---" The lurid stories that hit the news of course characterize what is going on quietly day after day in the courthouses of America. Thanks for showing us your wonderful credibility."---
Did you have a point with that?
Did you bother to read my orginal post, or did you just feel like making a smart comment to make yourself feel better?
I called the law defining gouging by saying it was charging an 'unconscionable price' "pretty moronic, since it leaves "unconscionable" up to the AG and whatever jury they can rip into a frenzy."
That's the problem. The government gives a vague defintion in the law. A politically motivated AG, say an elliot spitzer type, wants to make political points. So the the next time prices spike, he/she drags a few dealers into court.
All they have to do is play up the big oil angle, find a few 'working stiffs' who are angry at paying $3.50 a gallon, and VOILA- instant criminals! Oh, plus, even if they win, they've just paid thousands of dollars to defend themselves! Woohoo!!
Don't you just love how the state can add more laws to make more and more citizens criminals? Ain't it amazing that I'm asking that question of a member of a web site called "free republic"? Don't you think a web site devoted to limited government might have members that understand that you only give power to government sparingly?
Nah, I guess that's too much to ask. Instead I'll settle for snarky comments and the opinions of angry, irrational people who don't understand jack squat about economics or history.
Yup, that you're proferring garbage in guise of an argument. Your credibility should follow.
You would have made a wonderful turn-of-the-century Robber Baron. You'd fit right in:
robber baron
(noun) : an American capitalist of the latter part of the 19th century who became wealthy through exploitation (as of natural resources, governmental influence, or low wage scales)
Why do you assume that anyone who criticizes gougers is advocating government regulation?