> > > >
> > > > Libertarians do not think it is fine to "corner the market" and then 
> > > > "rip everyone off", because force is needed to "corner the market" 
> > > > and/or to prevent competition which would spoil "rip everyone off".
> > >
> > > Libertarians aren't afraid to use force. 
> >
> > Morality constrains libertarians from initiating force.
>
>
> 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?