Price Gouging Saves Lives

I kept the store open with a battery powered calculator, a cigar box, and a sidearm. I was the only game in town. I raised not one price. My ice and water went in a matter of hours.

You were supposed to gouge the early birds so the folks who didn't get around to buying supplies until late in the day could have made purchases also. /sarcasm

Why is it, that the merchant is usually the one presumed greedy, when buyers may be just as inconsiderate of their fellow citizens? Why are merchants held responsible for the preventing of hoarding or reselling by others? In an ideal world, merchants needn't increase prices for current stock in a crisis (having to increase prices for increased supply costs down the road is another matter... you run a business,not a charity), AND IN TANDEM purchasers would only buy what they truly need, so their neighbors could access supplies also.

Living in an imperfect world, however, where the judging motives/thoughts/intents appears to cause more harm than good, each person can only be responsible for his/or her own individual conscience. You chose wisely. When the government has to mandate price freezes and/or rationing, it's a reflection of a population's inability to self govern at the most basic level of human decency. More laws and regulation and the clenched iron fist of government are the rewards of a lawless society.

I just don't see how you can be adamant about wanting to suppress (not influence, which tempests in this teapot will scarcely do, but the only effective thing which would be to suppress) public opinion, without sacrificing the free speech you supposedly hold dear.

I think you underestimate the power of words and discussion. Public opinion has changed drastically since this country was founded. It once tolerated slavery, but abolitionists gradually influenced public opinion and they did it without the Internet. (and the word is "influence" not "suppress").

Economics is not the whole of mankind.

Yes, I agree. That's why is says, "In God We Trust" on our currency. Free enterprise is an essential part of our civilization, but without a certain degree of trust, it won't work.

Economics is a broader subject than free enterprise. Like a lot of passages in the Bible, economics deals with the distribution of goods, services and resources. Free enterprise does that well, but it isn't appropriate for all situations. For example, free enterprise doesn't work well to distribute resources within a company or within a family. A man shouldn't have to pay his wife for sex or to pay his children to do chores.

Free enterprise is a good way to determine need. The more a man needs something, the higher the price he is willing to pay. That principle does not apply to the destitute, though, so charity has a place.

Case in point, God's biblical prohibition on usury

If you read the fine print you will see that the prohibition refers to "believers" or to "brothers", not to outsiders. And this makes perfect sense. To require that believers extend absolute trust to non-believers would give evil a terrific advantage.

Like I've said, we wouldn't be having this discussion if we were all Amish farmers -- they know they can expect favors to be returned from their own.

But God has a point to make: don't enslave your fellow man with debt

That's right. Free enterprise is not by nature a good or evil thing, it depends on the circumstances. You should not lend to someone who you know is likely to default. But this is another case where (man-made) economic law can be such a blunt instrument. We have laws that prohibit discrimination in lending. And if a lender's means-testing results in discrimination against protected minorities, he can be hauled into court.

I don't think a wind of public opinion against shopping at gougers will topple any freedom worth anything.

Freedom is fragile. Christians cannot do business in some places around the world where people won't patronize their stores or sell them land or goods.

Even in America, the second amendment can not be exercised in some areas even if the law allows it. If public opinion is against it and most establishments don't allow it, it simply isn't practical. I recently read a story about a man in Vermont who was taken to jail because someone in a bookstore noticed he was carrying a concealed weapon.

But I say the right to bear arms is worth a lot.

"I don't believe that kind of boycott infringes on freedom"

You claimed in a different post that the public opinion expressed in this boycott endangers freedom. Which one is it you are believing?

I'm assuming the constitutional definition of "infringe". According to Webster:

infringe
1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

The constitution restricts government from infringing on our rights. But private citizens are not bound by the constitution and they can tell you what you cannot do on private property and they are free to choose who they associate with. This is as it should be.

So a public boycott may not, by definition, infringe on a right but it can, for all practical purposes, nullify it.

That's why I say freedom is fragile. (see also my post 345)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.