Chieftain
What world are you in?
You've backed so far off your original position that it isn't even recognizable. Your posts had nothing to do with "warning your friends" until you decided that was your exit strategy.
Had you drafted a post that said "Retailer X is charging way too much money for Y - wait it out or, better yet don't go there", that would have been much different. As it was, if you'll refer back to the first page, your original post (I've ditched the empty lines in between to save room) was thus:
"For future reference, remember the retailers that took advantage of us.
Prices legitimately went up, but that did not justify screwing your customers.
When ammo availability gets better, remember who took advantage, and who did not.
That is when we have the power again. Of course many folks will be able to rationalize this away.
Go figure.
Fred"
I responded - to no one in particular and making reference to no one:
"As for the retailers, they're only
1) "screwing" those who choose to buy; and
2) trying to use pricing to keep some ammo on their shelves, for those who will freely and happily pay the inflated price.
We're free to buy, own, and shoot the ammo - or decide not to. The seller is likewise free to sell it in the manner he sees fit - or not at all."
You then felt the need to quote the last portion of this, responding with:
"That is exactly my point. I hope to visit upon those who chose their manner of taking advantage of the situation now, the exact same upon them later. Or as once stated in Scripture:
"May you reap what you sow."
I wish on those that over charge us now, at a higher margin than they did when things were not so acute, by my standards, the response they so desperately want when things get better for we patrons. No more, no less. After all, my standards are the only standards that matter to me.
And that is my choice too. As it is yours.
Go figure.
Fred"
Realizing your position was overstated and untenable, you then backed off to:
"I am choosing to use my liberty, and purchase power, some time in the future if I get more choices and have MORE purchase power than I have right now, and choose not to purchase from folks who I think either in fact did, or tried to take advantage of me."
and added:
"Rationalize away. But please don't say things I didn't say, or invent interpretations. I said what I meant."
Thus, I've been taking you at your word, operating with the understanding that, in your first two posts, you "said what you meant".
But finally, magically, by the end of our 3 page journey, you were only...
"Telling friends and acquaintances about a business that I feel is charging what I think is unreasonably high prices"
But STILL managed to relapse, stating that a business charging high prices, of which the consumer is fully aware when he makes the decision whether to purchase at ALL, is somehow "taking advantage":
"I would NOT like to know you, sir. Knowing I may go to a business that you believe is taking advantage of their customers, and you would not mention that to your friends?"
So, not only did you talk yourself in circles, and mitigate/alter your original contentions until they were unrecognizable, but in the end you came back to the very same falsehood: the belief that an informed, willing purchaser is somehow being "taken advantage" of.
In the end, you even reveal to us why this cognitive dissonance took place, when you said:
"I sure want to hear the morality you are talking about?
I am talking about being, in my opinion, poorly or badly treated."
Look at my first post, quoted at the top of this one. I never doubted that those who were buying at these prices were taking it on the chin, price-wise. All I said was that the retailers are certainly within their rights, and the consumers were literally asking for it.
I was never talking about morality. I didn't mention it, ever. I was talking about liberty. The two are compatible and both are desirable - indeed, the latter certainly seems to bear greater fruit when informed by the former - but it's madness to confuse them.
An individual right is not necessarily morally "right". Indeed, the sovereignty of the individual is a morally neutral concept. Anyone who tries to read the latter into the definition of the former is an individual who truly demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding this nation.
We are descendant from a tradition of people who left their own shores and came to this continent precisely because they didn't want someone else's morality imposed upon them.
Before I graduate law school in a couple of weeks, I'll be sure to use my free access to Westlaw and/or LexisNexis to research the state and standards of the regulatory framework governing "working in psychiatry". I want to be sure that, at least in South Carolina, we only have rational people in an occupation involving so much rationalizing, as it is abundantly clear that the act is possible without the capacity.
