Since I wouldn't want that done to me, I would not and could not do such a thing to someone else. Also, what if a seller didn't want to answer truthfully and lied, feeling no need to be honest? I have met such amoral people, and I wish I hadn't. (A disabled Vietnam veteran friend of mine has the misfortune to live next to a family of such vipers [their kids are that way, too], who for years took advantage of his near-total inability to say "No" to their 'sponging' off him, because of his PTSD and kind nature. Finally last year, they--increasingly taking advantage of him due to their growing boldness--made him so angry [having PTSD, he avoids getting angry, because of the danger to himself and to others] that it "broke the spell," and he now can refuse their demands.) Also:

What you are advocating here is the "photographic negative" of totalitarianism. Just as it is possible to be too controlled--having no freedom at all--it is also possible to be too *free*--that state of affairs is called ^libertine^ rather than a state of liberty, and it is more commonly known as chaos. In addition:

Societies require *some* enforced rules, because some individuals are dishonest and even evil, and will take advantage of or harm others. Good people require no external laws to control their behavior--*IF* they are self-controlled. I say of myself, "I'm not a law-abiding citizen; I am a conscience-obeying person" (I am not perfect at this, of course, but being my own judge and punisher, which makes sleep very difficult and makes me unable to enjoy even simple pleasures for long periods after a moral failure, if I can't make it right, is miserable). Human beings often think of good and bad, and desirable and undesirable, as being at the opposite ends of a continuum, which can be represented thus:

[Good (Desirable)] <--------------------------> [Bad (Undesirable)] *But*:

What is good (or desirable) actually lies ^between^ *two* bad (undesirable) extremes. In general terms, harmony lies between the two extremes of order and chaos, like this:

[Order] <-------------> [Harmony] <-------------> [Chaos] Now, labelled to represent the particular case under discussion here, it is as follows:

[Totalitarianism (*no* freedom)] <-------------> [Liberty] <-------------> [Libertinism (*total* freedom)] In addition:

The precise position of harmony (or liberty) between the extremes is not necessarily *exactly* between them. Just as the optimum rates of respiration and heartbeats (and the optimum body temperature) are not fixed, but vary depending on numerous external and internal factors, so does the optimum "liberty point" vary due to many factors. For example, a high-crime area requires a larger police presence to be as peaceful as a low-crime area, a city (or state or nation) with a more habitually power-grabbing government requires more citizen activism for them to preserve their liberty, and so on, and:

Liberty and harmony in societies, like our personal health and well-being, exist in a state of dynamic equilibrium. The only times when extreme measures (such as the American Revolution) are desirable are when the situation is so out of balance--or no balance exists--that major "attitude correction or midcourse correction burns" are necessary to maintain (or create) a state of liberty and harmony.

__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR