... Larry? Your comment sounds as if it were written by one! <g> [No insult intended!]

What you did was very lawyer-like in this respect -- in answering the question, you modified the hypothetical in a fundamental way by assuming the answer, then answered the question based on your assumption and the modified hypothesis, not the one I posed. In doing so, though, you DID do one thing that I asked, which was to exercise some critical thinking, as discussed below.

Interestingly, the modification you introduced is also a reflection of the tension which exists in all modern social engineering in this country. To paraphrase the issue you raised (you did do this on purpose, didn't you?):

Should government protect the people only against the perfidy of others?
Or should government also protect people against their own stupidity?

Or, to put it in our auction terms:

Should the auction rules protect bidders only against fraud committed by sellers?
Or should the rules also protect bidders against their own stupidity?

The critical thinking you exercised is in the 3rd of your three examples (which is, of course, the only one in which the use of shill bidding makes any conceivable difference):

>> 3) Suzie Seller posts the item with a minimum bid of $1. Billy Bob Bidder thinks, "wow, I'd pay $10 for that" and bids $10 (current bid is $1). Billy Bob starts picturing that item in his collection. Suzie Seller then uses a shill to raise the bid. Billy Bob see's he's outbid and figures, "heck if I was going to pay $10, I could pay $12," and bids again. He's back on top at $12. Suzie Seller uses a different shill to raise the bid again. Billy Bob figures, "heck, this dang thing must be worth more than I thought it was. All these other people think so." This continues until Billy Bob's bid reaches $20, at which price he wins the auction. <<

It is, however, also the point at which we reach the issue of whether the "rules" should protect Billy Bobb against his own stupidity. The stupidity is in reaching the conclusion that if someone else thinks the item is worth $11, it must be worth $12 (even though he thought it was only worth $10 to begin with). In truth, the $11 bid says ONLY that someone else thinks the item is worth $11, NOT that someone thinks it is worth $12. Billy Bobb still has to reach that conclusion on his own. Same thing with every other increase up to and including the $20 bid. Assuming $1 bid increments, the previous bid would have been $19, which should have told Billy Bobb AT MOST that someone else thinks the chip is worth $19, NOT that someone else thinks it is worth $20. And if he started off thinking it's worth $10 and someone else thinks it is worth $19, he's STUPID if he bids $20 for it.

So, the question is, should the rules protect him against his own stupidity in this situation.

Furthermore, consider Peter Sanders' point up the thread. Your evaluation is valid, if at all, ONLY if shill bidding is prohibited. Because, if it is permitted, then the increases in bids should provide Billy Bobb with no reason to think that the chip is worth any more than his original thought of $10.

And, as I said to Peter, my hypothetical did NOT include the proposition that shill bidding is prohibited. This is the addition you made to the hypothetical and upon which you then based your answer. In legal argument, this is called setting up a straw man and then knocking him down.

>> The use of third parties to manipulate Billy Bob's bids and perceptions is deceptive and dishonest. Billy Bob has a reasonable expectation that the bidders he's competing with are real and interested. <<

Once again, you have "begged the question" (Webster: to pass over or ignore by assuming to be established or settled). Billy Bobb can have the expectation you described ONLY if shill bidding is already prohibited. If it is not prohibited, then he cannot have a reasonable expectation that the bidders he's competing against are real and interested.

>> ... selling an item under false pretenses is wrong, regardless of whether you wind up selling the item for more or less than it's actual value. <<

And again, you are modifying the question by assuming the answer. If shill bidding is not prohibited, there are no false pretenses.

Thus, back to my main point -- is there an underlying REASON WHY shill bidding SHOULD BE PROHIBITED? (And no more answering by saying, well if it's prohibited and someone does it, someone else will be misled into bidding more than he otherwise would have! <g>) ----- jim o\-S