Price Gouging - Fair and balanced, or unfair

[Kuciwalker]

They're talking about natural rights. Obviously, they mean the rights they think people should have (by the definition of rights as a legal entity). Your argument was pure semantics.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


They're talking about natural rights. Obviously, they mean the rights they think people should have (by the definition of rights as a legal entity). Your argument was pure semantics.

Everyone has an opinion about what rights people should have. Only Libs call theirs natural. Very strange.

[Berzerker]

Kid -

That's much too subjective for Berzerker I think.

Nothing subjective about libertarianism, that's why one branch of the ideology is called objectivism. Your ideology is entirely subjective though with everything based on "fairness" as you define it...

Everyone has an opinion about what rights people should have. Only Libs call theirs natural. Very strange.

Your opinion requires that rights are granted by the state or by other people thru the state, our notion of rights comes from the nature of existence. Our "natural" rights exist regardless of whether or not government exists and yours exist only because some politician said so. What's very strange is that your opinion requires you to defend the Nazis and every other evil government and we don't have to defend any government. But since you can't defend those governments you will inevitably resort to...God forbid... natural rights - the notion that those people who were slaughtered by the Nazis "should" have had the right to exist. That is a tacit recognition of natural rights...

Why was it evil for the Nazis to slaughter thousands of Germans? Because their victims had rights, i.e., moral claims to exist. But according to y'all, only the Nazis had the authority to create rights. So if the Nazis refused to grant their victims a right to live, the Nazis took nothing from them. Since y'all won't make that silly argument, you fall back on the notion that the victims of the Nazis did have a right to live even if the state denied it.

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

It isn't my property, that's the point. But according to your ideology it isn't yours either but you know it is, hence the inconsistency of your ideology...

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

You found a definition of freedom in the dictionary that says freedom is the imposition of coercion or constraints on choice or action? By all means, post it.

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.

Fairness is too subjective to form the basis of an ideology. But it is a convenient basis since it requires only 1 principle, you get to decide what is fair and what isn't... It's no coincidence communism quickly turns into a dictatorship.

If you don't think prices are fair then I want to know how you justify capitalism.

I already did several times, PROPERTY! You have a greater moral claim to your property than me, that's why you get to decide what to do with it and I don't. Also, as I already pointed out, the reaction to immoral behavior must be comparable, not worse. Charging more money for a room than you or I think is fair doesn't warrant threatening people with violence.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kid -

Nothing subjective about libertarianism, that's why one branch of the ideology is called objectivism. Your ideology is entirely subjective though with everything based on "fairness" as you define it...

Of course libertarianism is subjective. Just like all ideology. You will have to explain your view on this. I don't really understand how you can believe that an ideology is objective.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Your opinion requires that rights are granted by the state or by other people thru the state, our notion of rights comes from the nature of existence. Our "natural" rights exist regardless of whether or not government exists and yours exist only because some politician said so. What's very strange is that your opinion requires you to defend the Nazis and every other evil government and we don't have to defend any government. But since you can't defend those governments you will inevitably resort to...God forbid... natural rights - the notion that those people who were slaughtered by the Nazis "should" have had the right to exist. That is a tacit recognition of natural rights...

Why was it evil for the Nazis to slaughter thousands of Germans? Because their victims had rights, i.e., moral claims to exist. But according to y'all, only the Nazis had the authority to create rights. So if the Nazis refused to grant their victims a right to live, the Nazis took nothing from them. Since y'all won't make that silly argument, you fall back on the notion that the victims of the Nazis did have a right to live even if the state denied it.

You're confusing me with Che. I believe in individual rights. I just don't believe in the right to a system that is exploitive. Now saying I believe in natural rights is a stretch, because I just think that's weird. People should agree on what rights they should have, so that everyone is treated equally. Equality is the upmost right in my book.

Originally posted by Berzerker
It isn't my property, that's the point. But according to your ideology it isn't yours either but you know it is, hence the inconsistency of your ideology...

You just lost me on this one.

Originally posted by Berzerker
You found a definition of freedom in the dictionary that says freedom is the imposition of coercion or constraints on choice or action? By all means, post it.

I didn't say that I disagree with your definition. I said that it's just more complicated than you are making it. I can be free from constraint, and I will have to be dependent on others for my livelihood. Dependency and expolitation are not freedom.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Fairness is too subjective to form the basis of an ideology. But it is a convenient basis since it requires only 1 principle, you get to decide what is fair and what isn't... It's no coincidence communism quickly turns into a dictatorship.

Again. You will have to explain how an ideology can be objective.

Originally posted by Berzerker
I already did several times, PROPERTY! You have a greater moral claim to your property than me, that's why you get to decide what to do with it and I don't. Also, as I already pointed out, the reaction to immoral behavior must be comparable, not worse. Charging more money for a room than you or I think is fair doesn't warrant threatening people with violence.

A greater moral claim? That is a totally subjective statement. How can you have a moral claim to something if it is unfair that you have it.

Now back to the point. How can you say that something is yours unless I buy it from you if the price of the good is unfair.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
They're talking about natural rights.

There's no such thing.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Why was it evil for the Nazis to slaughter thousands of Germans? Because their victims had rights, i.e., moral claims to exist. But according to y'all, only the Nazis had the authority to create rights. So if the Nazis refused to grant their victims a right to live, the Nazis took nothing from them.

Of we could argue that the Nazi government was illegitimate, since it forced itself upon the German people and others. In spite of taking 44% percent of the votes in 1933, it was only after they illegally and physically elimiated the opposition that they were able to enforce their will. Thus, the social group had no ability to express it's will.

As I also pointed out, Germany is part of a larger social group called Europe, which did not at that time recognize the right of states to slaughter people (at least not European people).

[Berzerker]

Of course libertarianism is subjective. Just like all ideology. You will have to explain your view on this. I don't really understand how you can believe that an ideology is objective.

Obviously all ideologies are subjective in that people choose which to embrace, but libertarianism is based on a strict adherence to principles, not subjective definitions like "fairness".

You're confusing me with Che.

Sorry, all you commies look alike.

I believe in individual rights. I just don't believe in the right to a system that is exploitive.

From where do these rights come from if the state you live under rejects them? I mean, do they exist even if the state denies it? Btw, Che agrees with that so I don't know why you think there is a dividing line between you two on this issue.

Now saying I believe in natural rights is a stretch, because I just think that's weird.

Not at all, a right is nothing more than a moral claim to act. No state is required to create it and no state can morally take it away. Natural rights are moral claims we have in common no matter what a politician says... From the few natural rights we have derives all other legitimate (moral) rights...

People should agree on what rights they should have, so that everyone is treated equally. Equality is the upmost right in my book.

But people can't be equal under that system - the minority who says they should have the right to be free from slavery (or fill in the blank) is not equal with the majority that decides the minority should be enslaved. Communism isn't about equality, it's about one group of people deciding what another group of people can or cannot do... Of course, that's common to all systems but libertarianism seeks to greatly reduce that inequality if not eliminate it completely.

You just lost me on this one.

Does your body, your existence, belong to you or does it belong to me or the state? If you conclude you have a greater moral claim to your own existence (duh ) than me or the state, then you've discovered a natural right.

I didn't say that I disagree with your definition. I said that it's just more complicated than you are making it. I can be free from constraint, and I will have to be dependent on others for my livelihood. Dependency and expolitation are not freedom.

Dependency and exploitation are no where to be found in the definition of freedom, only coercion and constraint.
So why complain about me using the actual definition while you seek to change that definition?

Again. You will have to explain how an ideology can be objective.

Ask objectivists, I'm sure they have a website. I'd probably do them a dis-service since I don't pay them much attention. But I believe objectivism is based on the nature of existence (which is what I think too). Since you exist, and because you are a person, you have certain moral claims to act (natural rights) that others cannot morally prevent.

A greater moral claim? That is a totally subjective statement.

Not if morality is based on some principle. I believe Jesus touched on it when he offered the Golden Rule - treat others...etc... We all want to live, that ~universality
creates a moral claim to live. From this one principle a framework of rights - moral claims to act - can be constructed but it cannot be inconsistent, i.e., moral claims that contradict each other.

How can you have a moral claim to something if it is unfair that you have it.

I can't... if fairness = morality.

Now back to the point. How can you say that something is yours unless I buy it from you if the price of the good is unfair.

Can you re-phrase that?

[Berzerker]

chegitz -

Of we could argue that the Nazi government was illegitimate, since it forced itself upon the German people and others. In spite of taking 44% percent of the votes in 1933, it was only after they illegally and physically elimiated the opposition that they were able to enforce their will. Thus, the social group had no ability to express it's will.

Granted their rise to power was immoral too, so lets use the USA. Slavery and genocide were committed by governments that were "legitimate".

As I also pointed out, Germany is part of a larger social group called Europe, which did not at that time recognize the right of states to slaughter people (at least not European people).

So a majority matters more than a minority when it comes to defining morality? Interesting proposition... What if the majority in Europe was okay with the Nazis until they started invading countries? Would we need people from outside of Europe who weren't okay with the Nazis to create a majority? Okay, what is the penultimate majority? Everyone?

If so, if everyone agrees on something, that would be the most accurate definition of morality, true? And what if this definition is - we all want to live and live free from slavery? Life and liberty - 2 natural rights with the latter deriving from the former.

There's no such thing.

Then from where do our rights come? Creations of the state? There is such a thing and you implicitly acknowledge it when you condemn what the Nazis (and USA, etc) did. You're right of course... So what do you call being right? A natural right is a moral claim to act and the peoples slaughtered by states had that moral claim to act - to live - inspite of those states. Do you believe these peoples had a moral claim to live that was violated by their respective states? If so, what word or phrase would you prefer over natural rights to describe this moral claim?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Obviously all ideologies are subjective in that people choose which to embrace, but libertarianism is based on a strict adherence to principles, not subjective definitions like "fairness".

Well if something is truely a principle than it is objective. The question is whether it is a principle. And the statement that fairness is subjective is also very subjective. I see that most people choose to believe that fairness is subjective and not worth pursuing when it isn't in their interest.

Originally posted by Berzerker
From where do these rights come from if the state you live under rejects them? I mean, do they exist even if the state denies it? Btw, Che agrees with that so I don't know why you think there is a dividing line between you two on this issue.

No. They don't exist if the state doesn't allow them. The dividing line between Che and I (I believe) is that Che believes that the majority can take away a right of minorities that is unfair to the minority.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Not at all, a right is nothing more than a moral claim to act. No state is required to create it and no state can morally take it away. Natural rights are moral claims we have in common no matter what a politician says... From the few natural rights we have derives all other legitimate (moral) rights...

Is this your principle? Hardly.

Originally posted by Berzerker
But people can't be equal under that system - the minority who says they should have the right to be free from slavery (or fill in the blank) is not equal with the majority that decides the minority should be enslaved. Communism isn't about equality, it's about one group of people deciding what another group of people can or cannot do... Of course, that's common to all systems but libertarianism seeks to greatly reduce that inequality if not eliminate it completely.

That's why I believe in protecting the rights of minorities. Beyond that though people have to learn to check their bias and create a system that is fair to everyone regardless of each individuals characteristics - a system that doesn't allow priviledge for any reason what so ever.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Does your body, your existence, belong to you or does it belong to me or the state? If you conclude you have a greater moral claim to your own existence (duh ) than me or the state, then you've discovered a natural right.

Why? Is this your principle? If so why do you choose this principle to follow?

Originally posted by Berzerker
Dependency and exploitation are no where to be found in the definition of freedom, only coercion and constraint.
So why complain about me using the actual definition while you seek to change that definition?

If you are dependent on someone for your livelihood you have to do whatever they say or you die. This aint freedom. Maybe you need to experience this or just remember back to when you were a child.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ask objectivists, I'm sure they have a website. I'd probably do them a dis-service since I don't pay them much attention. But I believe objectivism is based on the nature of existence (which is what I think too). Since you exist, and because you are a person, you have certain moral claims to act (natural rights) that others cannot morally prevent.

Yes you exist. How you get to the point where you think your ideology is objective is beyond me. Really, I don't get it at all. You have made a choice what is moral, you have figured out a way to justify it (although not very good justification), and that's all there is to it.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Not if morality is based on some principle. I believe Jesus touched on it when he offered the Golden Rule - treat others...etc... We all want to live, that ~universality
creates a moral claim to live. From this one principle a framework of rights - moral claims to act - can be constructed but it cannot be inconsistent, i.e., moral claims that contradict each other.

It has to go farther than just treating others as you would be treated. Each individual has to try to think how the other person actually wants to be treated, not just how they would want to be treated. Everyone has different environments and problems to face. It's very hard for us to empathize with each other.

Originally posted by Berzerker
I can't... if fairness = morality.

How about that for a principle? fairness=morality.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Can you re-phrase that?

Ok, sorry. How's this? How do you justify ownership of something if other people can't obtain it fairly. That is when they can't buy it at a fair price.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Then from where do our rights come?

The agreement of our social group. You have no rights society does not respect. You only have the rights to which you can get other people to agree. Rights, in the end, are nothing more than relationships among human beings. Those don't exist outside society. They are what make up society.

[Berzerker]

Kid -

Well if something is truely a principle than it is objective. The question is whether it is a principle. And the statement that fairness is subjective is also very subjective. I see that most people choose to believe that fairness is subjective and not worth pursuing when it isn't in their interest.

Fairness need not be subjective if it's tied to morality.

No. They don't exist if the state doesn't allow them. The dividing line between Che and I (I believe) is that Che believes that the majority can take away a right of minorities that is unfair to the minority.

Don't you? You just said you have no moral claim - a natural right - to live if the state denies you this right and states are run ostensibly by majorities (and minorities).

Is this your principle? Hardly.

No, that was a description of a natural right. The underlying principle is property... If two people have a conflict my first question is: who is the owner?

That's why I believe in protecting the rights of minorities.

Without your protection do they lose their rights? I mean, do they cease having a moral claim to live if you fail to give them permission to live?

Beyond that though people have to learn to check their bias and create a system that is fair to everyone regardless of each individuals characteristics - a system that doesn't allow priviledge for any reason what so ever.

But that's your bias - your definition of "fairness". You missed my point, communism is anything but equal. Once you base a system on "we decide, you do", you've lost equality. This privilege doesn't disappear, it just belongs to those in power and their friends and supporters - those who get to decide what's "fair"...

Why? Is this your principle? If so why do you choose this principle to follow?

Because it's based on an observation that leads me to believe that if there will be such a thing as morality, it must be based on aspects of our existence we all share, shared desires. If we all agree, it can't be immoral... Btw, you didn't answer my question...

If you are dependent on someone for your livelihood you have to do whatever they say or you die.

Yup, and communism seeks to expand dependency to ~everyone.

This aint freedom. Maybe you need to experience this or just remember back to when you were a child.

Children aren't free, this is about adults. But my need to labor to survive is not your fault, so you aren't guilty of coercion for letting me work for you. Freedom doesn't mean I get to force other people to feed me... We are dealing with the actual definition of freedom, not Marx's.

Yes you exist. How you get to the point where you think your ideology is objective is beyond me. Really, I don't get it at all.

"You exist" is an objective statement. So what can we conclude from your existence? That life was given to you via your lineage by something and that something is not another human being (certainly no one around with proof of ownership). Therefore no human being has a greater moral claim to your existence than you. That is an objective analysis...

You have made a choice what is moral, you have figured out a way to justify it (although not very good justification), and that's all there is to it.

My morality is essentially based on the Golden Rule, but it sure is more justified than me claiming the moral authority to dictate what everyone else can or cannot do in the name of fairness.

It has to go farther than just treating others as you would be treated. Each individual has to try to think how the other person actually wants to be treated, not just how they would want to be treated. Everyone has different environments and problems to face. It's very hard for us to empathize with each other.

Jesus made that assumption, he wasn't talking to masochists...

Ok, sorry. How's this? How do you justify ownership of something if other people can't obtain it fairly. That is when they can't buy it at a fair price.

Because I'm not obliged to sell you what I have, much less at what price you decide is fair.

chegitz -

The agreement of our social group. You have no rights society does not respect. You only have the rights to which you can get other people to agree. Rights, in the end, are nothing more than relationships among human beings. Those don't exist outside society. They are what make up society.

So I can have a right to enslave others if I can convince enough people to let me?

right - Conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality: do the right thing and confess.

Fitting, proper, or appropriate: It is not right to leave the party without saying goodbye.

Morality and justice are in the definition, so a "right" can exist regardless of any government. People in a social group rarely agree which makes those times they do agree that much more important. And they agree they don't want to be murdered or enslaved. But beyond that you won't find much they agree on.













[quote]

[Agathon]

I can't... if fairness = morality.

Which it does. Even Libertarians believe in a kind of fairness.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Fairness need not be subjective if it's tied to morality.

Each person gets to have their own opinion about what is fair. People's individual bias gets in the way of them seeing or admitting true fairness. That doesn't mean that there is no real fairness. There can be different morality, depending on what code you use, but there is only one fairness.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Don't you? You just said you have no moral claim - a natural right - to live if the state denies you this right and states are run ostensibly by majorities (and minorities).

A claim is not a right. You have to consider the other members of society. You don't just say he gets the right because he has the highest moral claim. Needs and desires have to be weighed against each other so that everyone is treated fairly. That's my moral code. It's not utilitarian.

Originally posted by Berzerker
No, that was a description of a natural right. The underlying principle is property... If two people have a conflict my first question is: who is the owner?

There is no principle of property. I ask who the owner is too, but I don't stop there. That would be totally biased towards the rich. In an egalitarian society that might be a more fair method.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Without your protection do they lose their rights? I mean, do they cease having a moral claim to live if you fail to give them permission to live?

A claim is not a right.

Originally posted by Berzerker
But that's your bias - your definition of "fairness".

Like you have a definition of freedom. So what, do you have a problem with it. Why? Don't just say it's subjective. Tell me your specific problem with it.

Originally posted by Berzerker
You missed my point, communism is anything but equal. Once you base a system on "we decide, you do", you've lost equality. This privilege doesn't disappear, it just belongs to those in power and their friends and supporters - those who get to decide what's "fair"...

You're missing my point. People need to be able to check their bias, and imagine a situation where we all got together before creating a society and none of us knowing our own future position in that society, and agreeing on which rights we will have. Of course, most property owners, knowing their future position, would see owning property as a necessary right. That's not fair. That's biased. The right to life is a much easier one.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Because it's based on an observation that leads me to believe that if there will be such a thing as morality, it must be based on aspects of our existence we all share, shared desires. If we all agree, it can't be immoral... Btw, you didn't answer my question...

We don't all agree on you owning property, and me having to work for you.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Yup, and communism seeks to expand dependency to ~everyone.

The smiley tells me that you know that that isn't the same kind of dependency that I'm talking about. You have that kind of dependency in capitalism too. I'm talking about the dependency where there is a parent child relationship. True in a communist society you have to obey the rules, like in capitalism, but you aren't dependent on higher classes or individuals with more negotiating power than you.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Children aren't free, this is about adults. But my need to labor to survive is not your fault, so you aren't guilty of coercion for letting me work for you. Freedom doesn't mean I get to force other people to feed me... We are dealing with the actual definition of freedom, not Marx's.

It's not forcing you to feed me. It's forcing you to allow me to feed myself without being dependent on you. That's what true freedom is. How can you have a valid moral claim to something if it allows you to expoit people, and keep them in a parent child relationship? That aint fair. So it ain't moral.

Originally posted by Berzerker
"You exist" is an objective statement. So what can we conclude from your existence? That life was given to you via your lineage by something and that something is not another human being (certainly no one around with proof of ownership). Therefore no human being has a greater moral claim to your existence than you. That is an objective analysis...

Morality is not objective, period. You can't call something objective when you are talking about morality like that.

Originally posted by Berzerker
My morality is essentially based on the Golden Rule, but it sure is more justified than me claiming the moral authority to dictate what everyone else can or cannot do in the name of fairness.

The Golden Rule is an attempt at fairness. It's just inadequate, and I showed you why. You should address that.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Because I'm not obliged to sell you what I have, much less at what price you decide is fair.

Not in the current state of society. Say we were stranded on a deserted island. Do you think I wouldn't take your food that I needed if you weren't going to ask a fair price for it? Do you think I would be wrong for doing so?

[Velociryx]

Yummmm! Thanks for the invite, Kid!

In a nutshell, yes! Price gouging is fair and balanced.

Why?

Cos it's THEIR stuff.

It's their hotel.

They can charge whatever the hell they want for the rooms.

They broke the law with regards to renigging on previous agreements (those who had reservations at an agreed on price earlier), but that is a separate issue.

They must, however, also be aware that everybody else in the system is free too, and be willing to accept the consequences of their actions.

The hotel owners could generate a lot of goodwill by letting folks stay free. That could translate into bucks down the line, or even a donation from FEMA.

They could make everybody pay through the nose, get a lot of bad press and boycott action going on, which might MORE than offset whatever short term profit they made on the rooms.

Their call.

Their stuff.

And their consequences to face.

-=Vel=-

[Flubber]

arrgghhhh

no not Vel and kid on communism/capitalism .. . no no no-- please give me the electroshock therapy instead .. .


nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo