Is this acceptable to libertarians?

[UltraVires]

Missed the edit window:

In Florida, in the aftermath of Hurricane Wilma, there was no power for miles. A guy had an idea of setting up his grill in a local parking lot and brewing coffee for $4 a large cup. Since previously at local stores, large coffees were about $2.50, they fined him and shut him down.

Never mind that $4 is reasonable for a single individual brewing coffee in a make-shift manner, and it was the only coffee in town, and I, as a straight man, might have actually sucked a dick for a hot cup of coffee on day 10*. Now nobody gets hot coffee because of the law.
*not really, but I would have held it in my mouth for a little while.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Der_Trihs

I made one such to express my opinion; my other posts were in response to John Mace. Why aren’t you criticizing him?

His posts are less repetitive, or at least repetitive in a less blatant fashion.

[Yorikke]

@jtgain

I agree with this. Say a natural disaster wipes out the power in a particular area, but just outside the affected area, there is a hotel. Under the price controls, they can’t charge more than the $70/night they were charging prior to the disaster.

Everyone wants to stay there including,

1: Grandma, who needs power to her oxygen supply or else she would die.
2: Partiers who want to drink booze and have air conditioning.

Under the “no price control” scenario, the partiers would see the increased cost as not worth it and stay home. Grandma would see it as an absolute necessity and a room would be available for her.

Under the price controls, she has to stand in line behind guys with their crates of liquor and may not get a room.

“Well, Grandma, as humans, the partiers need shelter too, regardless of their alcohol imbibement, and they were here first. But, as I do not wish you to die, you may use our electrical outlet here in the lobby to power your life-giving oxygen machine.”

[puddleglum]

@LinusK

Price gouging’s a great example of what’s wrong with libertarianism. For most people, a disaster’s an opportunity for people to pull together, cooperate, and support each other. For libertarians it’s a chance to exploit each other.

Libertarians are not seeking to outlaw people pulling together, they merely want to legalize raising prices in response to supply and demand.
When prices go up, suppliers respond by taking goods from where prices are low to where the prices are high. Because of this much needed supplies are rushed to where they are most needed.
If raising prices is outlawed then there is no incentive other than charity to provide supplies to those who need them. Charity is admirable, but higher prices work better and faster.
An example is after Hurricane Katrina and gentlemen from the Midwest bought a truckload of generators and drove them to New Orleans to sell. He was arrested and the generators were impounded. Thus there were dozens of homes who could have had power but were denied generators because of anti-gouging laws.
We saw the same thing with gas after Sandy, shortages in the place where gas was most needed while those of us not affected by the storm had plenty of gas and no incentive to get it to those who needed it most.
So price gouging encourages preparedness and rushes help to the affected areas. Yet banning price gouging is seen as compassion and allowing it is seen as indifference. This is what happens when you judge things on motives and not results.

[Yorikke]

@puddleglum

Libertarians are not seeking to outlaw people pulling together, they merely want to legalize raising prices in response to supply and demand.
When prices go up, suppliers respond by taking goods from where prices are low to where the prices are high. Because of this much needed supplies are rushed to where they are most needed.
If raising prices is outlawed then there is no incentive other than charity to provide supplies to those who need them. Charity is admirable, but higher prices work better and faster.

The incentive to put product where there is more demand is increased sales volume. Let’s say that John Deere has stores everywhere, with generator sales steady and readily available stock. Sales at each store average ten units per week. A Hurricane hits New Orleans, and sales demand increases tenfold at the stores closest to N.O. Isn’t this increased demand incentive to get product there, now?

To move the product there, where it will sell anyway, and at a sales rate ten times normal because of disaster, then raise the price because of the increased demand, is fucking shameful.

[septimus]

@hrhomer

To move the product there, where it will sell anyway, and at a sales rate ten times normal because of disaster, then raise the price because of the increased demand, is fucking shameful.

Libertarians have a lot of ideas worth despising, but I’ll stick up for them on this issue, at least in principle. Prices should be determined by supply and demand. If the needy cannot afford the price, government can subsidize their purchase. If supply is needlessly limited, government can attempt to supply in competition. Imposing price controls should be a last resort.

(If making excess profit were “immoral,” the stockholders of Microsoft would all be headed to Hell. )

[Blaster_Master]

On the OP’s question, there’s actually quite a few scenarios we should be considering, not just one where, in Libertopia, a person comes across him and makes this deal. What if, he comes across him and chooses to do nothing? What we’re in an existent nation and the person chooses to do nothing? What if the man was originally planning not to help him, but the dying man offers him all he owns if he helps him?

My point is, there’s no accounting for morality, particularly in this sort of situation. No matter what government type we have, we have to hope that most people are generally moral and will help. If we have no law to force someone to help, then sure, some people might help, but if we legally require them to help, he may do so at incredible cost to himself, possibly including his death as well. So, I think moral arguments against libertarianism in this sort of question is missing the point, people should still be expected to be moral, even if they’re not legally required to do so.

And as far as the sort of deal goes itself, there’s a few different ways it might pan out. It’s quite possible that such a contract could be found coercive, but if neither party wants to dispute it, it shouldn’t matter. Obviously of lesser consequence, but I’ve been on the short end of deals before and not particularly cared for absolute equity. So, it’s possible that the dying person takes the deal, is rescued, and despite that many might think he was coerced, might be okay with the result. If he is legitimately okay with it, I see no reason to force the law into it.

That said, if he’s not happy with the deal, this is where you’re going to see quite a bit of divergence in libertarian thought. Some libertarians might consider that a coerced deal, taking advantage of the guy, some might think it’s perfectly fine, and some might find somewhere in the middle. One of the biggest misconceptions out there is that libertarians have a monolithic way of thinking and that that way of thinking is essentially equivalent to anarchy.
In my personal view, this is similar, but not equivalent, to price gouging. I don’t particularly have an issue with higher prices in the wake of an emergency, higher demand and lower supply means higher prices, yes, there is some moral obligation to help and not charge ridiculous prices but, again, we run into the moral problem I mentioned earlier where we either legalize it and risk people getting ripped off, or make it illegal, and risk people not getting supplies they could use. But that’s neither here nor there.

This situation is different because it’s a single event. The person who is saving him isn’t making any sort of investment in bringing in fuel or generators in an emergency, he is just in the right place at the right time to see the person dying. The thing is, I think it clearly fits coercion, even if the person offering the deal isn’t the one doing it. My reasoning is, any reasonable person, being aware that wealth is worthless if they’re not alive, would basically have to accept any deal he were offered because, being out in the desert, he can reasonably expect that if that person doesn’t save him, he’ll die. So it is an implicit bargaining against his death.

That said, it doesn’t mean that the cost is flat either. If the guy is out in a jeep and all he has to do is throw him in the back seat, it’s a lot different than if he’s on a camel, has to abandon his cargo to put him on the camel, and then double back.

Anyway,I think most libertarians, and people in general, would agree that the deal in the OP would be considered coercive, or at least made under duress. I also think that most libertarians would agree that part of the governments job isn’t just to enforce contracts, but to ensure that, if there’s a dispute about them, that they were made without coercion or under duress. As such, depending on the specifics, if disputed, I think that a civil trial would find that the contract was entered under duress, and he probably owes the man some sort of reasonable payment, but not necessarily everything he owns. As for how much, that would depend upon the findings of the trial.

[puddleglum]

@hrhomer

The incentive to put product where there is more demand is increased sales volume. Let’s say that John Deere has stores everywhere, with generator sales steady and readily available stock. Sales at each store average ten units per week. A Hurricane hits New Orleans, and sales demand increases tenfold at the stores closest to N.O. Isn’t this increased demand incentive to get product there, now?

To move the product there, where it will sell anyway, and at a sales rate ten times normal because of disaster, then raise the price because of the increased demand, is fucking shameful.

Every generator I sell in New Orleans is one I don’t sell in Chicago, I have a certain number of generators, I can’t make them in days, I need several weeks notice to ramp up the production of generators. I don’t get that notice that a disaster is coming so I only have 1,000 generators in stock. I will sell 10 at each of 100 cities or send them all to New Orleans and sell all 1,000 there. I have to order special trucks to send them to New Orleans and I have to piss off the people in the other cities by denying them generators. The only reason to ship them to New Orleans is to make a higher profit on each one.
What is actually shameful is to deny people in need generators so we can feel good about ourselves. If you need to feel good about yourself get a pedicure and let people in need get the supplies they need.

[Mdcastle]

Being able to sell them now as opposed to in due time might be an incentive, but probably not enough to transport them twice to get them from wherever they’re selling at a normal rate to where they would sell faster due to a hurricane. I’m guessing even if all the shipments coming in from the manufacturer are diverted, it wouldn’t be enough to meet demand, so they’d have to reship some other units that might be in retail stores in Texas or a warehouse in California.

[Yorikke]

@septimus

Libertarians have a lot of ideas worth despising, but I’ll stick up for them on this issue, at least in principle. Prices should be determined by supply and demand. If the needy cannot afford the price, government can subsidize their purchase. If supply is needlessly limited, government can attempt to supply in competition. Imposing price controls should be a last resort.

Bolding mine.

Such as when? Perhaps in the immediate aftermath of one of the most destructive hurricanes of all time?

[Yorikke]

@puddleglum

Every generator I sell in New Orleans is one I don’t sell in Chicago, I have a certain number of generators, I can’t make them in days, I need several weeks notice to ramp up the production of generators. I don’t get that notice that a disaster is coming so I only have 1,000 generators in stock. I will sell 10 at each of 100 cities or send them all to New Orleans and sell all 1,000 there. I have to order special trucks to send them to New Orleans and I have to piss off the people in the other cities by denying them generators. The only reason to ship them to New Orleans is to make a higher profit on each one.

Then don’t. Keep them in Chicago. Keep the same profit as before. I won’t force you to ship anything anywhere. But if you, as a company, choose to divert generators to New Orleans in the wake of a disaster, hanging like a vulture over the city, in hopes of raising prices (BEYOND what way be required to recoup shipping costs) and increasing profit, then you are, again, rotten. Impose a 10% price raise for shipping? Fine. Quintuple the price because dying people will pay it? Not fine.

What is actually shameful is to deny people in need generators so we can feel good about ourselves. If you need to feel good about yourself get a pedicure and let people in need get the supplies they need.

You’re not very good at rationalizing your beliefs, if this is the best you can do.

[UltraVires]

@hrhomer

Then don’t. Keep them in Chicago. Keep the same profit as before. I won’t force you to ship anything anywhere. But if you, as a company, choose to divert generators to New Orleans in the wake of a disaster, hanging like a vulture over the city, in hopes of raising prices (BEYOND what way be required to recoup shipping costs) and increasing profit, then you are, again, rotten. Impose a 10% price raise for shipping? Fine. Quintuple the price because dying people will pay it? Not fine.

The increased prices allocate the scarce resources in an efficient manner. The price doubled? Meh, I’m not going to buy a generator to keep my beer cold. I need power because I have an elderly person at home. I will pay double and don’t have to stand in line/get in fist fights with all of the yahoos buying generators for their beer.

You say it’s not fair to pay double, but there would be no generators at all for anyone if the price increases weren’t allowed.

[Yorikke]

@jtgain

You say it’s not fair to pay double, but there would be no generators at all for anyone if the price increases weren’t allowed.

Whatever you say, man. You may be right, you may be wrong. I only inserted myself into the discussion because the OP’s hypothetical seemed ridiculous. I have reached my politics-discussion limit. All I’ll say is that I fully stand by my posts, in particular these core points that should be self-evident :

@hrhomer

If B has the ability to save A’s life in the example [OP] put forth, but does not do so without promise of payment in writing, B is an awful human being, and that is not acceptable.

@hrhomer

To move the product there, where it will sell anyway, and at a sales rate ten times normal because of disaster, then raise the price because of the increased demand, is fucking shameful.

@hrhomer

But if you, as a company, choose to divert generators to New Orleans in the wake of a disaster, hanging like a vulture over the city, in hopes of raising prices (BEYOND what way be required to recoup shipping costs) and increasing profit, then you are, again, rotten. Impose a 10% price raise for shipping? Fine. Quintuple the price because dying people will pay it? Not fine.

[Clothahump]

@septimus

Libertarians have a lot of ideas worth despising, but I’ll stick up for them on this issue, at least in principle. Prices should be determined by supply and demand. If the needy cannot afford the price, government can subsidize their purchase. If supply is needlessly limited, government can attempt to supply in competition. Imposing price controls should be a last resort.

Which brings us to the basic concept that government should not be paying welfare, which is what that subsidy would be. If the guy across town does not have a generator and I do, why should my tax dollars be spent to buy a generator for him?

Now, if someone sets up a fund to subsidize generator purchases and I choose to donate to it, that’s a totally different matter.

[Amateur_Barbarian]

@Clothahump

Which brings us to the basic concept that government should not be paying welfare…

Which is by no means a settled question.

[Der_Trihs]

@Bryan_Ekers

His posts are less repetitive, or at least repetitive in a less blatant fashion.

Not to my eyes.

@jtgain

I agree with this. Say a natural disaster wipes out the power in a particular area, but just outside the affected area, there is a hotel. Under the price controls, they can’t charge more than the $70/night they were charging prior to the disaster.

Everyone wants to stay there including,

1: Grandma, who needs power to her oxygen supply or else she would die.
2: Partiers who want to drink booze and have air conditioning.

Under the “no price control” scenario, the partiers would see the increased cost as not worth it and stay home. Grandma would see it as an absolute necessity and a room would be available for her.

Or they say “Sorry bitch, you can’t afford it” and kick her out to die like good libertarians.

@puddleglum

What is actually shameful is to deny people in need generators so we can feel good about ourselves.

As opposed to denying them generators out of greed?

@jtgain

The increased prices allocate the scarce resources in an efficient manner. The price doubled? Meh, I’m not going to buy a generator to keep my beer cold. I need power because I have an elderly person at home. I will pay double and don’t have to stand in line/get in fist fights with all of the yahoos buying generators for their beer.

Instead, you get may just shot by the guy who needs a generator to keep Grandma alive and can’t afford the price gouging.

@Clothahump

Which brings us to the basic concept that government should not be paying welfare, which is what that subsidy would be. If the guy across town does not have a generator and I do, why should my tax dollars be spent to buy a generator for him?

Because if you don’t, he and those like him can and should use force to get to keep themselves and those they care about alive. They are not in some suicide pact where they have to passively sit and die to satisfy your libertarian ideology. If you want society to become dog eat dog, don’t be surprised if you end up eaten.

[puddleglum]

@hrhomer

Then don’t. Keep them in Chicago. Keep the same profit as before. I won’t force you to ship anything anywhere. But if you, as a company, choose to divert generators to New Orleans in the wake of a disaster, hanging like a vulture over the city, in hopes of raising prices (BEYOND what way be required to recoup shipping costs) and increasing profit, then you are, again, rotten. Impose a 10% price raise for shipping? Fine. Quintuple the price because dying people will pay it? Not fine.

This is fine for you sitting in a comfortable house with electricity but why should it be fine to the person in New Orleans with no power? In my scenario, the people in New Orleans are provided power and the people who sacrificed to provide them with power are compensated. In your scenario the people in New Orleans continue to suffer with no power and the people who try to help them are arrested. It is hard to think of an ethical framework in which your scenario is preferable, which is probably why you have not tried to provide one.
These are not just hypotheticals, every time price controls are imposed they cause shortages, and shortages lead to suffering. But I guess in liberal land if the good Lord did not want them to suffer he would not have sent a hurricane to destroy their homes and it is the duty of every good liberal to see they suffer as much as possible.

[WillFarnaby]

I find it morally unacceptable. The problem with your scenario is if B is willing to save A for 100% of A’s assets, he would likely be willing to do it for 70%, 30%, or even 1%. It depends how much it costs B to save A. B will only save A if it is worth his while. Of course there are things other than money that are motivating B whether or not either of them are libertarians.

If B is a heartless bastard and wishes to take A for all of his money and not a dime less, it would still benefit A to accept the deal because otherwise B would leave him for dead. In a society where B knows his contract will not be honored because of the circumstances, A would lose his life and B would earn no revenue. That’s why it’s important for individuals to know society will accept this type of contract. Everyone gains from this cooperation, everyone loses in this scenario if it is known the contract would not hold up.

[WillFarnaby]

@Der_Trihs

Instead, you get may just shot by the guy who needs a generator to keep Grandma alive and can’t afford the price gouging.

In your scenario, less generators will be diverted to the disaster area because they can’t charge a premium. Let me repeat that. There will be less generators for the same amount of people. Instead of a guy who can’t afford the higher price it will be the guy who is victim to shortages caused by price fixing who is doing the shooting.

Because if you don’t, he and those like him can and should use force to get to keep themselves and those they care about alive. They are not in some suicide pact where they have to passively sit and die to satisfy your libertarian ideology. If you want society to become dog eat dog, don’t be surprised if you end up eaten

.

Less will die because there are more generators diverted to the area. Period. All the hyperbole you can muster will not get you around that fact.

[Der_Trihs]

@WillFarnaby

I find it morally unacceptable. The problem with your scenario is if B is willing to save A for 100% of A’s assets, he would likely be willing to do it for 70%, 30%, or even 1%. It depends how much it costs B to save A. B will only save A if it is worth his while. Of course there are things other than money that are motivating B whether or not either of them are libertarians.

If B is a heartless bastard and wishes to take A for all of his money and not a dime less, it would still benefit A to accept the deal because otherwise B would leave him for dead. In a society where B knows his contract will not be honored because of the circumstances, A would lose his life and B would earn no revenue. That’s why it’s important for individuals to know society will accept this type of contract. Everyone gains from this cooperation, everyone loses in this scenario if it is known the contract would not hold up.

No; in such a society A has a perfect right and duty to take B’s help, then kill B to avoid paying his “debt”. In such an amoral and selfish society it’s everyone for himself, morality is not a consideration, and B is a dangerous predator and the enemy of A.

Of course, what libertarians push is a one sided “morality” where anyone with an advantage has a perfect right to prey on those who don’t, and the victims are supposed to just sit there and take it instead of being ruthless right back at them in return.