Sliding Away into Relativism

I'm a little annoyed by a concept that seems to prevalent in some areas of society today and really not prevalent in the majority of others...sliding scales. This is, essentially, where someone who doesn't really know you gets to decide how much something should cost you based on what they've decided your standard of living can afford. So, say you want to buy a T-bone steak. You go to the meat counter at the grocery store and look for the T-bone you want and take it to the cashier. The cashier then looks at you, what you're wearing, how you talk, a pay stub or two, and decides that you can afford to pay $15 for that T-bone. The person behind you in line has the same cut and weight of meat, but again, based on their appraisal, they only have to pay $5. Why don't things just cost what they cost? (Of course, in the case of the T-bone they do, but it's an example.) If the T-bone costs $10 to produce (with some profit built in, of course), then everyone should pay $10...and if they can't afford the $10, then maybe they shouldn't be buying T-bones.

If people want to have sliding scales - then shouldn't you at least get to haggle with them over the cost they assign to you? If the cashier tells me that they deem I can afford $15 for my T-bone, shouldn't I be allowed to say, "Nope, how about $8?" And then they could come back with $13 and maybe I would counter with $12 and we could all leave satisfied...I got my T-bone and they still made more than it actually cost them to produce the T-bone, so my overcharge will still help offset and subsidize those that they give the T-bones to under cost. (And haggling could still help those that really can't afford T-bones but still want to purchase them...if the cashier quotes them the cost of $10, then they could counter with $5 and the cashier might come back with $8 and they might still have a deal that makes the T-bone affordable to the one and doesn't undercut the cost too much - and they made up that $2 from my overcharge anyway, so everyone wins.)

Of course I still think you ought to pay what it costs - no haggling, no sliding scales. If something costs X to produce (+ some profit) then the consumer - regardless of their particular income or social status - should pay X. It shouldn't cost me more because I have more and it shouldn't cost me less because I have less. I should have to decide "Can I afford X?" And if the answer is no, then I shouldn't purchase it - I shouldn't sit around and whine that it's too expensive and we ought to charge other people more so that I can afford something.

To me, this is just indicative of the relativism that is prevalent in so many other aspects of our culture today. Truth doesn't exist anymore - it's all relative, based on who you are and what you believe. Justice is relative - dependent to a large degree on how good a lawyer you can afford. So where does that leave the American Way?