The Glade 4.0

Do you have evidence that this is how it would work, or are you just assuming that markets behave normally even in emergency situations? For instance, it seems equally plausible to me that the opportunity for short-term price "gouging" will prompt people to hoard resources in the initial stages of the emergency, thus creating the very shortages they later profit from. We saw that with batteries here in New York when Irene came up the coast. A few days ahead of the storm, some enterprising young bucks (i.e. dirtbag street vendors) started buying batteries by the bagful and then on the day before the storm, when most people started actually getting their supplies, the stores were sold out of batteries and the only place to get them was on the street, for 3 or 4 times the sticker price. The upshot was that fewer people had batteries (i.e. there was more "suffering") and there was a net transfer of wealth from consumers to hoarders with no gain in overall utility. Not exactly an efficient market outcome.

Also, Elm, just an aside, but I'm surprised you're relying on outcome-based ethical reasoning to critique your friend's preference for ethics based on first principles. She feels it is morally wrong to profit from people's desperation in an emergency, so even if allowing such behavior reduces overall suffering, she believes the principle is more important. You've often taken a similar position when responding to criticisms that your hardcore dedication to personal liberty might lead to more overall suffering.

So people who can predict future demand should be punished. This is a disincentive to pay attention to the news and to think about the future in general. Is this really what you want to castigate as immoral? The upshot is that more people have a greater incentive to better predict future need. Is knowledge without utility to you?

You really do think I am some 1 dimensional cardboard cutout don't you?

Why not allow people to use violent force to take what the want? After all, prohibiting that kind of behavior is a disincentive to pay attention to potential threats and to think about security in general. If you allow it, the upshot will be that more people have a greater incentive to better prepare against future threats. Is knowledge and preparation without utility to you?

The point is, we place certain behavior outside the bounds of morality because (a) we feel it is contrary to certain first principles (i.e. not taking advantage of desperation or not violating a person's rights) and (b) most people don't want to be constantly on guard against those who are more mercenary than average.

Initiation of force is unjust - durrr.

No, not at all; you misunderstood my point here. I'm saying that she has certain first principles too, and price gouging violates them, so the lower ranking moral calculations (e.g. the net positive or negative outcomes of the behavior) don't come into play for her.

Profiting from another person's desperation is unjust - durrr.

Seriously, Elm, are you just not getting the parallel here or what?

Without water you die.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

The irony of your post is simultaneously astounding and demonstrative of everything wrong with the current governance of the United States, RangerDave; in fact, it's demonstrative of everything wrong with American governance since 1859.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

Ok, Elm, here's a scenario:

A man driving on a remote mountain road on a sub-zero winter night sees a car that's gone off the road and flipped over onto its roof. He pulls over to check it out and finds a woman trapped inside with her infant son. The woman's legs are pinned underneath the collapsed dashboard, and there's no way she can get herself out. Given the location of the car and the remoteness of the road, it's highly unlikely another vehicle will spot them before she and the baby die. This guy has a cell phone, however, and he offers to call 911 if, and only if, the woman signs a contract transferring everything she owns to him. Given the obvious desperation of her situation, she signs the contract. The man then does his part and calls 911 to come rescue her.

1) Do you think that contract should be upheld as legal and enforceable? Why or why not?
2) Do you think that man acted in a morally acceptable way? Why or why not?

You're declaring that the law has no room in it for morality? Or that the practice of law should be divorced from morality?

Why bother having laws in the first place then?

You're declaring that the law has no room in it for morality? Or that the practice of law should be divorced from morality? Why bother having laws in the first place then?

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

The man acted immorally and in a socially unacceptable way. Why? He took advantage of the situation the woman was in.

The difference is that I separate my personal morality from the moral responsibility of a government and the Rule of Law....

Show me where the guy has a moral imperative to save her or her infant's life, RangerDave.

So how is that different than your friend thinking the ice-sellers were acting immorally by taking advantage of the situation the Katrina survivors were in?


Really? You believe it is wrong to violate another person's rights, and therefore you conclude that the government should prevent such violations. The whole foundation for your view of the proper role of government is a moral belief. Feel free to claim your foundational moral belief is superior to other people's foundational moral beliefs, but don't delude yourself into thinking it's anything more than your own "personal morality".

Show me where anyone has a moral imperative to do (or refrain from doing) anything.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.