4 ms·
Why should those who CAN afford to pay the higher prices be discriminated against by fixing prices and creating shortages so that it's first-come-first-serve in
by sbenitoj 9y ago
Why should those who CAN afford to pay the higher prices be discriminated against by fixing prices and creating shortages so that it's first-come-first-serve instead of the supply being sold to the highest bidder?
Fixing supply only creates shortages, you can't repeal the laws of supply and demand.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago>Why should those who CAN afford to pay the higher prices be discriminated against by fixing prices and creating shortages so that it's first-come-first-serve instead of the supply being sold to the highest bidder? Look up discrimination, you're abusing the word. For example why should those who are poor but live close to the store be discriminated against by price gouging? Under first-come-first serve there would be no shortage for them. Also wealth is not a moral virtue and the wealthy don't deserve to survive disasters any more than the poor.
- sbenitoj 9y agoSo why not create an organization that voluntarily creates the outcome you desire, why do you have to use coercion to solve the problem?
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y agoMarkets are coercive.
- sbenitoj 9y agoPlease define coercion.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y agoYou're the one who brought it up. Lay it out.
- sbenitoj 9y agoCoercion: The use of physical force or the threat of physical force in as a mean to get someone to comply with your wishes. Continuing to run with this example -- if you are the owner of a pack of water that you typically sell for $10, and you decide to change the price you're offering it for sale to $100, no coercion (using the above definition) has taken place. Potential buyers are free to accept your offer of $100 for a pack of water, or they are free to reject it.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y agoSo under this definition the only thing preventing me from stealing all the water is coercion, right?
- sbenitoj 9y agoNot sure that follows from my definition of coercion. Certainly coercion is a deterrent to theft, but most people don't steal because they're socialized when they grow up to believe that stealing is wrong.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y agoCome on, you're dodging. Most people are raised to know that paying their taxes is right. So taxes aren't coercive right? If coercion is the threat of physical force to get me to comply then property and contract law are just as coercive as tax law. In a disaster if everybody's price gouging water so it costs me $100 a case and I could steal it and get away with it you betcha I'm doing it. The only thing preventing me is the threat of physical force. That's coercion. So now the question is why is coercion okay to protect $100 water, but not okay to give out free water?
- Veelox 9y agoA important part of coercion is that it must cause action, it does not count as coercive if it prevents action. If I have a gun and say, "don't take my water or I shoot you" I have prevented you from acting thus not coercion. If you have a gun and say, "give me your water or I shoot you" you have caused me to act thus coercion. Markets are not coercive because you are not threatened with force if you don't participate. Taxes are coercive because if you don't pay, the government comes and takes your stuff or puts you in prison. I understand you can make an argument that in a disaster situation you are "forced" to act but that is because of your own need not because of outside influence.