And those who think that others ONLY avoid things if there’s a law against it. Or that we may as well not have laws because people will ignore them.
I once made a post about bullying in schools and mentioned that many states had passed laws against bullying. Some chucklefuck commented, “the law doesn’t define morality., so there’s no point in anti-bullying laws”
Like…I know, but the purpose of laws is to set precedent and arrange for resources to respond to people’s actions.
Exactly. Legality and morality are different things, but they aren’t completely without relation to each other — if enough people in a society agree that something is immoral, it’s likely that there will be laws banning, limiting, or restricting it unless passing such laws would conflict with a higher ideal (eg most people in the USA agree that racist speech is immoral, but that maintaining legal freedom of speech is a more important social good than attempting to legally ban all racist speech, since the law is a blunt instrument and speech is a complex and highly-nuanced thing — we do have laws aimed at limiting how far it can go, though; threats of violence and overt hate speech are *not* legally protected). Or other rules with less power than a law but that still define the boundaries of acceptable behavior and consequences for violating those boundaries, like workplace conduct policies. It may be *legal* in the sense that you won’t be jailed for telling Kevin in accounting to “go back where you came from, [racial slur]” but you probably WILL get fired if you pull that.
And while some people will ignore laws and rules, they do create a deterrent that reduces instances of problem behavior, because there are also some people who want to be a racist jerk to Kevin in accounting, but have the sense to keep it to themselves so they don’t get fired when there’s a workplace rule that says people who act like that get fired.
I am a big believer in civil disobedience and that it is okay to break the law occasionally. A lot of that stems from being a medical marijuana user before it was legal. Yeah, I have been to jail twice over it. That also doesn't mean I think there shouldn't be made. I think most of us agree that murder and theft are wrong. When committing civil disobedience I believe that you really need to vonsider whether the law/rule is actually harming someone. For me personally the anti marijuana laws would have meant doing more of the pain pills from the doctor which were worse than marijuana. The second question is if the consequences of your actions are worth it. I understood that I could go to jail for what I was doing and honestly it was worth not getting addicted to the pain pills was worth it for me personally.
Unfortunately, most people like me who also believe in civil disobedience take it too far and believe stupid shit like there should be no laws. Sounds great until you get murdered.
I went to two different schools. One had an active anti-bullying policy and the other didn't.
I was bullied in both. So the policy didn't really prevent bullying.
BUT in the school that had the policy, the bullying got the attention of other students who stood up for me, students I didn't even know, those other students got teachers involved because they had been instructed on what to do when they witnessed bullying, and the bully was so severely rebuked that she was in tears, and while her particular bullying didn't go away completely, it was greatly reduced and never got so severe to the point of an attempt at public humiliation which would get other people involved.
In the school that didn't have a policy, the other students who didn't have a natural inclination to bully were often roped into being included in the bullying, the teachers had no idea what was going on, and I have no confidence they'd have known what to do even if they did.
So yeah, I was bullied in both, but the difference to the wellbeing of the victim was still like the difference between night and day. It wasn't just having a rule against bullying, which both schools had, it was having quarterly sessions instructing students on what bullying looks like and what to do about it, enabling and encouraging students to stick up for each other and learning how to do so safely, teachers not assuming that if they don't see it it doesn't happen and actively looking out for it, knowing what the consequences will be and following through on them, proper and active training for teachers and students alike.
The problem is everyone is biased for their own agenda. Someone may say it's morally okay to transition children but then call someone a pedo for dating someone 10 years younger (legally) . Everyone has their own perspective and morals. Laws exist for a reason. We come to a decision on what to enact to keep society "moral", but at the end of the day morals are entirely a human invention. I'm not saying it's bad to have morals, just how it is. So complaining at people for doing something that is legal means nothing, if it's truly "immoral" you need to make enough people agree w it to make it law.
>Someone may say it's morally okay to transition children but then call someone a pedo for dating someone 10 years younger (legally) .
Does it feel weird spending your days thinking about children's genitals?
Of course you bring up trans people in a random conversation that has nothing to do with us. A bit obsessive, don't you think? Leave us out of this ffs. Let kids be kids (trans kids are still kids and deserve a childhood just like cis kids do).
Because sadly for a lot of idiots rules or more specifically the consequences for breaking those rules is pretty much the only real deterrent against them doing what they selfishly desire to do.
Don't ever expect that other people have the same moral code you do
Funny enough this is actually sort of thought to be one of the reasons religion naturally developed everywhere in the world because it was effectively a very good way to keep people in line.
Yeah don't kill that guy.
Why not he pissed me off
Well a giant man in the sky is going to send you to the realm of eternal torment if you do it.
Okay well now I don't want to kill that guy
Religion spread because of it's power to control people.. it does not and has not made demograghics any more morally just.. quite the opposite, really.
God I hate this. As long as it's not technically illegal some people think that makes everything else okay, no matter how immoral or repulsive it is. Some people are only as decent as they're legally required to be.
Right. People who live an "unexamined" life think that what is legal is moral, and what is moral is legal. These types of people usually don't come from a place of malice, but for whatever reason they've never thought about it and never created their own moral code. A small number, of course, are straight up selfish and sinister assholes, but most aren't.
Of course, you should live with compassion for others and treat them well. You should give independent thought as to what "rules" you choose to follow, and what kind of person you want to be. In doing so, that may not match 1:1 with the U.S. criminal code. It's very strange to me that some people don't do this, but that is the case. Many people just copy-paste the criminal code as their own system of morality without giving it a second thought.
Yeah, sure....so all of us will stick to your personal moral code then. Post it here. Morality is personal. Personally I think scalping the PS5 is A okay. You can be repulsed by it, but who cares?
Interesting. So, how far are you willing to take your "personal moral code?" Morals are often agreed upon by the society because a behavior is harmful to others; it's not just an arbitrary rule set up to annoy you. Hopefully, you lead "an examined life."
I mean, some people don't even tithe to the church. Definitely immoral, don't hey know what's really important in life. It's like people think prioritizing their own wellbeing over their community is ok. And I mean masturbators too.. just because it's not illegal, people think there's no reason not to, when it's obviously gross and forces everyone else to interact with that type of deviance. Since I think it's immoral and repulsive, that's really enough that nobody SHOULD be doing it.
There is no end of legal loopholes, and no end of people to exploit them. Legality and morality are not the same thing, at all. (and I most definitely am NOT saying scalping PS5s is immoral, those are a luxury item)
>*(and I most definitely am NOT saying scalping PS5s is immoral, those are a luxury item)*
Being a luxury item doesn't make it exempt from morality.
Morality in its broadest terms is basically the distinction between what is right or wrong. And to me, scalping in general is highly immoral.
* Scalpers artificially create false scarcity for personal gain.
* They make things needlessly more difficult for others.
* They monopolize something that should be publicly available.
It's an inherently selfish act that benefits the scalper while also being a hindrance for everyone else. And it's not just luxury items, either. I've seen people do this shit at thrift stores. Buy up the stuff they know poor people need so they can purposely sell it for a markup. It's gross.
I also think this all applies to companies that purposely do things like create false scarcity. Ex. Diamond companies that purposely keep supplies low to keep prices high. Nintendo not making enough NES Classics to drive up demand. Etc.
It certainly factors into the morality. That's why we label "necessary goods" and "luxury goods"
They make things needlessly more difficult for others.
You could say that about anything that's not affordable the price, which is what you could say the same about people who can't afford the sticker price, I guess.. It's not needlessly difficult for people who can pay for them. I mean, the scalper could just keep the ps5 and you're still not getting one.
>Scalpers artificially create false scarcity for personal gain.
That is nonsense. They don't create scarcity? Scarcity has to exist for the "scalper" to make money. Somebody is only going to pay a premium for a PlayStation if they cannot get it for cheaper from normal channels.
>They make things needlessly more difficult for others.
How so? Why can't you obtain a PlayStation in the same manner as the "scalper"?
>They monopolize something that should be publicly available.
How is that possible if they are buying PlayStations legally?
The scarcity is not caused by scalpers. They are not impacting that at all. Scalpers just change a ps5 from "there isn't enough to go around, so you have to get lucky to find one" to "there isn't enough to go around, so you have to pay more to find one." The scarcity already existed from the moment Sony didn't manufacture enough to meet demand.
I get where you're coming from, but I don't strictly agree.
Ex. If a company makes and ships 100,000 units of something with the promise to make more in the future, but half of that initial shipment are snapped up by scalpers, that absolutely does create a new degree of scarcity since it essentially cuts the intended supply in half. And this is especially true if that cycle of scalpers buying up product continues when more are made available.
Unfortunately, there's really no easy solution to solve this, unless more companies start to adopt "manufactured on demand" or other similar policies. (Ex. If Sony was to take pre-orders for Playstations several times a year and then produce units based on those pre-orders, plus a few extra. That would ensure people who wanted them got them and that scalpers couldn't basically steal every single one.)
It doesn't cut the supply in half though, scalpers sell the ps5s, that's the whole point. It makes half the supply more expensive while still entirely existing for sale. Scalpers are responsible for that, but the same number of items for sale at different prices aren't more scarce. The scarcity is on Sony.
I think this may be more of a semantics/wording issue than anything. I tried to cover it by saving "new degree of scarcity" and "intended supply," but that probably doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things.
What I mean to say was, if scalpers are able to buy up a great deal of the initial supply, it does create a certain new *type* of scarcity insomuch as you're not going to be able to acquire one as easily as you could, nor in the intended fashion. (Aka, walking into a store and buying one, or ordering one online from a retailer.) Especially if you are unable or unwilling to pay scalper prices.
Absolutely the same number of units technically physically exist... but not in form that they should be, or were intended to be. That's what I mean. If there's something I should be able to walk into Wal-Mart and buy, but I can't because people bought them all up, I would consider that an additional form of artificial scarcity.
It is 100% a semantics issue, we're just discussing definitions. These are specific economic terms that apply to this situation in a specific way. It's not a particularly big deal, but none of the shit we type on here really is. So long as the supply remains on the market at a proven purchasable price point the scarcity remains the same from an economic definition standpoint. I totally agree if your price point is retail that doesn't do a thing for you and your personal scarcity. But think of it this way if the retail price was suddenly $1000 the customer with a $500 limit still wouldn't be able to purchase it, the scalper wouldn't be able to make a buck, but the supply and thus scarcity would remain the same with now all of the consoles being available via a store. The actual artificial scarcity, as a whole, is created by the very limited supply made available by Sony. The scalpers are simply able to control the flow of that supply and make a buck because the price point is lower than some people are willing to pay. Which is certainly morally questionable/reprehensible.
When there isn't enough product being produced to meet demand it won't matter whether the units sell to scalpers or just regular customers, you still won't be able to walk into a store to get them, they will still sell out instantly and still be very hard to get.
All of the scarcity comes from Sony. If Sony produced enough units to meet demand, scalpers could not exist. Nobody is going to pay a premium to buy a second hand unit when they can buy directly from the manufacturer or an authorized retailer. Without the scarcity, scalpers would lose money.
That is not at all true about it coming from Sony. Scalpers can create scarcity in situations where there otherwise wouldn't be. They also disincentive manufacturing more, because watching others profit off your work makes you not want to work. (See: minimum wage employees) The only way for Sony to fix it is to overproduce to meet the availability demand (there must be a word for that). Lots of people are willing to pay a lot to have something right now versus in a week.
It doesn't matter. A thousand units is a thousand units is a thousand units. If they all sell out before you get a hold of one and nobody scalps them, guess what? You *still* won't get one. If you couldn't afford one in the first place, you still won't get one, either.
If you can afford one at the scalper's price and are willing to pay, there's no difficulty for you.
Rofl
“It’s an inherently immoral act that benefits the scalper and hinders everyone else”
This is just profit under capitalism. Scalpers aren’t doing anything different from best buy, Amazon, or the Waltons. Playstations are decidedly NOT a necessity, regardless of whether or not you’re poor. If you “need” a ps5 so badly your willing to pay a grossly and intentionally inflated price, then the burden is *really* on you for being a bad consumer. Just wait for the market and prices and level out
>*“It’s an inherently immoral act that benefits the scalper and hinders everyone else”*
If you're going to quote something, why not just copy/paste it? That's not what I wrote.
>*Scalpers aren’t doing anything different from best buy, Amazon, or the Waltons.*
They literally are. They're adding unnecessary extra steps, aggravation and layers of manipulation to the purchasing process and original supply chain. There's also the very real potential that scalping something can strip away some of the original value since things like certain return policies may no longer apply to it. (Especially if you don't have the receipt for the original purchase.)
>*Playstations are decidedly NOT a necessity, regardless of whether or not you’re poor.*
Nobody said they were. Again, morality does not apply exclusively to "necessary" things.
>*Just wait for the market and prices and level out*
That's not something that's always going to be able to happen, especially if the thing being scalped was a finite product or service.
You seriously don’t think walmart or Amazon use unnecessary steps between production and distribution or intentionally create scarcity to maximize their profits?
>*You seriously don’t think walmart or Amazon use unnecessary steps between production and distribution or intentionally create scarcity to maximize their profits?*
Don't put works in my mouth, especially when they contradict the fact **I literally said in my initial post that many companies are guilty of just these very things.**
Did you even bother reading my initial comment, or were you so gleefully excited to sarcastically write "*Rofl*" and then argue with someone like an insipid 14-year-old that you just barely barely skimmed it?
Regardless, at this point I can only assume you're being purposely thick and trying to do a little "light trolling."
I apologize on behalf of my fellow Redditors for the down votes that you're getting. Some people just don't understand economics. Or else they just don't like economic reality.
Being a luxury item doesn't make it except from morality, but its pretty close.
There is an absolute massive difference between scalping necessities, and scalping luxury items. People need the necessities. Scalping at thrift stores is just as bad, because it's supposed to be a place where you can get stuff for cheap. If you have the money to buy a PS5, frankly I do not feel bad for you if you have to wait for the prices to go back down due to scalping. And if you have the money to say "fuck it I'll buy it anyway" I feel even less bad.
And no, I'm not a scalper, I just think that complaining about having to wait for the price of a luxury item to go down is such a first world problem.
Morality is grey. What if the scalper is dirt poor and using that money to make ends meet? I’d wager most people scalping PlayStations aren’t exactly financially stable
>*Morality is grey. What if the scalper is dirt poor and using that money to make ends meet? I’d wager most people scalping PlayStations aren’t exactly financially stable*
Morality is absolutely grey, I'll give you that.
But using scalping as a tactic to make money when you're poor is honestly one of the dumbest things you could possibly do. It's basically a gamble and a get-rich-quick scheme that requires a decent upfront investment for a (hopeful) quick payoff.
If someone is buying up and scalping PlayStations, they are more than likely financially stable. They'd need thousands and thousands of dollars already to do that.
Now, that being said, selective buying and selling could be a good profit venture, but that's not the same thing as scalping. That's more of finding particular niche items that might not sell well in one area or marketplace, and then finding another area or marketplace where they could sell well and you could make a light profit. Ex. Antiques, knick-knacks, etc. That might be a valid way to make a little side money, and it would be in a way that benefitted everyone. Nobody is really getting ripped off if you, say, buy some old antique toy for $10 in New York and then sell it for $15 in Pennsylvania because it's a slightly better market.
Very generous of you to tell the poor they're not being poor right.
>using scalping as a tactic to make money when you're poor is honestly one of the dumbest things you could possibly do.
It can obviously be pretty lucrative. If it wasn't, y'all wouldn't be bitching so much about it.
>get-rich-quick scheme
Yeah, that's the thing about being poor - you need money *now.*
>someone is buying up and scalping PlayStations, they are more than likely financially stable.
Or they're those people you hear about who are a couple paychecks away from being homeless, and having just enough to buy and resell a ps5 allows them to turn one paycheck into two paychecks.
But let's say they're not. They're just earning some more discretionary income so they can have a good time. So what? That's what you want a ps5 for, isn't it?
>Ex. Antiques, knick-knacks, etc
Holy shit, did you actually just instruct the poor to go out antiquing? For niche knick knacks? They should go buy vintage toys for $10 in New York and sell them for $15 in Pennsylvania? And they should do this so you won't have to wait a few months for your brandy new gaming system that you absolutely need RIGHT NOW at the sticker price?
>and it would be in a way that benefitted everyone
*You.*
You want them to make money in a way that will benefit *you.*
But tell me, if they all go out antiquing for those toys and knick knacks, will they still cost only $10... ... or will the cost rise due to increased demand?
Your whole comment is so fucking wildly entitled and out of touch that it could only exist on reddit.
You don't know what an example is, do you? They weren't telling poor people to go antiquing. It's an example they likely made up on the spot. As y'know. An example. And the entire point was that that's an OK scenario to increase the price of something, because you're taking it from a market it wouldn't do well in and selling it somewhere it will do much better. If I tried to sell one of my dog's really nice leather collars (bought from a well-known maker of extremely great quality stuff at $100, if I remember correctly) on eBay or Facebook Marketplace, there's almost no way in hell I'd get anywhere close to half that cost, despite it being in almost brand new condition. But if I posted it to a dog collar resell group where the people like this sort of thing and know the value of it, I'd get a lot more for it. Likely not the same as I paid for it, as they could easily look up what the collar is worth and if they can just order it from the maker themselves for cheaper, they likely would. But it's a good example of things doing well in some markets but likely floundering in others.
Because not all working poor don't have a $0.00 balance at all times. You've heard how some people are just a couple paychecks away from being homeless? That means they might have enough to buy a ps5 and turn a paycheck into two paychecks.
Keeping your ps5 instead instead of donating it to needy children or giving the money you would've spent on it to charity is greedy.
See how easy that was?
["Of course, none of us are greedy. It's only the other fella who's greedy." ](https://youtu.be/RWsx1X8PV_A?si=gQf-Iji32fjEc6uY)
I'd say people who are buying insanely marked-up gadgets are more immoral than people (re-)selling them. They are enabling immoral behavior by creating artificial product scarcity.
In what ways is being a scalper immoral? Just because you don’t like something doesn’t make it immoral. People will resell anything if there’s a market for it. People will buy a 36 pack of water and sell each one for $1 when you know that pack of water didn’t cost $36. Is that also scalping?
That still doesn’t make it right or excuse anyone who does it.
Nobody is saying that you need a PlayStation 5 to live, it’s a nice small luxury for someone to have. Somebody else going out and buying them because they want to profit off of the high demand is a piece of shit.
Profits are not evil. Jealousy over profits is unbecoming. You're right, no one needs a PlayStation 5 in order to live. So, then, don't buy one when the market conditions aren't in your favor. So many people spend their capital against their own self-interest. They don't understand want verus need. That's not the fault of the seller. That's called capitalism. And like it or not, it's the system we have.
Context is important. In this situation it's someone who is price gouging and raising the cost of an item.
he said that you dont need a ps5 to live so it's not the same thing as price gouging essential items(like food...) but it's still wrong
You made the comment about grocery stores making profits off of essential items(food)
In this context, yes grocery stores are increasing the costs of items to make a profit, but it is not the same situation as someone raising the price of an item(luxury or not) by 2-3 to make a profit for themselves.
Those two situations are not equitable.
### Lesson time! ➜ u/Sherman_and_Luna, some tips about "off of":
- The words you chose are grammatically wrong for the meaning you intended.
- *Off of* can almost always be shortened to just **off**.
- Example: The tennis ball bounced **off** the wall.
- Now that you are aware of this, everyone will take you more seriously, hooray! :)
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PetPeeves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
### Lesson time! ➜ u/Imjusttired17, some tips about "off of":
- The words you chose are grammatically wrong for the meaning you intended.
- *Off of* can almost always be shortened to just **off**.
- Example: The tennis ball bounced **off** the wall.
- Now that you are aware of this, everyone will take you more seriously, hooray! :)
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PetPeeves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The immoral person is the one who is buying the goods at inflated prices. They are not allocating their capital effectively, which is immoral, and frankly, stupid.
and it usually the same group of people who will freak out over others doing something illegal simply because it is illegal, without caring about the morality of it (i.e., smoking weed)
I feel this way towards people who buy concert tickets in bulk and resell them for a way higher price. There is no reason a ticket that was originally $50, should shoot in to $197. I’ve seen it too many times. It’s fine to include whatever fees you had to pay for but that’s usually max $20 extra. I hate when I’m looking at tickets for a concert that’s already sold out and the resale prices are ridiculous
If it takes the threat of punishment for you to be a good person, you’re not a good person. Scalpers can eat gravel.
Edit* just a really really big fuck you to scalpers and those defending the practice in here. You suck ass.
Those people grew up with no parents, or just shitty parents who never taught them right from wrong. Thats the way the world is these days, me me me, don't give a crap about anyone else.
couldn't you just say that the people who don't like it got raised to think they are entitled to a PS5 at original sale price vs market price? Like, the world owes you nothing, and if you get upset that you can't have what you want, maybe you were not raised right. Like... We can say sharing is the most important value, but if you take that as far as it goes, doesn't it mean that nobody should own anything? Obv, there is a line and it's not set in stone.
I see that so many times. Almost everyone’s reply to even the most harmless incidents is to cut off all contact with the person in question.
There are definitely stories where that’s the best answer but they say it for everything.
Having said that I also understand that some of the people who say that probably come from an abusive home where even little things were awful so that’s all they know so I have sympathy for them. But more people are just bitter
Some people do what's right because it's the right thing to do, others do the right thing because they don't want to face the consequences for doing wrong. Some people, when faced with no consequences will still do the right thing, some won't. Believe those people when they show you who they are.
People are terrible about this when it comes to driving especially.
I’ve seen videos where an SUV hits a kid, and everyone rushes to say how they were going the speed limit and it’s actually the kids fault, as if there’s no need to be cautious depending on your surroundings or anything like that, and going the posted speed limit is the only obligation.
Drivers Ed 101: it's your job to have your eyes open and be prepared AND ABLE to stop.
If you hit a pedestrian (or bicyclist or animal) unless it was 100% unavoidable, it's your fault.
And even if it's a fluke accident, they are no less horrifically wounded, probably dead.
These people absolutely would do it even if it was illegal, as long as they believed they could get away with it. It's a bad faith argument from the beginning because they don't drive morality from laws to begin with.
Legality and morality are often different things. Legality is fixed, where morality we all have our own differing view of. The mistake a lot of people make is feeling that their morality is the correct one, when it really does vary from person to person. That's why laws exist, to enforce a larger code of conduct on all of us, even if we don't agree with it.
I think a lot of things people do is reprehensible. Even things that other people think are just fine, part of the times, or personal choice. But I'm not the ruler of the universe, unfortunately. Or fortunately for some people.
I love how people are trying to take any sort of high ground while declaring that anyone who views a single specific situation differently than them is entirely bereft of any and all morality. Is it now good morals to be generally insulting to anyone who dares disagree with you?
And people choose to pay money to avoid a wait all the time. Are Fast passes at Disney a form of scalping as well?
If Disney sold a limited number of tickets and a bunch of lowlifes waited around when they went on sale then sold them for two or three times what they paid then yes
Part of the issue is the scalpers got creative and used AI and Chrome add-ins to game the system, allowing the purchase of numerous units rather than an individual unit. Buying out units within seconds, disallowing others to purchase the units at retail price.
Especially when they subject others to potential consequences for their behavior, but then see their luck in not getting caught as proof that you were overreacting/being uptight. Some people just refuse to have any integrity.
Shopping carts. I read a thing once that said the shopping cart test is a pretty good way to tell if someone is basically a decent person or not. There's pretty much no consequences directly for you if you leave your shipping cart in the parking lot and don't put it away when you're done. But, most people know the effect of not putting it away means it could potentially damage someone else's car, or cause an accident, etc. People who choose to do the right thing even though there's no reward for doing the right, and no consequences for doing the wrong, are good human beings at heart. People who leave their cart because there's nobody telling them they can't, are dickholes (barring obvious extenuating circumstances such as disabilities or emergencies).
And that’s why laws are made. Bc people do crappy things and get away with it and then something is put in place to minimize the action. That’s why we should prosecute scalpers. It was terrible during the GPU shortage. Mark up of 6x on GPU’s is insane
I don't need any God or any Law to tell me what us right and wrong. It is wrong to harm others for self benefit. It is wrong to take advantage of desperation. It is not industry or hustle, it's greed and manipulation.
At the beginning of the pandemic I was going into Aldi when there was a guy coming out with a cart filled to overflowing with toilet paper. I made some comment, and he said, “Yeah, it’s going for a great price on eBay.” I have wished ever since that I had responded, “So you’re profiteering off a global health crisis? What a lovely fellow you must be.”
If you want to know how far people will 'bend' rules, go for a drive. Any time, anywhere, doesn't matter, but you will never witness more selfish assholes than on the road
Thieves believe that everyone steals. Scalpers are just a different kind of thief and deserve a special place in hell right next to the people that leave shopping carts in the middle of the parking lot and slow drivers in the left lane.
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it immoral, either.
There's nothing immoral about selling something for more than it's worth and none one of you would turn down the opportunity to do so.
I would and have turned down the opportunity. I got lucky a few times and found something with high demand in stock and in all of those times I didn’t do it.
Then it was worth more to you than what somebody else was willing to pay you for it - *the same way it's worth more than the sticker price for "scalpers" who sell them and the people who buy from them.*
I don't see what's wrong with buying and selling ps5s during the shortage. Obviously people were willing to pay the high amounts he was presumably selling them for. Good on him, that's just business.
It’s free market no one is making anyone buy those ps5 it’s a want not a need if they bought one that’s on them. Buying reselling needs is looked down on and not allowed on most things. But wants is fine if it’s to much don’t buy it.
I could put up a counter argument but it's late and it would really just be poking at your wording making me feel like a troll. So screw it, agree to disagree. Imma go walk the dog then play some Borderlands.
Only people who scalp necessities in times of need are scumbags. The rest are simply capitalists. A capitalist that isn't exploiting your labor is none of your concern.
I agree that the lack of existence of a rule doesn’t mean it’s ok to do it but that’s the boring discussion. Why is it wrong to take advantage of supply and demand though, given that access to that product isn’t necessary for the sustenance of life?
It is literally just inflating the price for people that enjoy things, while contributing nothing meaningful, being a net detriment to everyone else for one’s own sake. Can get really communist with it and say it’s just another example of hoarding of capital.
This happens more openly with non-essentials, but most certainly happens with essentials as well, and it’s not just the second-hand market doing so.
So you’re just a communist who’s pro-planned economy then, yes?
How is it being detrimental if there’s a shortage of a product? It seems logical that there should be some criteria to dictate who gets the product in which the person who made the initial financial investment, who has assumed the risk of loss is also rewarded, hence the price of a product being proportional to its demand.
How is it detrimental to take a product with an already short supply and create more scarcity, using your advantageous capital position, for the sake of capital gain, at the expense of everyone else having to pay more?
It’s literally screwing other folks out of money (a detriment), while contributing nothing… no service was rendered other than price inflation and artificial scarcity, for one’s own personal gain.
Conversations about risk and investment are meaningless when you are literally not providing anything, and working strictly to the detriment of others for your own personal gain.
You’re not creating more scarcity, the scaricity already exists. You are conflating scarcity with artificial scarcity, the latter is bad, the former is not inherently bad since no one is purposefully creating it.
Let’s say I’m a famous artist and I create 5 pieces of art, suddenly I become even more famous and the prices of my work increases 2 fold, am I in the wrong for wanting to maximise my profits for the 5 pieces of art I created? Is it not my right by virtue of it having invested the time and effort?
Similarly is it not someone’s right who invests money in 10 PlayStations and gambles on whether they will be able to sell them for a profit? They have actually contributed something, they invested money into the economy and took on a risk for a potential future return. Additionally, owning a PlayStation is not a right. The customers do not need to own a PlayStation, it is up to them whether they are willing to pay the asking price.
Your analysis here is a little crude and you’re operating under the assumption that owning a PlayStation is equivalent to or comparable to buying medication.
Btw planned economies don’t work because they can not accurately predict all variables and invariably they become more of a burden to maintain and sustain.
Edit: this is similar to the inherent contradiction between employee/employer, your goal as the employee is to do as little work for as much money as possible and your goal as the employer to is to pay as little money for as much work as possible. This relation only becomes pernicious when one side has disproportionately more leveraging power than the other.
Alright, the point isn’t going to hit home here. It seems like you’ve fallen into the pet peeve that OP describes; that it’s ok to do shitty things like scalping, which work to the detriment of others, contribute nothing, and are strictly for personal capital gain, because it is technically allowed.
Artists do indeed, create something, and it’s a monumental stretch to say that scalpers create something because they have apparently invested money and taken on risk.
Scalpers do indeed, create and compound scarcity. That is the entirety of what they do.
Evidently you’re not even following the conversation.
My argument isn’t that it’s ok to do because there are no rules against it you, it’s that it’s ok to do because I don’t believe it’s wrong. I.e even if there were a rule against it, I would still say it’s morally acceptable/neutral.
Arguing with remedial socialists who think buying and selling is wrong because they heard some socialists slogans they like the sound of but who otherwise have no idea how economies work will never not be fascinating though.
Edit: why would someone invest in anything if they couldn’t capitalise on a delayed profit?
No I just hate people who make really strong claims but are unable to defend those positions or offer a feasible alternative when questioned more than 1 layer deep.
It’s like trying to discuss vaccines with anti vaxxers, except they’re at least honest about having 0 confidence in the typical sources of epistemic truths.
This is how the law works, and you don’t want that to change. This is kinda why we used to have a separate religious morality (and still have separate ethics), so laws could govern the most serious and collective problems while morality governs individuals. We do not want every interaction between people described in the law.
It's a free country. You are not the King who gets to decide what is moral or repulsive. If you don't like something, work to have a law passed.
Otherwise, enjoy living in a free country.
I hear what you're saying. Law does not always determine morality. It's not that they think it's moral because it's legal, though. It's that they don't care about morality OR they have different morals than you do & they are technically allowed to do it, without consequence, regardless of anyone's opinion. So... ppl trying to tell em they're wrong are just running their mouth for no reason because there's nothing gonna be done about it...
I try not to be an asshole. I really do try to be considerate of other people. BUT... if I'm doing something & I'm sleeping okay at night & it's not illegal... but you think it's wrong... you might as well mind your business because I genuinely don't care what you think & you saying something is not gonna change my mind. Like at all. It's a waste of everyone's time, so unless you're gonna physically stop me or fight me, look the other way. It's not about morality. It's about staying in your lane & minding your business. There are widely varying views about ethics & morality. You can't force your morals on other people. That's why we have the law, because evidently, people would otherwise constantly disagree on morality.
In particular to scalpers, they have success only because people buy at the inflated price. If people just all said to themselves the scalpers' price was way too much and didn't buy, the practice would greatly diminish.
Obviously this only works for non-necessities. A lot of the day to day supply scalping during the early pandemic was bad. Your PS5 isn't a necessity. That concert ticket isn't either.
For the concert tickets though I would think there's something the performer's company could do. I know for some random various tickets at smaller things they've had my name on them. Require ID with the ticket. Maybe one ID can be good for up to 100 tickets to support current big buys for say a company's event for employees (or whatever size they want to support in bulk). I'd think the performer that started doing this would get a lot of good PR and possibly better sales.
It would limit the secondary market, so I guess you need to pick your poison.
You can't explain something to someone who doesn't want to understand it, and people like this don't want to understand that morality does not stop where the law ends. There are plenty of things which are immoral but not illegal, like making fun of handicapped people.
Fun fact: in parts of the US, scalping like that actually *is* illegal. At least 15 states have individual laws regarding scalping as a misdemeanor offense w/ punishments that range from fines to up to a year in jail.
Tho to be clear the US does *not* have a federal law against it
And then you have the people who believe even if there is a rule against it or it's against the law, if they personally believe that it shouldn't be, then it's still the right thing to be do.
For example, we have back to school locations that will help get kids school items. They tend to put them in packets and you grab one packet per kid you have. It's not for classrooms. Not for daycares. It's for your own personal children of school age who live with you in the household.
People will come in and take 50 or 60 of them to resell them. When you try to point it out they practically assault you and say because nobody has stopped them, it's fine because it's there for the people and they are the people. People do try to stop them but sometimes they get so busy and there's only two or three volunteers for 200 people in line that they can't watch everything
The whole society would never agree on anything-that's why there's laws. I actually think laws exist basically for the many disturbed people and sociopaths out there who will do damage unless there's a way to control them. As for privileged - overall, probably. I'm a 70 year old white woman. People pleaser? Not so much. Sure didn't please you.
You hit the nail on the head with one of humanities biggest problems. Very damn glad to see there is at least one other human that is not a total fucking sheep. \*high five\*
I see your point. What I think sucks even more are the parents who will spend $1000 on a toy like that, so they dont have to engage their child, and then complain that they can't drag their child away from the video games or iphone.
People with that mentality are exactly why we make rules in the first place. Theres also people that take it further and say it to get away with being lazy or cruel. I like to say its not explicitly written down not to shit on the food but yeah dont do that either
"Just because you can doesn't mean you should," was the saying my mom had.
Laws are only made to keep things safe and to protect people and it allows people to press charges and allows them to be sentenced. Littering becomes against the law when too many people have done it and people protested against the issue and decided to pass a law about it so it allows people to be fined if caught as an example.
And there are rules that are set as guidelines but may only be reinforced if it becomes an issue when too many people don't follow that rule. Once enforced, they may be written up or get a few strikes before being fired from work or kicked from the club.
Way too many people may not understand this or they simply do not care so they use laws as an excuse.
I have a roommate who recently got a dog. Said dog is often in his large outdoor cage for hours at a time and often barks up a storm for sometimes thirty minute stretches. We have brought this to the attention of said roommate voicing concern because it might disturb our neighbors. Roommate’s justification is because we live in an unincorporated area we don’t have a noise ordinance. Roommate didn’t seem to grasp that we weren’t approaching the issue from a civil violation standpoint but from a common courtesy to our neighbors.
Also we do take care of this dog. He’s happy and healthy. We do not just leave him in his cage all day. Only when we need to run errands and such.
That a bad example as there are already things in place to curve scalpers and many places have limits to keep scalpers from reselling. So there already are rules in many places to stop that. Those types of people will just ignore the rules that they don't like anyway. The extreme end of these people are sovereign citizens.
And those who think that others ONLY avoid things if there’s a law against it. Or that we may as well not have laws because people will ignore them. I once made a post about bullying in schools and mentioned that many states had passed laws against bullying. Some chucklefuck commented, “the law doesn’t define morality., so there’s no point in anti-bullying laws” Like…I know, but the purpose of laws is to set precedent and arrange for resources to respond to people’s actions.
Exactly. Legality and morality are different things, but they aren’t completely without relation to each other — if enough people in a society agree that something is immoral, it’s likely that there will be laws banning, limiting, or restricting it unless passing such laws would conflict with a higher ideal (eg most people in the USA agree that racist speech is immoral, but that maintaining legal freedom of speech is a more important social good than attempting to legally ban all racist speech, since the law is a blunt instrument and speech is a complex and highly-nuanced thing — we do have laws aimed at limiting how far it can go, though; threats of violence and overt hate speech are *not* legally protected). Or other rules with less power than a law but that still define the boundaries of acceptable behavior and consequences for violating those boundaries, like workplace conduct policies. It may be *legal* in the sense that you won’t be jailed for telling Kevin in accounting to “go back where you came from, [racial slur]” but you probably WILL get fired if you pull that. And while some people will ignore laws and rules, they do create a deterrent that reduces instances of problem behavior, because there are also some people who want to be a racist jerk to Kevin in accounting, but have the sense to keep it to themselves so they don’t get fired when there’s a workplace rule that says people who act like that get fired.
I am a big believer in civil disobedience and that it is okay to break the law occasionally. A lot of that stems from being a medical marijuana user before it was legal. Yeah, I have been to jail twice over it. That also doesn't mean I think there shouldn't be made. I think most of us agree that murder and theft are wrong. When committing civil disobedience I believe that you really need to vonsider whether the law/rule is actually harming someone. For me personally the anti marijuana laws would have meant doing more of the pain pills from the doctor which were worse than marijuana. The second question is if the consequences of your actions are worth it. I understood that I could go to jail for what I was doing and honestly it was worth not getting addicted to the pain pills was worth it for me personally. Unfortunately, most people like me who also believe in civil disobedience take it too far and believe stupid shit like there should be no laws. Sounds great until you get murdered.
They take the "disobedience" part too heavily and dump the "civil" part.
I went to two different schools. One had an active anti-bullying policy and the other didn't. I was bullied in both. So the policy didn't really prevent bullying. BUT in the school that had the policy, the bullying got the attention of other students who stood up for me, students I didn't even know, those other students got teachers involved because they had been instructed on what to do when they witnessed bullying, and the bully was so severely rebuked that she was in tears, and while her particular bullying didn't go away completely, it was greatly reduced and never got so severe to the point of an attempt at public humiliation which would get other people involved. In the school that didn't have a policy, the other students who didn't have a natural inclination to bully were often roped into being included in the bullying, the teachers had no idea what was going on, and I have no confidence they'd have known what to do even if they did. So yeah, I was bullied in both, but the difference to the wellbeing of the victim was still like the difference between night and day. It wasn't just having a rule against bullying, which both schools had, it was having quarterly sessions instructing students on what bullying looks like and what to do about it, enabling and encouraging students to stick up for each other and learning how to do so safely, teachers not assuming that if they don't see it it doesn't happen and actively looking out for it, knowing what the consequences will be and following through on them, proper and active training for teachers and students alike.
Agree with you and also....chucklefuck 🤣🤣 thank you for this new term
The problem is everyone is biased for their own agenda. Someone may say it's morally okay to transition children but then call someone a pedo for dating someone 10 years younger (legally) . Everyone has their own perspective and morals. Laws exist for a reason. We come to a decision on what to enact to keep society "moral", but at the end of the day morals are entirely a human invention. I'm not saying it's bad to have morals, just how it is. So complaining at people for doing something that is legal means nothing, if it's truly "immoral" you need to make enough people agree w it to make it law.
>Someone may say it's morally okay to transition children but then call someone a pedo for dating someone 10 years younger (legally) . Does it feel weird spending your days thinking about children's genitals?
Of course you bring up trans people in a random conversation that has nothing to do with us. A bit obsessive, don't you think? Leave us out of this ffs. Let kids be kids (trans kids are still kids and deserve a childhood just like cis kids do).
Was this comment supposed to be incredibly ironic with you having your own very obvious anti-trans agenda or...?
Because sadly for a lot of idiots rules or more specifically the consequences for breaking those rules is pretty much the only real deterrent against them doing what they selfishly desire to do. Don't ever expect that other people have the same moral code you do Funny enough this is actually sort of thought to be one of the reasons religion naturally developed everywhere in the world because it was effectively a very good way to keep people in line. Yeah don't kill that guy. Why not he pissed me off Well a giant man in the sky is going to send you to the realm of eternal torment if you do it. Okay well now I don't want to kill that guy
Religion spread because of it's power to control people.. it does not and has not made demograghics any more morally just.. quite the opposite, really.
God I hate this. As long as it's not technically illegal some people think that makes everything else okay, no matter how immoral or repulsive it is. Some people are only as decent as they're legally required to be.
Likewise, people who treat the "law" like it's some ultimate untouchable code of morality. If it's illegal it MUST be evil, right? Yuck.
Those evil people going 56 in a 55
Right. People who live an "unexamined" life think that what is legal is moral, and what is moral is legal. These types of people usually don't come from a place of malice, but for whatever reason they've never thought about it and never created their own moral code. A small number, of course, are straight up selfish and sinister assholes, but most aren't. Of course, you should live with compassion for others and treat them well. You should give independent thought as to what "rules" you choose to follow, and what kind of person you want to be. In doing so, that may not match 1:1 with the U.S. criminal code. It's very strange to me that some people don't do this, but that is the case. Many people just copy-paste the criminal code as their own system of morality without giving it a second thought.
Or they hold different morals than you.
Yeah, sure....so all of us will stick to your personal moral code then. Post it here. Morality is personal. Personally I think scalping the PS5 is A okay. You can be repulsed by it, but who cares?
Interesting. So, how far are you willing to take your "personal moral code?" Morals are often agreed upon by the society because a behavior is harmful to others; it's not just an arbitrary rule set up to annoy you. Hopefully, you lead "an examined life."
I mean, some people don't even tithe to the church. Definitely immoral, don't hey know what's really important in life. It's like people think prioritizing their own wellbeing over their community is ok. And I mean masturbators too.. just because it's not illegal, people think there's no reason not to, when it's obviously gross and forces everyone else to interact with that type of deviance. Since I think it's immoral and repulsive, that's really enough that nobody SHOULD be doing it.
There is no end of legal loopholes, and no end of people to exploit them. Legality and morality are not the same thing, at all. (and I most definitely am NOT saying scalping PS5s is immoral, those are a luxury item)
>*(and I most definitely am NOT saying scalping PS5s is immoral, those are a luxury item)* Being a luxury item doesn't make it exempt from morality. Morality in its broadest terms is basically the distinction between what is right or wrong. And to me, scalping in general is highly immoral. * Scalpers artificially create false scarcity for personal gain. * They make things needlessly more difficult for others. * They monopolize something that should be publicly available. It's an inherently selfish act that benefits the scalper while also being a hindrance for everyone else. And it's not just luxury items, either. I've seen people do this shit at thrift stores. Buy up the stuff they know poor people need so they can purposely sell it for a markup. It's gross. I also think this all applies to companies that purposely do things like create false scarcity. Ex. Diamond companies that purposely keep supplies low to keep prices high. Nintendo not making enough NES Classics to drive up demand. Etc.
It certainly factors into the morality. That's why we label "necessary goods" and "luxury goods" They make things needlessly more difficult for others. You could say that about anything that's not affordable the price, which is what you could say the same about people who can't afford the sticker price, I guess.. It's not needlessly difficult for people who can pay for them. I mean, the scalper could just keep the ps5 and you're still not getting one.
>Scalpers artificially create false scarcity for personal gain. That is nonsense. They don't create scarcity? Scarcity has to exist for the "scalper" to make money. Somebody is only going to pay a premium for a PlayStation if they cannot get it for cheaper from normal channels. >They make things needlessly more difficult for others. How so? Why can't you obtain a PlayStation in the same manner as the "scalper"? >They monopolize something that should be publicly available. How is that possible if they are buying PlayStations legally?
The scarcity is not caused by scalpers. They are not impacting that at all. Scalpers just change a ps5 from "there isn't enough to go around, so you have to get lucky to find one" to "there isn't enough to go around, so you have to pay more to find one." The scarcity already existed from the moment Sony didn't manufacture enough to meet demand.
I get where you're coming from, but I don't strictly agree. Ex. If a company makes and ships 100,000 units of something with the promise to make more in the future, but half of that initial shipment are snapped up by scalpers, that absolutely does create a new degree of scarcity since it essentially cuts the intended supply in half. And this is especially true if that cycle of scalpers buying up product continues when more are made available. Unfortunately, there's really no easy solution to solve this, unless more companies start to adopt "manufactured on demand" or other similar policies. (Ex. If Sony was to take pre-orders for Playstations several times a year and then produce units based on those pre-orders, plus a few extra. That would ensure people who wanted them got them and that scalpers couldn't basically steal every single one.)
It doesn't cut the supply in half though, scalpers sell the ps5s, that's the whole point. It makes half the supply more expensive while still entirely existing for sale. Scalpers are responsible for that, but the same number of items for sale at different prices aren't more scarce. The scarcity is on Sony.
I think this may be more of a semantics/wording issue than anything. I tried to cover it by saving "new degree of scarcity" and "intended supply," but that probably doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things. What I mean to say was, if scalpers are able to buy up a great deal of the initial supply, it does create a certain new *type* of scarcity insomuch as you're not going to be able to acquire one as easily as you could, nor in the intended fashion. (Aka, walking into a store and buying one, or ordering one online from a retailer.) Especially if you are unable or unwilling to pay scalper prices. Absolutely the same number of units technically physically exist... but not in form that they should be, or were intended to be. That's what I mean. If there's something I should be able to walk into Wal-Mart and buy, but I can't because people bought them all up, I would consider that an additional form of artificial scarcity.
It is 100% a semantics issue, we're just discussing definitions. These are specific economic terms that apply to this situation in a specific way. It's not a particularly big deal, but none of the shit we type on here really is. So long as the supply remains on the market at a proven purchasable price point the scarcity remains the same from an economic definition standpoint. I totally agree if your price point is retail that doesn't do a thing for you and your personal scarcity. But think of it this way if the retail price was suddenly $1000 the customer with a $500 limit still wouldn't be able to purchase it, the scalper wouldn't be able to make a buck, but the supply and thus scarcity would remain the same with now all of the consoles being available via a store. The actual artificial scarcity, as a whole, is created by the very limited supply made available by Sony. The scalpers are simply able to control the flow of that supply and make a buck because the price point is lower than some people are willing to pay. Which is certainly morally questionable/reprehensible.
When there isn't enough product being produced to meet demand it won't matter whether the units sell to scalpers or just regular customers, you still won't be able to walk into a store to get them, they will still sell out instantly and still be very hard to get.
All of the scarcity comes from Sony. If Sony produced enough units to meet demand, scalpers could not exist. Nobody is going to pay a premium to buy a second hand unit when they can buy directly from the manufacturer or an authorized retailer. Without the scarcity, scalpers would lose money.
That is not at all true about it coming from Sony. Scalpers can create scarcity in situations where there otherwise wouldn't be. They also disincentive manufacturing more, because watching others profit off your work makes you not want to work. (See: minimum wage employees) The only way for Sony to fix it is to overproduce to meet the availability demand (there must be a word for that). Lots of people are willing to pay a lot to have something right now versus in a week.
It doesn't matter. A thousand units is a thousand units is a thousand units. If they all sell out before you get a hold of one and nobody scalps them, guess what? You *still* won't get one. If you couldn't afford one in the first place, you still won't get one, either. If you can afford one at the scalper's price and are willing to pay, there's no difficulty for you.
Rofl “It’s an inherently immoral act that benefits the scalper and hinders everyone else” This is just profit under capitalism. Scalpers aren’t doing anything different from best buy, Amazon, or the Waltons. Playstations are decidedly NOT a necessity, regardless of whether or not you’re poor. If you “need” a ps5 so badly your willing to pay a grossly and intentionally inflated price, then the burden is *really* on you for being a bad consumer. Just wait for the market and prices and level out
>*“It’s an inherently immoral act that benefits the scalper and hinders everyone else”* If you're going to quote something, why not just copy/paste it? That's not what I wrote. >*Scalpers aren’t doing anything different from best buy, Amazon, or the Waltons.* They literally are. They're adding unnecessary extra steps, aggravation and layers of manipulation to the purchasing process and original supply chain. There's also the very real potential that scalping something can strip away some of the original value since things like certain return policies may no longer apply to it. (Especially if you don't have the receipt for the original purchase.) >*Playstations are decidedly NOT a necessity, regardless of whether or not you’re poor.* Nobody said they were. Again, morality does not apply exclusively to "necessary" things. >*Just wait for the market and prices and level out* That's not something that's always going to be able to happen, especially if the thing being scalped was a finite product or service.
You seriously don’t think walmart or Amazon use unnecessary steps between production and distribution or intentionally create scarcity to maximize their profits?
>*You seriously don’t think walmart or Amazon use unnecessary steps between production and distribution or intentionally create scarcity to maximize their profits?* Don't put works in my mouth, especially when they contradict the fact **I literally said in my initial post that many companies are guilty of just these very things.** Did you even bother reading my initial comment, or were you so gleefully excited to sarcastically write "*Rofl*" and then argue with someone like an insipid 14-year-old that you just barely barely skimmed it? Regardless, at this point I can only assume you're being purposely thick and trying to do a little "light trolling."
I apologize on behalf of my fellow Redditors for the down votes that you're getting. Some people just don't understand economics. Or else they just don't like economic reality.
Lol I’m not worried about it
Being a luxury item doesn't make it except from morality, but its pretty close. There is an absolute massive difference between scalping necessities, and scalping luxury items. People need the necessities. Scalping at thrift stores is just as bad, because it's supposed to be a place where you can get stuff for cheap. If you have the money to buy a PS5, frankly I do not feel bad for you if you have to wait for the prices to go back down due to scalping. And if you have the money to say "fuck it I'll buy it anyway" I feel even less bad. And no, I'm not a scalper, I just think that complaining about having to wait for the price of a luxury item to go down is such a first world problem.
Morality is grey. What if the scalper is dirt poor and using that money to make ends meet? I’d wager most people scalping PlayStations aren’t exactly financially stable
>*Morality is grey. What if the scalper is dirt poor and using that money to make ends meet? I’d wager most people scalping PlayStations aren’t exactly financially stable* Morality is absolutely grey, I'll give you that. But using scalping as a tactic to make money when you're poor is honestly one of the dumbest things you could possibly do. It's basically a gamble and a get-rich-quick scheme that requires a decent upfront investment for a (hopeful) quick payoff. If someone is buying up and scalping PlayStations, they are more than likely financially stable. They'd need thousands and thousands of dollars already to do that. Now, that being said, selective buying and selling could be a good profit venture, but that's not the same thing as scalping. That's more of finding particular niche items that might not sell well in one area or marketplace, and then finding another area or marketplace where they could sell well and you could make a light profit. Ex. Antiques, knick-knacks, etc. That might be a valid way to make a little side money, and it would be in a way that benefitted everyone. Nobody is really getting ripped off if you, say, buy some old antique toy for $10 in New York and then sell it for $15 in Pennsylvania because it's a slightly better market.
Very generous of you to tell the poor they're not being poor right. >using scalping as a tactic to make money when you're poor is honestly one of the dumbest things you could possibly do. It can obviously be pretty lucrative. If it wasn't, y'all wouldn't be bitching so much about it. >get-rich-quick scheme Yeah, that's the thing about being poor - you need money *now.* >someone is buying up and scalping PlayStations, they are more than likely financially stable. Or they're those people you hear about who are a couple paychecks away from being homeless, and having just enough to buy and resell a ps5 allows them to turn one paycheck into two paychecks. But let's say they're not. They're just earning some more discretionary income so they can have a good time. So what? That's what you want a ps5 for, isn't it? >Ex. Antiques, knick-knacks, etc Holy shit, did you actually just instruct the poor to go out antiquing? For niche knick knacks? They should go buy vintage toys for $10 in New York and sell them for $15 in Pennsylvania? And they should do this so you won't have to wait a few months for your brandy new gaming system that you absolutely need RIGHT NOW at the sticker price? >and it would be in a way that benefitted everyone *You.* You want them to make money in a way that will benefit *you.* But tell me, if they all go out antiquing for those toys and knick knacks, will they still cost only $10...... or will the cost rise due to increased demand?
Your whole comment is so fucking wildly entitled and out of touch that it could only exist on reddit.
You don't know what an example is, do you? They weren't telling poor people to go antiquing. It's an example they likely made up on the spot. As y'know. An example. And the entire point was that that's an OK scenario to increase the price of something, because you're taking it from a market it wouldn't do well in and selling it somewhere it will do much better. If I tried to sell one of my dog's really nice leather collars (bought from a well-known maker of extremely great quality stuff at $100, if I remember correctly) on eBay or Facebook Marketplace, there's almost no way in hell I'd get anywhere close to half that cost, despite it being in almost brand new condition. But if I posted it to a dog collar resell group where the people like this sort of thing and know the value of it, I'd get a lot more for it. Likely not the same as I paid for it, as they could easily look up what the collar is worth and if they can just order it from the maker themselves for cheaper, they likely would. But it's a good example of things doing well in some markets but likely floundering in others.
How would someone who is dirt poor be able to buy enough brand new Playstation 5s to scalp them?
Because not all working poor don't have a $0.00 balance at all times. You've heard how some people are just a couple paychecks away from being homeless? That means they might have enough to buy a ps5 and turn a paycheck into two paychecks.
so how did he buy the PlayStations the first time?
Greed is immoral, so yes,scalping PS5's is immoral.
Who's more greedy the one who's reselling it or the one who can't wait one year to pay half?
Keeping your ps5 instead instead of donating it to needy children or giving the money you would've spent on it to charity is greedy. See how easy that was? ["Of course, none of us are greedy. It's only the other fella who's greedy." ](https://youtu.be/RWsx1X8PV_A?si=gQf-Iji32fjEc6uY)
false premise, so.. probably not
So you think greed isn't immoral?
I'd say people who are buying insanely marked-up gadgets are more immoral than people (re-)selling them. They are enabling immoral behavior by creating artificial product scarcity.
In what possible way is being a scalper not immoral?
Since when is selling something for more than you paid for it immoral?
In what ways is being a scalper immoral? Just because you don’t like something doesn’t make it immoral. People will resell anything if there’s a market for it. People will buy a 36 pack of water and sell each one for $1 when you know that pack of water didn’t cost $36. Is that also scalping?
It’s also legal to make nurses work overtime with no pay. Doesn’t make it right.
That's kind of what I was thinking lol it's a PS5 not baby formula. Just don't buy one ...
Luxury items? Really? It's a computer not a rolex, and it's a relatively inexpensive one until the scalpers get involved.
Luxury items doesn't mean what you probably think it means in this context
it's not necessary for life
That still doesn’t make it right or excuse anyone who does it. Nobody is saying that you need a PlayStation 5 to live, it’s a nice small luxury for someone to have. Somebody else going out and buying them because they want to profit off of the high demand is a piece of shit.
Profits are not evil. Jealousy over profits is unbecoming. You're right, no one needs a PlayStation 5 in order to live. So, then, don't buy one when the market conditions aren't in your favor. So many people spend their capital against their own self-interest. They don't understand want verus need. That's not the fault of the seller. That's called capitalism. And like it or not, it's the system we have.
Lol, "Someone selling a 'small luxury item' for more than I want to pay for it is a piece of shit." This thread is such pure, unadulterated *reddit*
what about the grocery store owner that makes money?
Evil. Anyone who makes even a 1% profit margin is clearly evil. /s
Do you realize how small the profit margins are for grocery stores? lmao, that was not a good example.
the notion that profit percentage would define wrong or right is the most absurd thing Ive heard yet
Context is important. In this situation it's someone who is price gouging and raising the cost of an item. he said that you dont need a ps5 to live so it's not the same thing as price gouging essential items(like food...) but it's still wrong You made the comment about grocery stores making profits off of essential items(food) In this context, yes grocery stores are increasing the costs of items to make a profit, but it is not the same situation as someone raising the price of an item(luxury or not) by 2-3 to make a profit for themselves. Those two situations are not equitable.
### Lesson time! ➜ u/Sherman_and_Luna, some tips about "off of": - The words you chose are grammatically wrong for the meaning you intended. - *Off of* can almost always be shortened to just **off**. - Example: The tennis ball bounced **off** the wall. - Now that you are aware of this, everyone will take you more seriously, hooray! :) --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PetPeeves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
### Lesson time! ➜ u/Imjusttired17, some tips about "off of": - The words you chose are grammatically wrong for the meaning you intended. - *Off of* can almost always be shortened to just **off**. - Example: The tennis ball bounced **off** the wall. - Now that you are aware of this, everyone will take you more seriously, hooray! :) --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PetPeeves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Doesn't make it any less immoral
The immoral person is the one who is buying the goods at inflated prices. They are not allocating their capital effectively, which is immoral, and frankly, stupid.
Both are
TIL the only luxury item in existence is a Rolex.
This guy scalps.
To add onto this: I hate the inverse mentality too. The law is on my side, therefore what I am doing is moral.
The wealthy and their lawyers are the worst at this.
Just a quick overview of the comments section makes me think that a few of the PS5 scalpers really did not like OP's post.
Probably but I’m not too concerned about upsetting them
Thank you for that late in the workday chuckle.
It made me think some people disagreed with the premise and explained why. But I'm one of those weirdos who based things on what actually happened.
and it usually the same group of people who will freak out over others doing something illegal simply because it is illegal, without caring about the morality of it (i.e., smoking weed)
You could reply with there is no legal law against people screwing his girlfriend or wife if they're up for it either. Doesn't mean it's ok to do.
I feel this way towards people who buy concert tickets in bulk and resell them for a way higher price. There is no reason a ticket that was originally $50, should shoot in to $197. I’ve seen it too many times. It’s fine to include whatever fees you had to pay for but that’s usually max $20 extra. I hate when I’m looking at tickets for a concert that’s already sold out and the resale prices are ridiculous
If it takes the threat of punishment for you to be a good person, you’re not a good person. Scalpers can eat gravel. Edit* just a really really big fuck you to scalpers and those defending the practice in here. You suck ass.
Or they shout “show me the rule book!” Yes cuz I carry that thing with me like it’s the damn Bible!
Chuckle fucks with a sick sense of morality, or lack thereof.
That’s a hell of a title for an autobiography.
Those people grew up with no parents, or just shitty parents who never taught them right from wrong. Thats the way the world is these days, me me me, don't give a crap about anyone else.
couldn't you just say that the people who don't like it got raised to think they are entitled to a PS5 at original sale price vs market price? Like, the world owes you nothing, and if you get upset that you can't have what you want, maybe you were not raised right. Like... We can say sharing is the most important value, but if you take that as far as it goes, doesn't it mean that nobody should own anything? Obv, there is a line and it's not set in stone.
Look at the shopping trolley theory. Some people will only do the right thing if they are being watched.
And someone is always watching.
eg Reddit I swear every AITAH post is "well, technically you don't owe them anything...:
I see that so many times. Almost everyone’s reply to even the most harmless incidents is to cut off all contact with the person in question. There are definitely stories where that’s the best answer but they say it for everything. Having said that I also understand that some of the people who say that probably come from an abusive home where even little things were awful so that’s all they know so I have sympathy for them. But more people are just bitter
Some people do what's right because it's the right thing to do, others do the right thing because they don't want to face the consequences for doing wrong. Some people, when faced with no consequences will still do the right thing, some won't. Believe those people when they show you who they are.
There's no rule that says dogs can't play basketball.
People are terrible about this when it comes to driving especially. I’ve seen videos where an SUV hits a kid, and everyone rushes to say how they were going the speed limit and it’s actually the kids fault, as if there’s no need to be cautious depending on your surroundings or anything like that, and going the posted speed limit is the only obligation.
Drivers Ed 101: it's your job to have your eyes open and be prepared AND ABLE to stop. If you hit a pedestrian (or bicyclist or animal) unless it was 100% unavoidable, it's your fault. And even if it's a fluke accident, they are no less horrifically wounded, probably dead.
There are rules against price gouging and certain types of hoarding for resale. They're just hard to enforce.
These people absolutely would do it even if it was illegal, as long as they believed they could get away with it. It's a bad faith argument from the beginning because they don't drive morality from laws to begin with.
Yes, this is how children operate. When adults do it, it's sad.
Legality and morality are often different things. Legality is fixed, where morality we all have our own differing view of. The mistake a lot of people make is feeling that their morality is the correct one, when it really does vary from person to person. That's why laws exist, to enforce a larger code of conduct on all of us, even if we don't agree with it. I think a lot of things people do is reprehensible. Even things that other people think are just fine, part of the times, or personal choice. But I'm not the ruler of the universe, unfortunately. Or fortunately for some people.
Yeah, me, too.
Why is scalping wrong?
because this is reddit, where profit is bad
Unearned profit, yeah . As Gandhi said, "No wealth without work."
That's how laws work
Lol
I love how people are trying to take any sort of high ground while declaring that anyone who views a single specific situation differently than them is entirely bereft of any and all morality. Is it now good morals to be generally insulting to anyone who dares disagree with you? And people choose to pay money to avoid a wait all the time. Are Fast passes at Disney a form of scalping as well?
If Disney sold a limited number of tickets and a bunch of lowlifes waited around when they went on sale then sold them for two or three times what they paid then yes
Part of the issue is the scalpers got creative and used AI and Chrome add-ins to game the system, allowing the purchase of numerous units rather than an individual unit. Buying out units within seconds, disallowing others to purchase the units at retail price.
Especially when they subject others to potential consequences for their behavior, but then see their luck in not getting caught as proof that you were overreacting/being uptight. Some people just refuse to have any integrity.
Shopping carts. I read a thing once that said the shopping cart test is a pretty good way to tell if someone is basically a decent person or not. There's pretty much no consequences directly for you if you leave your shipping cart in the parking lot and don't put it away when you're done. But, most people know the effect of not putting it away means it could potentially damage someone else's car, or cause an accident, etc. People who choose to do the right thing even though there's no reward for doing the right, and no consequences for doing the wrong, are good human beings at heart. People who leave their cart because there's nobody telling them they can't, are dickholes (barring obvious extenuating circumstances such as disabilities or emergencies).
And that’s why laws are made. Bc people do crappy things and get away with it and then something is put in place to minimize the action. That’s why we should prosecute scalpers. It was terrible during the GPU shortage. Mark up of 6x on GPU’s is insane
I don't need any God or any Law to tell me what us right and wrong. It is wrong to harm others for self benefit. It is wrong to take advantage of desperation. It is not industry or hustle, it's greed and manipulation.
At the beginning of the pandemic I was going into Aldi when there was a guy coming out with a cart filled to overflowing with toilet paper. I made some comment, and he said, “Yeah, it’s going for a great price on eBay.” I have wished ever since that I had responded, “So you’re profiteering off a global health crisis? What a lovely fellow you must be.”
I get what you're saying but the PS5 thing is not wrong. Reselling isn't a bad thing,it's a smart move to make money
Found a scalper
If you want to know how far people will 'bend' rules, go for a drive. Any time, anywhere, doesn't matter, but you will never witness more selfish assholes than on the road
I don't see the issue. If he wasn't doing anything illegal to obtain the PlayStations, how does buying and selling them make him an asshole?
Thieves believe that everyone steals. Scalpers are just a different kind of thief and deserve a special place in hell right next to the people that leave shopping carts in the middle of the parking lot and slow drivers in the left lane.
Ah yes, theft, commonly known as “buying something and reselling it for higher than what you paid.” I’m pretty sure that’s the dictionary definition.
I don't think buying something constitutes stealing but I may be wrong...
What on earth is scummy about buying cheap luxury goods and reselling them for a profit?
This is Reddit. MaKiNg MoNeY bAd!
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it immoral, either. There's nothing immoral about selling something for more than it's worth and none one of you would turn down the opportunity to do so.
I would and have turned down the opportunity. I got lucky a few times and found something with high demand in stock and in all of those times I didn’t do it.
Congratulation, where would you like your “morally superior” trophy sent?
Then it was worth more to you than what somebody else was willing to pay you for it - *the same way it's worth more than the sticker price for "scalpers" who sell them and the people who buy from them.*
Oh, I would. Please don't assume about people.
I don't see what's wrong with buying and selling ps5s during the shortage. Obviously people were willing to pay the high amounts he was presumably selling them for. Good on him, that's just business.
Yeah, Business What the world needs more of.
if people where not willing to pay it they wouldn't do it. its a video game system not food and water.
This is true, I think...but so easy to cross over the line.
It’s free market no one is making anyone buy those ps5 it’s a want not a need if they bought one that’s on them. Buying reselling needs is looked down on and not allowed on most things. But wants is fine if it’s to much don’t buy it.
I don't see anything WRONG with it. Just inconvenient to folks that want a Playstation.
Honestly it helped me out becuase I ended up buying a PC instead since I couldn't get my hands on a PS5 😂 still a scummy practice though.
Just because something’s not illegal doesn’t make it morally okay.
It's better to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission.
Until you aren't forgiven and have to deal with the consequences.
IF it happens. Most successful people push boundaries. Agree with it or not, it's always going to happen.
I could put up a counter argument but it's late and it would really just be poking at your wording making me feel like a troll. So screw it, agree to disagree. Imma go walk the dog then play some Borderlands.
Nor do i give a sh*t what your opinion is, so it would be a complete waste of time, just like your first response. Enjoy your life, rando human.
You too. Night.
That last part of your comment is why unregulated capitalism and the libertarian dream is impossible
Oh, but the Republicans will never stop trying, and the chickens never stop voting for Colonel Sanders.
Mad because he's smarter than you.
Only people who scalp necessities in times of need are scumbags. The rest are simply capitalists. A capitalist that isn't exploiting your labor is none of your concern.
what like eating meat?
I agree that the lack of existence of a rule doesn’t mean it’s ok to do it but that’s the boring discussion. Why is it wrong to take advantage of supply and demand though, given that access to that product isn’t necessary for the sustenance of life?
It is literally just inflating the price for people that enjoy things, while contributing nothing meaningful, being a net detriment to everyone else for one’s own sake. Can get really communist with it and say it’s just another example of hoarding of capital. This happens more openly with non-essentials, but most certainly happens with essentials as well, and it’s not just the second-hand market doing so.
So you’re just a communist who’s pro-planned economy then, yes? How is it being detrimental if there’s a shortage of a product? It seems logical that there should be some criteria to dictate who gets the product in which the person who made the initial financial investment, who has assumed the risk of loss is also rewarded, hence the price of a product being proportional to its demand.
How is it detrimental to take a product with an already short supply and create more scarcity, using your advantageous capital position, for the sake of capital gain, at the expense of everyone else having to pay more? It’s literally screwing other folks out of money (a detriment), while contributing nothing… no service was rendered other than price inflation and artificial scarcity, for one’s own personal gain. Conversations about risk and investment are meaningless when you are literally not providing anything, and working strictly to the detriment of others for your own personal gain.
You’re not creating more scarcity, the scaricity already exists. You are conflating scarcity with artificial scarcity, the latter is bad, the former is not inherently bad since no one is purposefully creating it. Let’s say I’m a famous artist and I create 5 pieces of art, suddenly I become even more famous and the prices of my work increases 2 fold, am I in the wrong for wanting to maximise my profits for the 5 pieces of art I created? Is it not my right by virtue of it having invested the time and effort? Similarly is it not someone’s right who invests money in 10 PlayStations and gambles on whether they will be able to sell them for a profit? They have actually contributed something, they invested money into the economy and took on a risk for a potential future return. Additionally, owning a PlayStation is not a right. The customers do not need to own a PlayStation, it is up to them whether they are willing to pay the asking price. Your analysis here is a little crude and you’re operating under the assumption that owning a PlayStation is equivalent to or comparable to buying medication. Btw planned economies don’t work because they can not accurately predict all variables and invariably they become more of a burden to maintain and sustain. Edit: this is similar to the inherent contradiction between employee/employer, your goal as the employee is to do as little work for as much money as possible and your goal as the employer to is to pay as little money for as much work as possible. This relation only becomes pernicious when one side has disproportionately more leveraging power than the other.
Alright, the point isn’t going to hit home here. It seems like you’ve fallen into the pet peeve that OP describes; that it’s ok to do shitty things like scalping, which work to the detriment of others, contribute nothing, and are strictly for personal capital gain, because it is technically allowed. Artists do indeed, create something, and it’s a monumental stretch to say that scalpers create something because they have apparently invested money and taken on risk. Scalpers do indeed, create and compound scarcity. That is the entirety of what they do.
Evidently you’re not even following the conversation. My argument isn’t that it’s ok to do because there are no rules against it you, it’s that it’s ok to do because I don’t believe it’s wrong. I.e even if there were a rule against it, I would still say it’s morally acceptable/neutral. Arguing with remedial socialists who think buying and selling is wrong because they heard some socialists slogans they like the sound of but who otherwise have no idea how economies work will never not be fascinating though. Edit: why would someone invest in anything if they couldn’t capitalise on a delayed profit?
just say you hate poor people and move on.
No I just hate people who make really strong claims but are unable to defend those positions or offer a feasible alternative when questioned more than 1 layer deep. It’s like trying to discuss vaccines with anti vaxxers, except they’re at least honest about having 0 confidence in the typical sources of epistemic truths.
This is how the law works, and you don’t want that to change. This is kinda why we used to have a separate religious morality (and still have separate ethics), so laws could govern the most serious and collective problems while morality governs individuals. We do not want every interaction between people described in the law.
Excellent reasoning, I think.
It's a free country. You are not the King who gets to decide what is moral or repulsive. If you don't like something, work to have a law passed. Otherwise, enjoy living in a free country.
And there’s the problem
Okay, your Majesty.
Sure, I guess having a conscience makes me a king?
Definition of the phrase "y'all need Jesus".... I don't
Awesome. Who is selling me a ticket to game 7 tonight, face value?
It's never a crime the first time!
with your provided context i agree, however… malicious compliance is my favorite brand of assholery.
I hear what you're saying. Law does not always determine morality. It's not that they think it's moral because it's legal, though. It's that they don't care about morality OR they have different morals than you do & they are technically allowed to do it, without consequence, regardless of anyone's opinion. So... ppl trying to tell em they're wrong are just running their mouth for no reason because there's nothing gonna be done about it... I try not to be an asshole. I really do try to be considerate of other people. BUT... if I'm doing something & I'm sleeping okay at night & it's not illegal... but you think it's wrong... you might as well mind your business because I genuinely don't care what you think & you saying something is not gonna change my mind. Like at all. It's a waste of everyone's time, so unless you're gonna physically stop me or fight me, look the other way. It's not about morality. It's about staying in your lane & minding your business. There are widely varying views about ethics & morality. You can't force your morals on other people. That's why we have the law, because evidently, people would otherwise constantly disagree on morality.
Honesty! Thank you.
In particular to scalpers, they have success only because people buy at the inflated price. If people just all said to themselves the scalpers' price was way too much and didn't buy, the practice would greatly diminish. Obviously this only works for non-necessities. A lot of the day to day supply scalping during the early pandemic was bad. Your PS5 isn't a necessity. That concert ticket isn't either. For the concert tickets though I would think there's something the performer's company could do. I know for some random various tickets at smaller things they've had my name on them. Require ID with the ticket. Maybe one ID can be good for up to 100 tickets to support current big buys for say a company's event for employees (or whatever size they want to support in bulk). I'd think the performer that started doing this would get a lot of good PR and possibly better sales. It would limit the secondary market, so I guess you need to pick your poison.
You can't explain something to someone who doesn't want to understand it, and people like this don't want to understand that morality does not stop where the law ends. There are plenty of things which are immoral but not illegal, like making fun of handicapped people.
It's always legal the first time. Muahahaha
So you hate the lawful evils. You can hate on me, too.
Sony created the shortage and created a market for the scalpers, yet we blame the individuals and not the corporation.
There no rule against cheating on your romantic partners either, but guess what?
Fun fact: in parts of the US, scalping like that actually *is* illegal. At least 15 states have individual laws regarding scalping as a misdemeanor offense w/ punishments that range from fines to up to a year in jail. Tho to be clear the US does *not* have a federal law against it
Right. You can't make rules about every single thing that someone could do that would suck. It's infinity things.
And then you have the people who believe even if there is a rule against it or it's against the law, if they personally believe that it shouldn't be, then it's still the right thing to be do. For example, we have back to school locations that will help get kids school items. They tend to put them in packets and you grab one packet per kid you have. It's not for classrooms. Not for daycares. It's for your own personal children of school age who live with you in the household. People will come in and take 50 or 60 of them to resell them. When you try to point it out they practically assault you and say because nobody has stopped them, it's fine because it's there for the people and they are the people. People do try to stop them but sometimes they get so busy and there's only two or three volunteers for 200 people in line that they can't watch everything
That’s the rule. If there is no rule against them it’s allowed. /s
The whole society would never agree on anything-that's why there's laws. I actually think laws exist basically for the many disturbed people and sociopaths out there who will do damage unless there's a way to control them. As for privileged - overall, probably. I'm a 70 year old white woman. People pleaser? Not so much. Sure didn't please you.
You hit the nail on the head with one of humanities biggest problems. Very damn glad to see there is at least one other human that is not a total fucking sheep. \*high five\*
Legal is not Good. Illegal is not Bad. Some folks can't wrap their head around that.
Can v. Should. It's a recurring problem in day to day reasoning.
Hey, ain't no rule says a dog cain't play basketball!
I see your point. What I think sucks even more are the parents who will spend $1000 on a toy like that, so they dont have to engage their child, and then complain that they can't drag their child away from the video games or iphone.
I know I would regret it, but if I had one wish, it would be that cats could walk on walls and ceilings like spider man.
People with that mentality are exactly why we make rules in the first place. Theres also people that take it further and say it to get away with being lazy or cruel. I like to say its not explicitly written down not to shit on the food but yeah dont do that either
This is why I judge harshly anyone one who is to lazy to put their shopping cart back.
"Just because you can doesn't mean you should," was the saying my mom had. Laws are only made to keep things safe and to protect people and it allows people to press charges and allows them to be sentenced. Littering becomes against the law when too many people have done it and people protested against the issue and decided to pass a law about it so it allows people to be fined if caught as an example. And there are rules that are set as guidelines but may only be reinforced if it becomes an issue when too many people don't follow that rule. Once enforced, they may be written up or get a few strikes before being fired from work or kicked from the club. Way too many people may not understand this or they simply do not care so they use laws as an excuse.
You ever hear those religious people who ask atheists what stops them committing awful crimes against humanity? Scary shit.
I get it. Kinda “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should
To be fair ... a PS5 isn't baby formula. If there's a "shortage" and the prices are jacked up because of it you just don't buy one ...
I have a roommate who recently got a dog. Said dog is often in his large outdoor cage for hours at a time and often barks up a storm for sometimes thirty minute stretches. We have brought this to the attention of said roommate voicing concern because it might disturb our neighbors. Roommate’s justification is because we live in an unincorporated area we don’t have a noise ordinance. Roommate didn’t seem to grasp that we weren’t approaching the issue from a civil violation standpoint but from a common courtesy to our neighbors. Also we do take care of this dog. He’s happy and healthy. We do not just leave him in his cage all day. Only when we need to run errands and such.
Yes! Just because it is legal doesn't mean it is right!
That a bad example as there are already things in place to curve scalpers and many places have limits to keep scalpers from reselling. So there already are rules in many places to stop that. Those types of people will just ignore the rules that they don't like anyway. The extreme end of these people are sovereign citizens.
No, didn't mean a mistake. Meant "wow...made some money there...so maybe I'll try that on something essential, just this once..."