The author is completely missing the fact that the flip side of "price-gouging" is making sure that a scarce resource is only utilized by those who need it the most.
If there are only 20 taxis, and there are 20 people desperately stranded who need a taxi, and 200 people who would just "like" a taxi, then if a taxi costs $200, those 20 people will happily pay for one.
But if a taxi costs only $20, then the taxis will mostly be used by the people who don't desperately need them, and the ones that do might die (if it's that desperate).
Likewise with charging $100 per bottle of water or batteries. It doesn't necessarily make you an asshole -- it's the simplest way of making sure a scarce resource is only allocated to those who truly need it.
And more than that, it incentivizes people to provide that resource -- extra taxis ferrying passengers, extra people supplying water or batteries -- even incentiving people with extra water/batteries at home to sell them to others.
Sure, when there are good networks of trust in a society, and the resource in question isn't really scarce, price-gouging can be unfortunate. And ideally, in cases of disaster, the government should be providing essential resources for all.
But the author of this post seems to be completely and utterly unaware of the positive and possibly life-saving effects of scarcity pricing.