Price Gouging - Fair and balanced, or unfair

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


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?

You can do something that doesn't require intelligence and you have the opportunity to make as much money as anybody else if you work hard.

[Kuciwalker]

...

So an unskilled factory worker can make as much or more as a brilliant manager so long as he "works harder"?

[chequita guevara]

Libertarian arguments are BS. Every social group has the right to regulate the conduts of its members as it sees fit. We may disagree with how that plays out, but that how it is, how it's always been, and always will be. If you disagree you have two legitimate options, leave or try and change the system by convincing enough people that your way is a better system of doing things.

Thus, every group has the right to protect itself from anti-social behavior on the part of price-gougers, should they so desire. We do desire this.

[Kuciwalker]

chegitz, along that line lies persecution of gays and religious minorities.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
...

So an unskilled factory worker can make as much or more as a brilliant manager so long as he "works harder"?

Yeah, well the workers will have a say in how the factory is managed regardless. Managers serve more as leaders.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
chegitz, along that line lies persecution of gays and religious minorities.

I didn't say I liked it. A right is not something that is necessarily moral or good. It's just something you are allowed to do within your social group. Owning slaves was a right. I may think it morally reprehensible, but that doesn't change things.

Every social group has the right to decide the conduct and relationships of its members. Our social group believes in a certain amount of moral freedom, and I happen to agree with it and think that we should go further. I think that our way is superior and that we should try and export our ideals to the other social groups.

Lest you decided that this means that a social group could decide to exterminate another social group, remember that all social groups are part of a larger community that also has certain limited rights to impose it's moral view on others. Thus, most of us agree that we have a right to intervene in a case of genocide.

Social groups are the mode of existence of human beings. We are more akin to wolves than to tigers. We do not exist alone and isolated from each other, but only social groups. Anti-social modes of organization, like libertarianism, are completely contrary to human nature, which is why capitalism works best when it is democratically moderated, and why it has survived long past its due date. A completely libertarian society would have been overthrown long ago.

[Kidlicious]

This question is for any advocate of capitalism who doesn't believe in fairness. If prices aren't fair then why should you own property and be able to exploit workers.

[Kidlicious]

My argument isn't as utilitarian as Che's.

[chequita guevara]

My argument isn't based on utilitarianism, but on human nature and the social mode of human existence.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
nm

DanSed me. Anyway, I was going to say that we usually come to the same conclusions anyway.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
DanSed me.

Multiple times in fact.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I didn't say I liked it. A right is not something that is necessarily moral or good. It's just something you are allowed to do within your social group. Owning slaves was a right. I may think it morally reprehensible, but that doesn't change things.

Libertarians aren't arguing what the rules are - they're painfully aware that they don't live under their ideal government. They're arguing how it should be.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
My argument isn't based on utilitarianism, but on human nature and the social mode of human existence.

You got me interested, but confused.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I didn't say I liked it. A right is not something that is necessarily moral or good. It's just something you are allowed to do within your social group. Owning slaves was a right. I may think it morally reprehensible, but that doesn't change things.

Libertarians aren't arguing what the rules are - they're painfully aware that they don't live under their ideal government. They're arguing how it should be.

That's much too subjective for Berzerker I think.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I didn't say I liked it. A right is not something that is necessarily moral or good. It's just something you are allowed to do within your social group. Owning slaves was a right. I may think it morally reprehensible, but that doesn't change things.

Libertarians aren't arguing what the rules are - they're painfully aware that they don't live under their ideal government. They're arguing how it should be.

Then don't say it's a violation of their rights, etc. It isn't. Those rights don't exist yet.