[Atlas Sneezed]

However, if one believes there is a moral difference between "can" and "should," (i.e., I "can" charge $25 for a gallon of water, but "should" I?) then I would say that he has not made a case for anything except his own moral obtuseness.

---

You don't get it. If he sells you the water at $1 per gallon, or some price you "feel" is moral, and you use it to take baths, water your lawn, or stay around and drink instead of leaving to stay with relatives in an unaffected area, and you would not have bought it at $25 per gallon, it is no longer available to the next customer who is dying of thirst, and values it much more highly than you.

I hope the extreme example illustrates what reading the article failed to.

[r9etb]

I hope the extreme example illustrates what reading the article failed to.

Let me use your extreme example a different way:

Suppose the dying person doesn't have $25 for that life-saving drink of water. The water seller can refuse to sell him the water at a lesser price. The question is, should the water seller refuse, and thereby let him die?

I hope the extreme example illustrates what reading my post failed to -- namely, the possibility that there is a difference between "can" and "should".

[Veritas et equitas ad Votum]

There is a word for gov't price controls. Socialism.