5 ms·

If someone is in a personal emergency, even if it's just perceived, that they need to protect themselves against a virus, their consent is no longer freely give

by zaarn 7y ago

If someone is in a personal emergency, even if it's just perceived, that they need to protect themselves against a virus, their consent is no longer freely given. It's coerced consent, not by the seller, but by circumstances. In plenty of european countries, price gouging is illegal for that reason. You can't charge what you want, especially in situations like this.

sneak 7y ago
No third party has any business telling the first and second that they can’t transact at a price to which they both agree (or threatening them with violence if they ignore them and do anyway). Governments that do so are infringing upon their rights. All this feel-good sort of law does is make the thing that they feel they need, which would otherwise be expensive, now be totally unavailable. That doesn’t benefit the buyer or the seller, and in fact makes the situation worse for the buyer who it supposedly wished to protect: it just makes some busybody who is not even party to the transaction feel good about themselves. There’s no such thing as “coerced by the circumstances”. We all need to enter into transactions to not die; we buy food, water, medical care even outside of emergencies. Sometimes those things are expensive due to supply and demand. This instance is no different.
- zaarn 7y ago
  If a doctor were to ask a patient for 100k$ or they won't do a life saving operation, then the patients consent is fabricated. Their need for a life saving operation is the third party. I think you misunderstood what I mean by third party; it's not necessarily a person, legal or natural, interfering with the transaction, it can be a force of nature, circumstances and many other things. It won't go away because you don't like it. And yes, there is such things as "coerced by circumstances", see above example. Normally, when you buy food, water or medical care you're not in a life threatening situation or perceived or real emergency. If you are then you cannot give informed and free consent, simple as that.

by zaarn 7y ago

sneak 7y ago

No third party has any business telling the first and second that they can’t transact at a price to which they both agree (or threatening them with violence if they ignore them and do anyway). Governments that do so are infringing upon their rights. All this feel-good sort of law does is make the thing that they feel they need, which would otherwise be expensive, now be totally unavailable. That doesn’t benefit the buyer or the seller, and in fact makes the situation worse for the buyer who it supposedly wished to protect: it just makes some busybody who is not even party to the transaction feel good about themselves. There’s no such thing as “coerced by the circumstances”. We all need to enter into transactions to not die; we buy food, water, medical care even outside of emergencies. Sometimes those things are expensive due to supply and demand. This instance is no different.

zaarn 7y ago
If a doctor were to ask a patient for 100k$ or they won't do a life saving operation, then the patients consent is fabricated. Their need for a life saving operation is the third party. I think you misunderstood what I mean by third party; it's not necessarily a person, legal or natural, interfering with the transaction, it can be a force of nature, circumstances and many other things. It won't go away because you don't like it. And yes, there is such things as "coerced by circumstances", see above example. Normally, when you buy food, water or medical care you're not in a life threatening situation or perceived or real emergency. If you are then you cannot give informed and free consent, simple as that.