I think that this argument is being carried out on two different planes.  One group is defending the free market and its highly desirable effects even to markets that are in crisis.  I am in agreement with those who think that there is no such thing as "price gouging".  The second group is promoting the value of charity, but seems to be inferring a "duty of charity toward those in need" that is applicable in emergency situations.

There is a great deal of evidence that even for markets that are in crisis a free market provides the best means for improving economic conditions.  A free market in these situations is of mutual benefit to both producers and consumers and does not violate the individual rights of those involved in it.   For businesses to provide products on a LARGE SCALE to consumers in a market that is in crisis they will be subject to all manner of extra costs and obstacles including heavy transportation costs and higher costs of labor.  In order to operate in these situations without making an irrational sacrifice business owners and their management charge higher prices.   To the consumers in crisis markets these higher prices allow consumers to attain goods that they would not otherwise be able to attain if the markets were subject to price controls.  They would not be able to acquire the volume of goods they would have in a non crisis situation but this is simply the reality of the situation.    Price controls would have the effect of causing almost immediate shortages and ultimately a feeding frenzy.   In the long term they would eliminate the incentive and even the ability of businesses to do business in difficult markets like those we see in the hurricane stricken areas and thus stall economic recovery.  The call for voluntary price controls on a mass scale would cause the same effect though I doubt we will ever see such a thing as voluntary price controls.   Singular acts of charity must be distinguished from large scale business activities which sacrifice long term productively and profitability by giving away large numbers of goods at artificially low prices.  It is in no one's long term interest to see businesses commit acts of self sacrifice. 

To the second point, there are some instances in which one's survival depends on the charity of others since he has nothing of value to trade for his rescue.    We see many instances of this in the wake of the recent hurricane.  Many here seem to be assuming that human life has an intrinsic value that places those with the resources and the ability to carry out such a rescue in a position where the "categorical imperative" demands that they do so.  For reasons which are obvious on an Objectivist website I reject this form of ethical duty.  However, I would argue that anyone with a rational set of values in such a situation would value the preservation of someone's life more then the discomfort they may suffer in the process or the loss of wealth required on their part to carry out the rescues.  For someone with a pro-life set of values it is in his rational self interest to see someone who is suffering or dieing survive their plight.  He would not be making a duty based sacrifice but would instead be carrying out a freely chosen act of charity which achieves his values and promotes his sense of life.  I would strongly question the value hierarchy of someone who has, say, a truckload of bottled water and yet refuses to give one bottle to someone right in front of him who is dieing of thirst.   He has no moral OBLIGATION to give the dieing man a bottle of water but precisely because there is no categorical imperative I can judge his freely chosen actions, his freely chosen values and his sense of life to be irrational and rotten.  Most of those people we see on TV carrying out various rescue operations are not sacrificing their own self interests in helping others they are promoting it.  I suspect that most of them achieve a great deal of reward in seeing their productive action result in a promotion of their values and sense of life and that is precisely why they do what they do.

 - Jason