SAC Flipper Thread Deleted?

Sorry to interrupt the bitching convention, but read the buy/sell rules. No flipping, or you're banned. It's really pretty black and white now, isn't it?
 
but as members of this community we have the right to discuss these rules don't we? I mean, if it said in the buy/sell rules that if you sell any used skis on here you get an unlubed dildo shoved in your ass...you'd probably debate it now wouldn't you? We're just trying to get a definitive answer on the issue, and in general are discussing something that some people believe to be unfair.
 
Moral issue not adressed here, the stores part.

Let's face it, most stores wont order many more jackets, bindings, skis, etc. So chances are you are cheating the employer of you out of money.
 
would you care to enlighten me on these articles. and economy is ever changeing, so by a modern stand point, i am not incoorect.

and has any one read the communist manifeto (i am sure there is someone)? but fine, if ppl want to complain about profits being made, whatever. its just the way it should be.
 
I have read the communist manifesto, and if I may say so myself am quite familiar with business ethics, social ethics, morality, existentialist philosophy, egoist capitalism, and so on.

By buying out from under your store, and reselling (which is illegal in itself), you are undermining the capitalist systems in place (avoiding taxation), as well as being an ass to your employer.

Read any Adam Smith (who IS the forefather of modern capitalism), money earned is suppsoed to trickle down to everyone in the association to assure a balanced amount of eanrings, thusfore balanced spending.

By buying at "sale at cost", you are taking money away from the company, as well as from taxation. By doing so you are preventing a balanced economy from being maintained. Without a balanced economy you get radical class divisions, which prevents economy (the elimination of middle class which is worldwide).

The attitudes you are maintaining fall more into the ideals of someone like Nozick (economic liberty), and would more fall into the line of an anarchistic ideology (all for one's self).

P.S. (note that I am familiar with other forms of anarchism, that was a more honest reference to a nihilistic, individualist form.)
 
I should add,that by avoiding taxation and undermining government, there would be no use for government, thus making for a completely liberal state. But with no government it falls into free anarchism.
 
impressive, but a an under-lying sect of capitilism is in fact free-enterprising. now, i have said nothing of buying at cost from your employer, (so this may still be illegal, due to the taxation thing) but, instead buying from a friend, store, SAC, fellow NSe, etc. and then selling for a profit. it may take out the morals of following buisness ethic, but look at Andrew Carnegie. he did illegal things to make sure that he made a prfit in enterprising.

as for the taxation thing, explain to me how that works (not trying to be sarcatic, i actually want to know). like if you buy from an online store there is no tax. and im pretty sure that this guy didnt buy them at cost. however, if this is the case, and if someone would like to got the FBI, saying that i have been selling skis without taxation on a ski sorum, go ahead. ill be honest, i have mad a my fair share of profit (considering o dont buy othere things on margin any more).

so yea. u are completely right, but i just think that he didnt buy from a shop at cost, and therefore cant be accused for selling without taxation.
 
If they didnt buy at SAC then why is this thread in existence anyways?

As to explaining my point on taxes.Government lives off taxation, well any just government. Without taxation there is no financial standpoint for government to exist(exluding communitarian or anarch syndiclyst systems). I know this is a slippery slope agrument, but in economy it is a valid issue to raise.

Considering this was a question of who he was cheating, I think Andrew Carnegie is a moot point, as he was quite the philanthropist and did indeed fall into the almost "moralistic capitalism" I was thinking of.

Online stores do get taxes as well, just not in the standard pst gst forms(canadian terms, im not sure what the US ones are).

Also no hate, I just like to argue on here sometimes.
 
Wether the shops charge too much or not. (which must be accepted for capitalism in the sense i was arguing against). Two wrongs don't make a right, if you sell it on your own.

Would I buy new equipment off here, yes I have, and will again (ESfreeride papa where the fuck are my boots???). But not new items, exculding something someone won or was given.

Which is a difference from a SAC item bought from a store.

 
ok, ok. i gotcha. i understand how all the taxation works how that the is the life blood of most goverments/nations/economies. save for those that u mentioned (im also gonna include most socialist economies)

i know that there is the online stores get taxed, but, i dont think that he has to be taxed when he sells goods privatley. so really the only thing here is a moral issue. and the only way to make really become successful, is to pt aside some moralities and press on. im not saying it always the case, but i think that some early entreupeners (terrible spelling) did whatever they had to make money, and that ijust another way to make money. therfore i think it should be allowed. thats y i disaagree with the rule about sac flipping.

and i dont want to hate, i just want to stand for a belief that i have.
 
And my reasons against it are the exact opposite. But I am also a humanist, and a utilitarian. So we seem to be coming from different sides of the coin.
 
yea, i suppose. i am deef all for making money anddoing w/e it akes. i respect your morales, and your opposition.
 
I agree with darkwolf for the most part.

The bottom line is that this forum is an organization. Organizations set their own mandates. The mandate of this forum is to provide a friendly environment for people to learn more about newschool skiing. The mandate of the forum is also to fortify a freeskiing community. In the interests of the community, we are encouraged to sell and trade equipment, the net result of which is that more people have skis to ride.

The mods of this site have decided that allowing resale of new goods for profit is not conducive to the objectives of the site.

Accordingly, this site, under the mandate of its administration, is NOT a free market economy. It is within the jurisdiction and prerogative of the moderators to make a rule against SAC flipping for profit.
 
^ i entireley accept thiese facts. however, it must be noted int the fact that i wasnt wrong in saying this has communictic (and i guess socialist) ideaologies. but, alas. i rest my sword for now. i have to get my skis from the shop, yes sir, they are ready.
 
I really don't have time to continue arguing ethics on here, as I have to do that for finals at the moment anyways. But the argument was over the fact of SAC flipping itself, not if people buy it or not, but rather the intrinsic moral values of it.

It is not a question of is sac flipping is allowed or not, it was a question of if sac flipping OUGHT to be allowed.
 
and i think that it should most deffientley be allowed. i think that ppl can do whatever they want to to make money
 
As unlike ski demon i think it should naught be allowed or encouraged. But that question was settled between us, and I think this thread should be laid to rest.

But point being as both I and (likely) skidemon will agree on, is there is more in the question than simply not buying it if you don't like it.
 
yea, if someone doesnt like it, dont buy it. ijust think that ppl should have the right to sell whatever they want at the price they want, regardless of profit/cost.
 
i guess the could, but they already have ads on the sides and on the banners. i wouldnt object to it. plus, the prices wouldnt be that much better cuz they are gonna sell at retail. and no one is gonna buy it
 
But then the site would lose all it's advertising revenue.

How do you think the maintenance of this site is paid for. They have a server to store our pictures and videos...and a staff to maintain the site. All costs money...but it's free because companies pay to advertise here.

So if we have a free market site with no regulations, retailers would advertise in the forums, the site would lose it's revenue, and would either shut down or we would have to pay membership fees...like consumerreports.com

I dont like the sound of that.

The point is, it is within the jurisdiction and prerogative of the site administration to regulate the trade on the site as they see fit.

We shouldnt take for granted that we are receiving a service on this site free of charge. There are rules to protect that service. We should respect those rules.
 
well, u asked a question and i answered it. i dont want them to advertise in the threads but i cant deny them that right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top