3 ms·

Just because you don't like how markets work doesn't mean a market failure has occurred. If you would like goods to sell at lower prices during times of crisis

Just because you don't like how markets work doesn't mean a market failure has occurred. If you would like goods to sell at lower prices during times of crisis, you are free to start stockpiling them now (or convincing others to do so) and selling them the next time a crisis arises. We don't need to bring coercion (AKA govt) into the equation, you can meet your own needs for creating a world that seems "fair" to you without resorting to violence.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
I'm not denying how markets work... I'm denying that we should rely on them in a crisis like this. >We don't need to bring coercion (AKA govt) into the equation, you can meet your own needs for creating a world that seems "fair" to you without resorting to violence. Oh put the talking points away. Why don't you go ask some disaster survivors which is more violent: $100 for water sold privately by a gouger or government provided water? This is exactly the situation that government is created for.
- sbenitoj 9y ago
  What is your definition of violence? You'll have to explain how voluntarily buying water and then selling it to a willing buyer is violent.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    I'm not defining violence, I'm not even posing an answer to the question. I'm suggesting that you go ask some survivors what they think. I'm sure there are a few hard Mises-lovers who may agree with you but I think the vast, vast majority is going to disagree with you. Maybe you can tell them that government is violence and that all liberty is economic liberty and that $100 water during a disaster is proof that they live in a free society and maybe you can record it because I'd really like to see the responses.
    - sbenitoj 9y ago
      Well, FWIW, I live in Houston, just endured Harvey, my car was totaled and part of my house was flooded -- still luckier than many people no doubt -- but even after having gone through this disaster, I STILL believe that coercion is wrong. I'm not against private charity, or communities voluntarily coming together to prepare for the next disaster, but that doesn't justify using coercion.
      - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        Alright, well I'm sorry about your property but I'm still gonna ask you to go to those bad areas and ask them which is more violent, price-gouged water or government assistance.
    - sbenitoj 9y ago
      It won't let me respond to your comment below ("Alright, well I'm sorry about your property but I'm still gonna ask you to go to those bad areas and ask them which is more violent, price-gouged water or government assistance.") so I'm doing it here. Again I ask you to define the term violence. Because you're saying violence, but I don't see what is violent about charging a high price for something, so that's why I'm asking you to define violence, otherwise how can anyone have a reasonable debate about what's actually occurring?
      - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        I'm not having a debate with you. I'm urging you to pack up this debate you obviously want to have, take it off the internet and out into the real word and to have it with affected people. People who have paid gougers during natural disasters. Go talk to them, tell them what you believe, have a dialogue with them. I don't really believe people change their minds on the internet, it's too easy to escape the cognitive dissonance. Which is why I question if you have the courage to stand in front of someone who has lost everything, someone who almost surely will disagree with you, and explain why the government shouldn't supply water in disasters. Seriously, go do it.
- cwkoss 9y ago
  The threat of violence is against the taxpayers, not the recipients of govt assistance. False dichotomy.
threatofrain 9y ago
You're confusing violence with coercion. Violence cares about physicality; coercion does not. While others may think the distinction is too thin to care, I care to elaborate on the nuance, so I prefer to have two terms for what I see as two concepts. An intersection exists somewhere, but not all violence is coercive, and not all coercion is violent. When the government collects taxes from you, it is coercive. The underlying threat of violence is gated far from you. Imagine a government that didn't understand the full range of coercion, and only had violence in its tool bin for collecting government revenue. Then you wouldn't need two separate terms, as the government clearly isn't seeing any nuance either.
- sbenitoj 9y ago
  Fair point! The broader point I'm trying to make is that violence (or the threat of violence) is wrong in all cases except self-defense (including the protection of private property).

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

I'm not denying how markets work... I'm denying that we should rely on them in a crisis like this. >We don't need to bring coercion (AKA govt) into the equation, you can meet your own needs for creating a world that seems "fair" to you without resorting to violence. Oh put the talking points away. Why don't you go ask some disaster survivors which is more violent: $100 for water sold privately by a gouger or government provided water? This is exactly the situation that government is created for.

sbenitoj 9y ago
What is your definition of violence? You'll have to explain how voluntarily buying water and then selling it to a willing buyer is violent.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  I'm not defining violence, I'm not even posing an answer to the question. I'm suggesting that you go ask some survivors what they think. I'm sure there are a few hard Mises-lovers who may agree with you but I think the vast, vast majority is going to disagree with you. Maybe you can tell them that government is violence and that all liberty is economic liberty and that $100 water during a disaster is proof that they live in a free society and maybe you can record it because I'd really like to see the responses.
  - sbenitoj 9y ago
    Well, FWIW, I live in Houston, just endured Harvey, my car was totaled and part of my house was flooded -- still luckier than many people no doubt -- but even after having gone through this disaster, I STILL believe that coercion is wrong. I'm not against private charity, or communities voluntarily coming together to prepare for the next disaster, but that doesn't justify using coercion.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      Alright, well I'm sorry about your property but I'm still gonna ask you to go to those bad areas and ask them which is more violent, price-gouged water or government assistance.
  - sbenitoj 9y ago
    It won't let me respond to your comment below ("Alright, well I'm sorry about your property but I'm still gonna ask you to go to those bad areas and ask them which is more violent, price-gouged water or government assistance.") so I'm doing it here. Again I ask you to define the term violence. Because you're saying violence, but I don't see what is violent about charging a high price for something, so that's why I'm asking you to define violence, otherwise how can anyone have a reasonable debate about what's actually occurring?
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      I'm not having a debate with you. I'm urging you to pack up this debate you obviously want to have, take it off the internet and out into the real word and to have it with affected people. People who have paid gougers during natural disasters. Go talk to them, tell them what you believe, have a dialogue with them. I don't really believe people change their minds on the internet, it's too easy to escape the cognitive dissonance. Which is why I question if you have the courage to stand in front of someone who has lost everything, someone who almost surely will disagree with you, and explain why the government shouldn't supply water in disasters. Seriously, go do it.
cwkoss 9y ago
The threat of violence is against the taxpayers, not the recipients of govt assistance. False dichotomy.

threatofrain 9y ago

You're confusing violence with coercion. Violence cares about physicality; coercion does not. While others may think the distinction is too thin to care, I care to elaborate on the nuance, so I prefer to have two terms for what I see as two concepts. An intersection exists somewhere, but not all violence is coercive, and not all coercion is violent. When the government collects taxes from you, it is coercive. The underlying threat of violence is gated far from you. Imagine a government that didn't understand the full range of coercion, and only had violence in its tool bin for collecting government revenue. Then you wouldn't need two separate terms, as the government clearly isn't seeing any nuance either.

sbenitoj 9y ago
Fair point! The broader point I'm trying to make is that violence (or the threat of violence) is wrong in all cases except self-defense (including the protection of private property).