No, I think I addressed that point directly. It is morally wrong, or against principle, in my view to do things that cause people to starve to death and to imp

No, I think I addressed that point directly. It is morally wrong, or against principle, in my view to do things that cause people to starve to death and to impose arbitrary limits on things. When the only possible choice is between two wrongs, letting people starve or limiting the combustibility of our food, we should pick the least-wrong of the two options - limit food combustibility in order to feed more of the starving. This is not abandoning a principle but rather picking a higher principle to follow when two or more principles conflict. The point I was making is that we are not currently in this situation. We aren't starving people by denying them access to the latest and greatest graphics cards for cheap.