Skip to main content

Is it wrong to exploit a disaster to maximize profits?


Is it wrong to charge exurbanite prices for food, fuel and other necessities during a disaster?
If your answer is yes, please consider the following:

 A man works hard 60 hours a week for minimum wage for seven years. During this time he never eats out, goes to the movies or does anything fun, instead he invests every penny he can into resources he imagines will be in high demand at some future point.

For years everyone calls this man crazy, a conspiracy theorist and a quack. None the less the man stock piles waiting for the day that money loses value and the demand for goods sky rockets. He is sure that sooner or later there will be war, famine, the collapse of the dollar, or some kind of natural disaster.  He knows that when that day comes he will have gambled several years of his life to hit the jack pot.

And then it happens, a massive hurricane, an earthquake, a drought, you name it; the man’s gamble is about to pay off.  Then the government shows up and demands the man sell his massive stockpile at fair market value. The man agrees, “No problem, I will sell it for 100 times what I paid and it will be gone in a matter of hours.” “No the government says, you must sell it at roughly the same price it is being sold elsewhere.” “But wait,” the man says, “that is not fair market value that is an imposed value. I am not selling my goods at such a price that prevents me from having an eager customer base, in fact only by auctioning my goods off would I know what the current market value is.”

The government’s response, “It is not fair to sell your goods at such a price as to only allow the most wealthy to be able to afford necessities like food, fresh water etc.” “FAIR,” the man shouts, “FAIR! I gambled seven years of my life that a tragedy would take place where I would be able to take advantage of the rich allowing me to retire and live out the rest of my days in luxury.  Now you are going to come in and force me to sell my life’s investment at or around cost? Then you will come back and demand taxes, you will fine me for not having a business license, and when it is all done and said, after attorney fees, fines and taxes, I will only have enough money to buy a bus pass and a suite to go and look for a job sense my place of employment was destroyed in the event. Why don’t you just confiscate my resources by executive order and give them away?” …



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

When Government Demands Papers We Refuse

 By Matthew Hayward  9/19/2025  The Supreme Court just paused a lower court order that had limited federal immigration stops in Los Angeles. That stay lets federal agents resume roving patrols and interior operations that critics say rely on appearance, language, job, or neighborhood to pick people for questioning.  This matters because it normalizes a posture of suspicion. Checkpoints miles inland and roving patrols turn movement inside the country into a condition to be earned rather than a freedom to be enjoyed. The government already claims expanded authority inside the 100-mile border zone. That claim, plus an open green light for stops based on appearance, is a recipe for arbitrary enforcement.  Philosophy of resistance John Locke told us that the consent of the governed is the foundation of legitimate power. When rulers invade life, liberty, or property, or when they become arbitrary disposers of people’s lives and fortunes, the social compact is dissolve...
1 comment
Read more

The National Guard Was Never Meant to Be a Federal Tool

By Matthew Hayward 7/13/2025 Let me say this clearly: the National Guard was created to defend the states, not to enforce the will of the federal government. It was meant to serve as a local militia—an armed extension of the people under the control of the state. The highest authority a Guard member was ever supposed to answer to is their elected governor, not a bureaucrat in Washington, not a federal agency, and certainly not a sitting president weaponizing military force on domestic soil. Yes, I know the laws have changed. I know the Montgomery Amendment, the National Defense Act, and the Supreme Court's decision in Perpich v. DoD rewrote the rules. But legal doesn’t mean constitutional. Gradualism doesn’t legitimize usurpation. You don’t get to trample foundational principles and call it progress. What’s happening now—federalizing state forces to deploy them in cities without gubernatorial consent—is blasphemous. It's an insult to the very spirit of the Constitution. The ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Could Today Be the Cheapest Price for Bitcoin Ever Again? Here’s Why

By: Matthew Hayward Current price  Nov 10, 2024 76.72K 80.43K Is Now the Time to Buy Bitcoin? Bitcoin has come a long way since its early days as a niche digital asset. Today, as we enter another phase in its established four-year cycle , Bitcoin may be at a historic high, but it could soon become the new baseline price. This cycle, which has repeatedly shown Bitcoin’s resilience and long-term growth potential, suggests that the current price might be the lowest we’ll see again. While recent political shifts, including Donald Trump’s landslide election victory, have added new momentum and support for Bitcoin, the timing within the cycle itself makes this an ideal moment to consider buying. A Political Shift: From Anti-Crypto to Pro-Crypto For years, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have faced an uphill battle against a U.S. government determined to restrict and control their growth. This opposition was largely led by Gary Gensler, who waged an outright war against crypto from hi...
Post a Comment
Read more