You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
1

[–] Thisismyvoatusername 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I think the Parasite category is a more nuanced. There is nothing wrong with driving a hard bargain if one controls scarce resources. Too many people believe increased prices during disasters are immoral. But pricing serves to insure efficient allocation. So, sure, if someone drives a hard bargain purely out of a sadistic desire to derive pleasure from others’ hardship, it is bad. But just because others are forced to agree to terms they normally wouldn’t doesn’t mean the parasite is acting in a bad way.

0
1

[–] lettersofmarque 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I struggle with that exact issue. Does the line of Unconscionability shift in a time of crisis? Does adherence to social contract oblige me or create a duty to sustain the lives of others, even to my detriment, or may I drive a hard bargain even to the point of denying life sustaining material (food, water) to my advantage?

I believe I am allowed to survive and provide for my family at others expense but I cannot escape the nagging necessity of the observance of some measure of charity when the difference is the life or death of others through starvation of exposure. How much is enough is my personal dilemma. If I have stores of 52 weeks of food for a family of four am I obliged to part with one week's worth, one month's worth, half, or some other amount to appease my conscience?

I suppose that answer comes at the time with no one but me to judge myself. But then again, if property rights deteriorate into a state of nature this exercise becomes academic anyway.

As always, appreciate your comments. Thanks.