![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I wonder why no one cared to start the criticism subsection with something that should be obvious to any person with strong common sense: anyone is naturally free to claim any price for their property, no matter how low or high it is. For example, if I want to sell a bicycle, I'm free to put whatever price I want for it, and no one has authority to regulate it. The same idea applies globally to all trading operations, i.e. the selling party has absolute authority over prices for their property, since they have absolute rights for that property. Isn't it obvious, natural, and overall fair? Who is to say how much my property is worth!? I am free to deem my own stuff however cheap or expensive, and it is up to the potential customer whether to accept my price and buy or not. 213.131.238.28 ( talk) 11:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and here's another question I wanted to ask: why free software is not considered a form of predatory (dumping) pricing? It is offered for free, thereby making life harder for those who sell proprietary software of the same kind. 213.131.238.28 ( talk) 12:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Laissez faire, not caveat emptor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.232.6 ( talk) 15:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I wonder why no one cared to start the criticism subsection with something that should be obvious to any person with strong common sense: anyone is naturally free to claim any price for their property, no matter how low or high it is. For example, if I want to sell a bicycle, I'm free to put whatever price I want for it, and no one has authority to regulate it. The same idea applies globally to all trading operations, i.e. the selling party has absolute authority over prices for their property, since they have absolute rights for that property. Isn't it obvious, natural, and overall fair? Who is to say how much my property is worth!? I am free to deem my own stuff however cheap or expensive, and it is up to the potential customer whether to accept my price and buy or not. 213.131.238.28 ( talk) 11:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and here's another question I wanted to ask: why free software is not considered a form of predatory (dumping) pricing? It is offered for free, thereby making life harder for those who sell proprietary software of the same kind. 213.131.238.28 ( talk) 12:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Laissez faire, not caveat emptor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.232.6 ( talk) 15:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)