D
Dim Bulb
Guest
- Thread starter
- #21
No disrespect. Your argument is not unintillectual, but incorrect. You have no inalienable right to property in the constitution. You do have a right to not be deprived of your property without due process. Property rights are a complex web of state laws and due process rights.But constitutional lawyers will tell you that there is no right to money.
I'm sorry, that's simply not true. Money IS property. You have an inalienable right to your property in this country.
I'm afraid there is no constitutional right to not be price gouged. Which means that your theoretical balance between free market and constitutional rights doesn't really apply.
Well it depends on what you consider "price gouging." I explained two different scenarios above. One involving hotel rooms during the eclipse and the other regarding bottled water during the hurricane. One is price gouging, the other is not. I explained the nuance between the two and you want to call it "theory" instead of trying to understand what I said.
We are supporting free market interference because it "feels" like the right result.
My argument has nothing to do with feelings. Interfering with exploitation is not interfering with free markets. It's actually protecting honest free markets. Free market depends on honest and fair voluntary transaction between parties. If it's dishonest, unfair and involuntary, it cannot be free market. This works both for the supplier and consumer.
I feel your need to have an intellectual construct to explain why you are really still a free marketer. I get it because I'm there too. But in this case it's all about feelings. The constitutional argument won't hunt.
"Honest free markets" are fair. Who decides what's fair?