Well, here’s the thing about it — people who argue one way, and say that it’s important for this to be true for our businesses and companies — then can’t argue the opposite way and complain about these things when any business (private or public) can (supposedly under the principles advocated here) charge whatever they want as long as they get the public to pay for it.
It just can’t go both ways. If you say that this is a problem — then — you have to come up with an “alternate economic system” to take into account these things that you’re talking about. Perhaps you’re advocating a limited government intervention on these things — on the basis of what would be considered *necessities* for the public. And so, in those cases, you’re advocating abandoning these free market principles and allowing government to intervene on behalf of the public — for the “public interest” and the fact that people *have to have certain necessities* and companies should not be allowed to freely make “whatever they want” on these predefined “necessities” (defined by government policy, of course...).
What you are trying to argue, does not go across the spectrum. Gasoline is not something you can opt out of. You have to have it to work, to purchase food, to cloth yourself, to even have a home.
If you want to charge $250,000 for a VCR or DVD recorder, be my guest. I could care less. When it comes to energy, food, and things that I can’t pass up that impact my ability to provide for my family, and I’m going to get my pitchfork and come after people with it.