>>"I don't understand what you are suggesting? People should not be allowed to buy jeans and resell them?"
>>"I'm dumbfounded as to how you call them "grey" importers anyway! As if asserting your right-of-resale is somehow a crime."
I call them that because it's a descriptive term that most people here seem to understand.
There's a huge difference between individuals buying a few retail items to resell elsewhere and big businesses buying items wholesale if there are terms and conditions of sale, and then selling them in breach of those conditions.
If I buy something and agree in a contract that I'm only going to sell it in a certain area, or even that I'm only going to sell to people who will sell in a certain area, I don't /have/ an unlimited right of resale - even if I had such a 'right' in general, in the specific case, I'd have relinquished it in order for someone to be prepared to sell me the goods.
Similarly, if I knew I there were legal restrictions on me transporting and selling the goods elsewhere, then I would know I /didn't/ have a universal /legal/ right to resale in practice, and me pretending I did would be daft.
Now, it's certainly possible to argue that there /shouldn't/ be any possibility of legal or contractual restrictions, but in a situation where there /are/, it seems more than a little weird to be 'dumbfounded' that other people acknowledge reality or that people use words that people understand, even if different people might have different views on the correctness of the activity in question.
.>>"Also - advertising campaigns don't *create value*, so you can't be "parasitic" by profiting from them."
They can not only increase demand, but can also clearly result in a willingness among some people to pay more for an item than if the adverts hadn't happened.
That's not actually changing the goods, but people don't base the price they're prepared to pay solely on the cost of production plus some 'fair' premium. (How much does it actually cost to produce a replica Manchester United football shirt?).
If I'm paying the extra cost of the advertising in a particular place by charging more for the product than I do elsewhere (and presumably hoping to make a little extra profit as well), and someone imports the goods from elsewhere without contributing to the advertising, they can end up benefiting from the increased demand and/or increased perceived value of the product that I'd caused while giving nothing in return.
That /is/ effectively being parasitic, and even someone who was a fervent free market believer would have to acknowledge that, if they're being honest.
>>"Liberals want everything for free, and conservatives want the government to force people to buy their stuff - am I the last free-market guy left?"
Nice job trying to characterise everyone else as extremists.
The problem with the idea of a 'free' market is that it's just an idea - like most things in the real world, as soon as there's an attempt to put it into practice, various things crop up to which there aren't obvious simple answers, where one might find one supposed 'right' clashing with another, and where the need for dirty value judgements squats down and dumps once again all over a nice black-and-white view of reality.
For example, if I make something, surely I should be free to sell it to whoever I choose at whatever price I feel like selling it to them at?
If someone is buying in bulk, or promoting the product, or even if I just like them, shouldn't I be free to charge them a lower price.
If I don't like what someone is doing with the things I sell, I should have the right not to sell them any product, or to charge them more.
It would seem odd to have an idea of a free market where a seller is under some legal obligation to supply anyone and everyone at a single fixed price.
You try writing a simple and clear description of your free market, but make sure that you explain how you can enforce supplier 'fairness' while not infringing on the rights of people to choose their business partners.
If I made luxury goods which were typically sold at large markup by people in nice little shops with good (maybe even obsequious) customer service, should I be obliged to directly (or even indirectly) supply someone at trade price if they're going to sell the goods from the back of a shoddy caravan while dressed in a shellsuit with a tab dangling out of the corner of their mouth?
In a less extreme situation, at what point does someone else's 'right' to buy trump my 'right' to choose who I sell to?