Maybe you've already seen the latest TownHall column by ABC's house libertarian, John Stossel -- "In Praise of Price Gouging." If not, expose yourself to the dark side of the "free to choose" philosophy, as Stossel looks at the post-Katrina hell and prays for the triumph of greed:

...Consider this scenario: You are thirsty -- worried that your baby is going to become dehydrated. You find a store that's open, and the storeowner thinks it's immoral to take advantage of your distress, so he won't charge you a dime more than he charged last week. But you can't buy water from him. It's sold out.

 You continue on your quest, and finally find that dreaded monster, the price gouger. He offers a bottle of water that cost $1 last week at an "outrageous" price -- say $20. You pay it to survive the disaster.

 You resent the price gouger. But if he hadn't demanded $20, he'd have been out of water. It was the price gouger's "exploitation" that saved your child.

 It saved her because people look out for their own interests. Before you got to the water seller, other people did. At $1 a bottle, they stocked up. At $20 a bottle, they bought more cautiously. By charging $20, the price gouger makes sure his water goes to those who really need it...

Got it? Ability to pay = greatest need.

But why stop with money, John? Why not take your argument to its logical conclusion and defend this?

A British tourist stranded for five days with his wife and seven-year-old son in a New Orleans hotel has called the US relief operation a "shambles"....

He said at one point a group of girls was standing on the roof of the hotel lobby and called to passing rescuers for help.

"They [the authorities] said to them 'well show us what you've got' - doing signs for them to lift their t-shirts up. The girls said no, and they said 'well fine', and motored off down the road in their motorboat....

Some people would be appalled at that -- but why? After all, if rescuers demand to see a total stranger's breasts as their fee for providing much-needed services, isn't that their right? Shouldn't they decide what their help is worth in a free market? Doesn't their refusal to give help to someone who won't show her breasts help conserve what they have to offer and make sure it goes to those who really need it, i.e., those who are willing to show their breasts to a stranger under desperate conditions?

Right, John?

Additional reactions from Jesse at Pandagon, Ross at the Talent Show, and S.Z. at World O'Crap.

By the way, do you think Stossel would have the guts to say this on national TV while bodies are still floating through the streets of New Orleans?