Ebay seller flipping Stepped Blue Titanium Chaparral's that he got for $19 each

[Cliff Stamp]

And if they are free to refuse, then they are not being forced do anything.

You are free to refuse in the gun example as well, why do you see that as not voluntary, you still have a choice.

Supermarkets force unfair trading practices because small suppliers can not refuse the contract because there is no alternative, they either sell or the goods go unsold. In perishable markets like food the leverage is extreme.

Imagine this, I move into a small community which can't trade outside of itself. I have the money to tap a well into the main watershed for that area which I drain. All residents now find their wells gone dry. I then price water at destructive pricing, this means that all of the residents are forced into a capital drain to purchase water. When the town is ran dry of all wealth as the residents have sold everything they own, leveraged all lending debt they can, mortgaged all property/land then I forclose on all of it. I then sell this to someone else and I move on to the next town.

I didn't use a gun obviously but do you just say "oh well, free market" those guys were not forced to buy water, they could have just died -but- condemn the guy who bought a miss priced $20 knife.

[bearfacedkiller]

Is this a philosophy forum? Now we are discussing morality? :confused:

[Bodog]

And if they are free to refuse, then they are not being forced do anything.

You are free to refuse in the gun example as well, why do you see that as not voluntary, you still have a choice.

Supermarkets force unfair trading practices because small suppliers can not refuse the contract because there is no alternative, they either sell or the goods go unsold. In perishable markets like food the leverage is extreme.

Imagine this, I move into a small community which can't trade outside of itself. I have the money to tap a well into the main watershed for that area which I drain. All residents now find their wells gone dry. I then price water at destructive pricing, this means that all of the residents are forced into a capital drain to purchase water. When the town is ran dry of all wealth as the residents have sold everything they own, leveraged all lending debt they can, mortgaged all property/land then I forclose on all of it. I then sell this to someone else and I move on to the next town.

I didn't use a gun obviously but do you just say "oh well, free market" those guys were not forced to buy water, they could have just died -but- condemn the guy who bought a miss priced $20 knife.

Robbery of robber barons is not equal to jumping through legal loopholes when scheistering an honest company. This guy is not Robin hood stealing from the rich to give to the poor. He took advantage of a legal loophole to profit off the back of what seems to be an honest company. Are there greater atrocities happening in the world? Sure. Is this one right here and a good discussion to have that pertains to the basic right and wrong premises that we all hold?

[brian0918]

And if they are free to refuse, then they are not being forced do anything.

You are free to refuse in the gun example as well, why do you see that as not voluntary, you still have a choice.

Your rights are violated in the case of the gun. You are being threatened with direct physical force.

Making bad decisions that cause your company to go bankrupt, and then blaming other companies for not giving you more money, is not a rights violation. It's not the threat of physical force. It's just reality showing you that you've made bad decisions.

[brian0918]

Supermarkets force unfair trading practices because small suppliers can not refuse the contract because there is no alternative, they either sell or the goods go unsold. In perishable markets like food the leverage is extreme.

No alternatives? They grew food without a means by which to profitably sell it? That sounds like a bad decision on their part.

Can they not sell directly to the consumer, or find someone else to buy the food at a discount, in order to recoup some costs? If not, what's stopping them from doing so?

[Cliff Stamp]

[...] when you take a stance that defends a constantly shifting morality, then there's not a lot of room to talk about an unethical knife company with shady practices.

No where in the above did I argue for or even defend a moral viewpoint which would support the actions described. What I noted is that it isn't a trivial assertion to make that any moral viewpoint is somehow the right one and it certainly isn't the case that simply because someone has a different moral viewpoint that they lack understanding of the situation.

[Cliff Stamp]

They grew food without a means by which to profitably sell it? That sounds like a bad decision on their part.

This isn't the case.

An individual develops as a supplier in response to the markets, usually local expanding later to exporting as size allows. A supermarket has the power to drive potential consumers out of business as they can do things like run at a local loss and simply float that because of a total margin. With alternatives removed they are then free to make any demands as they can be the sole consumer. You then have to sell to them or your goods are wasted. Now this allows them to force the margin up so they can repeat the cycle on the next supplier and then continue.

[Cliff Stamp]

He took advantage of a legal loophole to profit off the back of what seems to be an honest company.

It is a legal loophole that a seller has to abide by promoted prices? Do you not understand the chaos that would ensure if the law allowed a seller to reject a contract and simply claim that the offered price was a mistake after the other party had accepted it?

[Cliff Stamp]

You are being threatened with direct physical force.

So as long as it isn't a direct physical threat then it is ok?

How about if you run a business and I step in and make demands on you to sell me any goods I want for free. If you refuse then I will buy the bank that holds your mortgage I will then increase your rate to the point you can't pay it and the for close on your store.

There is nothing illegal about what I am doing, I am not doing any physical threat but do you still see your actions as voluntary and my actions as morally ok?

Making bad decisions that cause your company to go bankrupt, and then blaming other companies for not giving you more money, is not a rights violation.

That is really your understanding of Supermarket practice, it is the fault of the suppliers? Have you read any of the legal developments in the UK and other countries where laws had to be put in place to stop unfair trading?

[Cliff Stamp]

[...] but I doubt that you can tell me I am wrong about either of my assessments of your character.

What I would do in a situation would not lead me to conclude that if someone else had a different viewpoint they were lacking in understanding and/or character.

[Bodog]

He took advantage of a legal loophole to profit off the back of what seems to be an honest company.

It is a legal loophole that a seller has to abide by promoted prices? Do you not understand the chaos that would ensure if the law allowed a seller to reject a contract and simply claim that the offered price was a mistake after the other party had accepted it?

No, it's not immoral for a company to stand by a promoted price. It's immoral for someone to take advantage of an honest company who made an obvious mistake. Hopefully you don't ever make a mistake and then have someone else profit from your mistake while you take significant losses. Hopefully that person who can profit from your mistake is a decent enough person to inform you of your mistake rather than push you down and and take what should be yours.

[jtoler_9]

It can be summed up as simply as "two wrong don't make a right"

He said to the group currently name calling a guy who made what the group considers a wrong.

Irony?

If there's a high road, I fear this thread may have passed it a few miles ago.

[jtoler_9]

Double tap

[Cliff Stamp]

Hopefully you don't ever make a mistake and then have someone else profit from your mistake while you take significant losses.

Again, you keep wanting to turn this into a personal argument on me, if that is the case then just take that to email and make any personal implications there.

[Archimedes]

I think this whole thread is a microcosm of whats wrong with society. Sure maybe Cliff is right as usual about contract law involving grocery stores. Still, I think most people sense that on some level what happened was wrong. It is what each of us choose to do when faced with these situations that makes a difference. It is refreshing to see so many people would give back the knife to the seller. What we choose to do is what makes a difference.

Lets change Ecop to an old lady who is selling her deceased husbands knives and makes a mistake. Would you screw over a widow? What is the difference. To me there is no difference. I know right from wrong.

[Surfingringo]

[...] but I doubt that you can tell me I am wrong about either of my assessments of your character.

What I would do in a situation would not lead me to conclude that if someone else had a different viewpoint they were lacking in understanding and/or character.

Thats not true cliff. Do you shake babies?

[Cliff Stamp]

Still, I think most people sense that on some level what happened was wrong.

The morality that people have tends to be the brains amalgamation of a number of rules they have learned by rote which is strongly influenced by cultural norms. If you spend times in other countries with other cultures then you will notice very large swings in what is or isn't accepted as a moral duty. It is very likely to change your viewpoint on what you think most people would realize is obviously wrong. Here is the raw reality, most people would not agree with you because the dominant population is actually in China/India and similar countries and they have very different viewpoints on business/contract interaction than the West.

This thread however started off with the assertion that it was not a moral issue and that the purchaser was committing theft and fraud. Now even that kind of thread is likely not really suitable in this forum because it actually exposes Spyderco to liability as they are hosting accusations against individuals. It really isn't sensible behavior to put that on them simply because you feel a personal is engaging in illegal activities. However when it moves to a moral issue and people start condemn someone for not having a particular moral viewpoint and lacking character for the same, well it should be pretty obvious that is strongly against the rules of this forum.

[Cliff Stamp]

Do you shake babies?

I don't tend to shake people as a general rule, unless if asked and only then if they wear outfits from Underworld at which point I scream "Those stupid silver bullets won't work Selene, the Lycan's have evolved, they have evolved!"

[Surfingringo]

Do you shake babies?

I don't tend to shake people as a general rule, unless if asked and only then if they wear outfits from Underworld at which point I scream "Those stupid silver bullets won't work Selene, the Lycan's have evolved, they have evolved!"

Doesn't shake people, doesn't cheat storeowners out of money...hmmm, you're not nearly as mysterious as you pretend to be Mr. Stamp!

[Bodog]

And yet here you are in a thread which you believe violates forum rules defending the person and his moral authority to take advantage of an innocent person which resides firmly in a culture which doesn't look that kindly on taking advantage of innocent people. In other thread you rail against companies which do things such as this. And if your argument is that this thread has nothing to do with spyderco, then that's kind of the pot calling the kettle black as you are constantly posting topics which are unrelated to spyderco specifically but which may help each individual and their understanding of things at large.