Price Gouging - Fair and balanced, or unfair

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
It's a good sign you should step back and consider leaving the argument.

Ask yourself why that doesn't happen.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I need to know why one person is using a labor saving devise and they other isn't. That in itself isn't fair, especially when the labor saving devise allows one to make more money.

OK, let's see your answer in four scenarios:

1) the person is just an idiot who had no rational reason for not getting the device

2) the person would have gotten the device, but wanted to spend the money instead on a new car/computer/vacation, some other luxury.

3) the person could have bought it, but it would have been a dear sacrifice

4) the person simply couldn't afford it

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
We aren't talking about things that don't hurt other people. I don't give a **** about that.

And yet this was your response when I said that I could think insulting someone was immoral (I actually don't, but that's another issue):

Originally posted by Kidicious
Strange opinion. We both agree that something is immoral but you want both of us to be free to do it. I don't understand your logic.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Arrian
No, but it is a sign of his rising frustration. It's something I've dealt with when I've argued with you, so I sympathize.

That being said, I'm closer to you on this one than the Libertarians. I'm pro-free market under normal circumstances, but I figure if a state of emergency is declared, there should be special rules, including rules regarding price gouging.

-Arrian

That's exactly my position, Arrian.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

go red sox

[Arrian]

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
OK, let's see your answer in four scenarios:

1) the person is just an idiot who had no rational reason for not getting the device

Help him

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
2) the person would have gotten the device, but wanted to spend the money instead on a new car/computer/vacation, some other luxury.

They should have to get the device.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
3) the person could have bought it, but it would have been a dear sacrifice

Help him

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

4) the person simply couldn't afford it

Help him

[Kidlicious]

Check out the quote I just got.

"I have a very strange feeling about this"

Luke Skywalker

[Kuciwalker]

You didn't answer my question: it was, should the person be paid more, since he or she put in more effort?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You didn't answer my question: it was, should the person be paid more, since he or she put in more effort?

I'm not answering that.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Help him

If he's not capable of making competent decisions to run the enterprise, why should he be "helped" to make more bad decisions? Unless of course he's a party member?

They should have to get the device.

And what if the guy is waiting because he expects there to be a better model out in a few months and it would be wasteful to get one, then the other? What if the guy is developing a superior device and wants to put his money and time in that? There may be many strategic reasons for not getting the device at a particular time. What right do you have to micromanage and compel actions in this event? This is pure Soviet-style thinking.

Help him

Why should help be automatic? Maybe the guy is trying to make whatever he's making regardless of demand. Maybe he's inept. Again, there are a lot of possible reasons to do things, and the capitalist system provides opportunities to raise funding for business expansion or purchases, etc.

Help him [/QUOTE]

See above.

[Agathon]

Why are you so down on the Party, Michael? You know that you'd be allowed to join. It's just those other saps who will be mining salt.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Berzerker
It's very easy for people to dis-associate themselves from the results of their behavior when politicians are employed to do their dirty deeds... Hell, you can't even see that you're advocating violence against the peaceful in the name of "fairness"...

Hey Berz, how's the weed in Kansas?

Since when does "violence" enter the picture? It's a friggin' fine. If someone chooses to hole up and have a shootout at the OK Corral rather than pay a fine for violating a law they knew they were violating, then that person is making a choice, and is certainly not "peaceful."

[Kidlicious]

MtG,

The reason I'm avoiding the question is because it really has nothing to do with the system that I advocate. I'm not interested in trying to figure out what would possibly be fair in a capitalist system.

He should recieve the same pay for the same amount of work and effort. That's my answer. Take it or leave it.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon
Why are you so down on the Party, Michael? You know that you'd be allowed to join. It's just those other saps who will be mining salt.

Well, if I joined the Party, I'd have to have my henchmen lock up all the Party members who actually believe their stuff will work in the real world, then disband the party.