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

"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.

>>>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.

>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.

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

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

That isn't forcing THEM to behave as I wish.  That is simply removing
one means of their behaving criminally, for the benefit of society.
How they behave thereafter is none of my concern.

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

I know what libertarians claim it is.  I also know what they end up
with given their claims.  I reject the conclusion as thoroughly
immoral, and therefore the entire ideology is pure bullcrap.

As I've said, I don't necessarily require logic in order to reach
conclusions.  Libertarianism generates a visceral disgust in me.

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