[Granny-like_the_apple]

Originally Posted by Asurai

Untrue. You could hardly argue, for instance, that there are "multiple" equally valid "versions of the truth" in regard to science and natural laws -- but that doesn't mean that there's no need for scientists, that everyone knows what's true and false regarding science, that every layman can conduct experiments with partical accelerators.

Totally agree.

What's this talk about versions, anyway? There are only two possible things that a person's view of reality can be: true or untrue. It can be realistic or false.

I'll let T get this one.

If the rich country chooses to not sell its products, that is its right. A sale requires the seller's consent -- regardless of any need involved on either side. If I don't want to sell you my house, it makes not a difference whether you need it for shelter or not.

The poor country has no right to forcefully take the property of others.

Finally, I can use a half-true situation instead of some whacked-out hypothetical! In Florida, after particularly bad hurricane seasons, many retailers of food, water, gas, and goods needed to rebuild homes, jack up their prices by as much as they think they can legally get away with. Now, these people's companies would not have survived if it weren't for the now-homeless people supporting their institutions over the years. I'll allow that some moderate mark-up is reasonable, albeit not a great moral position, but what about when stores start charging a $25 for a gallon of water? What about $100? What about $1000? What if stores simply refused to sell water and food? What if people died because of their price gouging? Could they be charged with murder? After all, they could reasonably expect that their refusal to sell neccesary things like food and water to hurricane-stricken people would kill some of them.

What if these people then stormed the grocery stores that had shuttered its doors? They would be completely in the wrong? They would be "enslaving" the store owners?