Even if he is not breaking laws, he is doing morally reprehensible thing.
Organizations that really need it probably aren't going to be buying from a sketchy Amazon marketplace seller.
I'd say the good version of this would be buying up hand sanitizer in January, selling it for markup yesterday.
And if somebody is mad that you're making money, tell people a certain percentage of the profits goes to charity.
Vast majority of hoarders don't hoard nearly that much.
Vast majority of hoarders don't plan on exploiting people.
The basic moral standard is don't be an asshole, especially not when people are desperate. You're failing that.
For a longer comment from a healthcare worker of note, see section 2 here: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/04/30/buspirone-shortage-in-...
We had a similar case in Canada where a Vancouver couple talked to a newspaper about their enterprise and it just left me pondering what they thought the outcome would be. People respecting their "hustle" and business savvy?
Anti-gouging laws are applied (it seems) after every major hurricane. I hear the news talk about how to report gouging incidents, for example.
Prosecutions occur often enough that I'm surprised to hear you say they don't have a constitutional basis. Surely that would have been tested by now (and from what I can tell, it has, and not found to be unconstitutional).
Yes, there are limits on what the state can do with regards to interstate trade. But most anti-gouging laws are state laws, and not really subject to direct US Federal Constitution limits.
So, could you explain more about how they are dubious?
I responded to someone who claimed that what he is doing "could get him convicted of crimes in several states". While he could potentially face sanction, he isn't going to be convicted of anything.
"But most anti-gouging laws are state laws, and not really subject to direct US Federal Constitution limits."
Are you seriously arguing that state laws aren't subject to the constitution? What a wild discussion.
The number of actual convictions from these laws are absolutely minuscule, targeted only at major players, and a number of them fell on a constitutional challenge.
"Prosecutions occur often enough"
No, no they don't. You could count them on one hand. Don't confuse the big show about such laws with actual enforcement of them -- most such laws aren't even written to be enforceable (South Carolina, for instance, bans "unconscionable" pricing, which is legally meaningless). They are a showy discouragement and public placation.
Let me go back to your first paragraph-
"That doesn't make wage theft right." [arguing by association that I'm somehow saying that price gouging is right]
Apologies for the (necessary) wording, but fuck that disingenuous, obnoxious strawman. Nowhere did I say it was right. It is heinous. It is socially reprehensible. It is obnoxious behavior, and hopefully as supplies equalize this asshole and everyone like him are caught with a garage full of these things. But if people depend upon the law to discourage people this they're going to be disappointed.
I will pick two specific things:
"Are you seriously arguing that state laws aren't subject to the constitution?"
My question, restated, is what part of the US constitution do you think prohibits anti-gouging laws?
Is it the commerce clause? Is it a civil rights violation?
As a concrete example, Maryland's price gouging law concerning generic drug pricing was found unconstitutional in 2018, because of its effect on interstate commerce - http://www.fdalawblog.net/2018/04/fourth-circuit-finds-maryl... .
However, the anti-gouging laws discussed here are not interstate commerce. So, what is non-constitutional argument you refer to?
"You could count [prosecutions] on one hand."
Really? What is the basis for your statement?
DDG quickly helped me find the following 6 links, including one mentioning 15 lawsuits in Florida and another how '78 gas stations and other businesses gouged customers' in Georgia and had to pay fines.
1. "John Shepperson was one of the "gougers" authorities arrested" - https://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1954352&page=1
2. "The Sonoma County District Attorney's Office has filed three misdemeanor price gouging complaints against six landlords who allegedly raised home rental prices more than 10 percent after a declaration of emergency during the North Bay wildfires in October." - https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/six-santa-rosa-landlor...
3. "One man was even arrested for charging an elderly woman $18,000 to remove two fallen trees — the equivalent of nearly $29,000 today — according to a 1996 News & Observer article." - https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/articl...
4. "So far, the Governor’s Office of Consumer Affairs has probed 197 of those complaints and determined that 78 gas stations and other businesses gouged customers. Those businesses agreed to pay Georgia tens of thousands of dollars in fines and offer refunds to victims for overcharges." - https://www.ajc.com/news/local/refunds-promised-for-gas-goug...
5. "NC attorney general files lawsuit against tree company over alleged price gouging in Wilmington" - https://www.wral.com/attorney-general-josh-stein-filed-a-law...
6. "Since Attorney General Charlie Crist took office in 2002, the state has launched 72 formal investigations of alleged gouging and filed 15 lawsuits. “In 2004 and 2005, with each successive storm we saw fewer and fewer complaints about price gouging,” said Crist spokeswoman JoAnn Carrin. The law, she said, is having a deterrent effect." - http://www.nbcnews.com/id/12498071/ns/politics-tom_curry/t/w...
You specifically claimed that these were state laws and thus were not subject to federal constitutional limits, which is absurdly wrong. Why you would even inject that, and then strangely start spinning in a different direction, is left for one to wonder.
Then again, you also grotesquely misrepresented my post, so I understand your comment has zero sincerity and instead you're just stomping your feet and saying "gouging bad!" despite agreement by all parties.
As to your "I did a Google search" --
Again, convictions. John Shepperson was not convicted. No one is EVER convicted. Anyone who contests the fines see them dissolved. It's a feel good for stupid people.
You write that I wrote "and thus were not subject to federal constitutional limits"
I was more nuanced. I said "not really subject to direct US Federal Constitution limits".
There is no direct Federal Constitution limit on anti-gouging laws. (By comparison, see the direct prohibition on slavery (except as punishment for a criminal conviction)).
Therefore, if something isn't constitutional it must derive from some other principle, like the commerce clause, or perhaps interpretation.
Which is it?
Now, I am a programmer, with no legal training or political science training past high school classes. It's entirely possible that I have the terminology wrong. But I don't see how it's so wrong as to rate your response.
You constructed a quote from me: "I did a Google search"
As I wrote, I used DuckDuckGo. I realize "Google search" has taken on the generic meaning of "web search", but point it out as part of what seems to be your pattern of re-interpreting what I wrote in a way which I thought I was clear to not say.
"Again, convictions"
I think you have misread the thread.
The OP wrote "This guy did something that at a minimum will make him a pariah in his community and at worst could get him convicted of crimes in several states"
You rejected "convicted".
Sure. I'm fine with that. Because that wasn't my point. I wrote "Prosecutions occur often enough that I'm surprised to hear you say they don't have a constitutional basis." I even showed how one anti-gouging law was found invalid because of its conflict with the commerce clause. But that finding was specific to the details of that law.
You then followed up with "No, no they don't. You could count them on one hand." The "they" in this case was "prosectutions", because your text directly quoted what I wrote on prosecutions. It was not about convictions.
So no, I did not bring up John Shepperson as an example of being jailed. I brought him up as an example of being prosecuted. Which was exactly the issue you said happened fewer than 6 times.
You write "Anyone who contests the fines see them dissolved".
I did point out that "78 gas stations and other businesses" in GA were fined. I suppose you'll say they weren't contested and dissolved because it was cheaper to pay the fine than to contest.
But honestly, I don't care. I want to know how anti-gouging laws are "of dubious constitutional basis", not how they are of dubious effectiveness.
You have yet to address that issue.
Unconstitutional because there is no such thing as a "fair" cost for things, and when the state intrudes on commerce in a capricious, arbitrary manner it is unconstitutional, as has been shown countless times in countless cases.
This isn't difficult. Though again you accuse me of misreading the thread. LOL.
What part of the constitution are you referencing? Which court cases? I've looked for a couple of hours, but failed to find anything.
Without something concrete, I will conclude your original statement about dubiousness is unsupported.
Why are all anti-gouging laws necessarily capricious and arbitrary? Certainly some may be, but some are no less capricious and arbitrary than saying that 21 is the legal drinking age or that the speed limit on a given highway is 65 mph.
Eg, "During a declared emergency, selling goods and services at a price that is at least 10% higher than it was immediately preceding the declaration." - https://consumer.findlaw.com/consumer-transactions/price-gou...
Anti-gouging laws are a subset of price controls. The US has had price controls before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_controls#United_States .
If what you say is true, then how are price controls constitutional but anti-gouging laws are not?