So, you support both government regulation and consumer protection, but don't think that the government should remove bad choices from the marketplace or protect consumers from price gouging? How are we supposed to understand that? How can we make sense of you implying that total freedom of choice and total government control are the only options, but then saying you are somewhere in the middle... except for this case, in which you side against the exploited consumers?
What would the conditions have to be for you to take the side of the person getting screwed by profiteers?
When a seemingly intelligent person makes arguments that make no sense, bad faith is a reasonable conclusion. The other options are talking out of their ass and ignorance.
As I said before, nobody was complaining about the company when the customer was paying far below retail for their power. They weren't considered a bad choice at that point. This is not price gouging as much as you want to see it that way. The contract was laid out in advance and specified pricing on demand. Under normal circumstances this isn't a problem and no one had complained about that model. It was only when the pricing went to upper limit of the contract that is became a problem. I have never implied that the only options are total freedom or total control are the only options. In fact, I have said just the opposite by agreeing with another member.
You can view it as the evil profiteer screwing the individual or you can view it as the extreme end of a legal contact. Again I say, you wouldn't be complaining and haven't been complaining when the individual was paying far below retail.
I guess you are to make your own decisions. What bad faith could I possibly have by stating an opinion? That only leaves me being ignorant and talking out my ass by you assessment.
If believing in choice and living up to your commitments makes me bad person, ignorant, arrogant of whatever you choose to believe that is up to you. It doesn't matter to me one way or another. I have always lived up to my commitments and supported freedom of choice. That includes when I am the winner or when I am the loser. I'm also not the one that needs to question someone else's character or resort to name calling just because they have an opinion different from mine but hey you be you.