Price Gouging - Fair and balanced, or unfair

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Arrian
DANGER! DANGER! DANGER!

Thread morphing into capitalism vs. communism ten(thousand). Run away. Find shelter! Seek HELP!

-Arrian

and I saw this coming and I'm still watching

[Kidlicious]

If I would have started a com/cap thread it would have gone no where. In fact Vel started one the other day that went no where. But this one started with Berz ripping away at the foundation of your argument. When I caught that Skywalker started on this threadjack. We still don't know what his point is.

[Kidlicious]

I have to go take care of some communist business now. When I get back I may or may not respond to a dozen or so people telling me that I'm stupid and not worth arguing with even though the capitalists will still have not made one valid point or defended my claim that they have destroyed their own argument.

[Japher]

I have to go take care of some communist business now. When I get back I may or may not respond to a dozen or so people telling me that I'm stupid and not worth arguing with even though the capitalists will still have not made one valid point or defended my claim that they have destroyed their own argument

I don't think your stupid.



Price gouging is unfair. However, if they make sure to add an unfair tax on top of the unfair prices it is fair; two negatives = a positive!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Japher


I don't think your stupid.



Price gouging is unfair. However, if they make sure to add an unfair tax on top of the unfair prices it is fair; two negatives = a positive!

Cool

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
omg, you don't have anymore teeth to pull. What is your point?!

OK, now, you say for someone without access to some means of production, the person should be paid as if they had access to that means of production. Now, there are a few gaping problems with this:

1) what's to prevent people from simply not hiring those who don't have these means of production? If you have some law requiring equal pay for equal effort, then those who produce less simply won't be hired.

(your solution to 1 would obviously be to require that employers hire people regardless of the above qualification, leading to number two)

2) an education is essentially a means of production. Under your plan, employers would be forced to hire and pay high-school dropouts as much as PhD's, even though said high-school dropouts can't do any useful work in a job.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


OK, now, you say for someone without access to some means of production, the person should be paid as if they had access to that means of production. Now, there are a few gaping problems with this:

1) what's to prevent people from simply not hiring those who don't have these means of production? If you have some law requiring equal pay for equal effort, then those who produce less simply won't be hired.

(your solution to 1 would obviously be to require that employers hire people regardless of the above qualification, leading to number two)

2) an education is essentially a means of production. Under your plan, employers would be forced to hire and pay high-school dropouts as much as PhD's, even though said high-school dropouts can't do any useful work in a job.

I don't know if you forgot or what, but I'm a communist. I don't know how you want me to answer to this.

[Berzerker]

MtG -

Hey Berz, how's the weed in Kansas?

Very good I hear, 4th largest producer in the states.

Since when does "violence" enter the picture? It's a friggin' fine.

Try not paying that "fine" and you'll see the violence. Isn't that obvious?

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."

Strawman, I never said they had to hole up and shoot it out (but if they did it would be self-defense). What happens if they simply refuse to pay the fine? Are they still peaceful? Yes. And your reaction? To break into their business or home with guns drawn to ensure their removal from existence or their property? And you accuse your victim of not being peaceful? Millions of peaceful people have died for not complying with governments...

Kid -

Oooohh. Berz is weaving a tangled web in this one

Hardly, I'm not the one who is arguing that I, thru my proxy called "government", should be allowed to run around killing or caging people for not charging what I think is fair. This argument should appear silly even to those who make it if no government existed...

You're just saying that any wage that a owner and a worker agree on is fair again because the worker agreed to it. You always insist (except in this case) that if two people agree on a price that it is fair. Don't pull this, it's my property crap. That's a strawman. I'm never going to let this go either.

Property is always the key, not vague and subjective definitions of morality or "fairness". I've never said it is fair if two people agree on a price, fairness is your ideology, not mine. Now, if I run up to you and smash your head in with a baseball bat, does the fact your head belongs to you, i.e., "property" constitute a strawman?

I know that's your definition, so it's no wonder that you don't even see that as perfect.

It's not my definition, it's the definition given in the dictionary, and the last part of that makes no sense.

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.

It's pretty simple, freedom is the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action. Therefore, an act can be immoral and still not involve coercion or constraints and when that is the case, violence or threats of violence to alter the immoral behavior violates the definition of freedom. Action and reaction must be comparable...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I don't know if you forgot or what, but I'm a communist. I don't know how you want me to answer to this.

Then would you have the state pay uneducated high-school dropouts the same amount as people with graduate degrees? I mean, it's not fair, they do the same effort, it's just one has an unfair advantage in the education.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Fine, as long as both producers have equal access to tools.

Equal access simply means they're available in the marketplace under similar conditions. It doesn't mean that a debt-ridden, insolvent, mismanaged enterprise would be given a tool, while a well-run enterprise would have to not only pay for the tool, but subsidize his inept competitor's gift-tool.

[Kuciwalker]

It doesn't matter whose interpretation of "equal access" you accept, MtG, he gets pwned either way

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Equal access simply means they're available in the marketplace under similar conditions. It doesn't mean that a debt-ridden, insolvent, mismanaged enterprise would be given a tool, while a well-run enterprise would have to not only pay for the tool, but subsidize his inept competitor's gift-tool.

I don't know why you guys put these ideas to me. Debt-ridden? I don't know what to do with that. We don't advocate a debt system.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Then would you have the state pay uneducated high-school dropouts the same amount as people with graduate degrees? I mean, it's not fair, they do the same effort, it's just one has an unfair advantage in the education.

In the military you are paid while you train. That's pretty much what I advocate. Those who do well in education will be rewarded just as those who do well in work instead of being educated.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Hardly, I'm not the one who is arguing that I, thru my proxy called "government", should be allowed to run around killing or caging people for not charging what I think is fair. This argument should appear silly even to those who make it if no government existed...

That's all.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Property is always the key, not vague and subjective definitions of morality or "fairness". I've never said it is fair if two people agree on a price, fairness is your ideology, not mine. Now, if I run up to you and smash your head in with a baseball bat, does the fact your head belongs to you, i.e., "property" constitute a strawman?

Why should it be your property if it isn't fairly so? Are you just saying just because?

Originally posted by Berzerker
It's not my definition, it's the definition given in the dictionary, and the last part of that makes no sense.

It's one definition in the dictionary. The one you like. You ignore the rest.

Originally posted by Berzerker
It's pretty simple, freedom is the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action. Therefore, an act can be immoral and still not involve coercion or constraints and when that is the case, violence or threats of violence to alter the immoral behavior violates the definition of freedom. Action and reaction must be comparable...

It's not simple at all. First you have to define coercion, and I don't really want to go there with you. I want to concentrate on this fair price thing. If you don't think prices are fair then I want to know how you justify capitalism.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
In the military you are paid while you train. That's pretty much what I advocate. Those who do well in education will be rewarded just as those who do well in work instead of being educated.

What if I'm just too dumb for it? Since it's unfair that others have such an advantage on me, why should I be paid less?