Comments (135)

• N. Joseph Potts

  I hate Wal-Mart, so I never shop there (and I have access to them). But there is ONE thing I really LIKE about that place where I never shop (I've tried it, and didn't like it): it keeps the places where I prefer to shop crowd-free and grateful for my business!

  Let freedom ring (up the sales)!

  Published: February 27, 2006 9:09 AM

• iceberg

  I like Wal-Mart, and I wish they could somehow wiggle their merry way past the NIMBYist who utilize coercion to keep them out of New York City.

  Published: February 27, 2006 9:13 AM

• rob

  Dude ya stole my thunder! I have been drafting a letter to the editor of my local paper that is almost a carbon copy of Mr. Vance’s. Oh well at least the real reasons to boycott Wal Mart are out there. It is still my store of preference but I have passed it by many times after getting a look at the parking lot. I have even walked out on occasion, leaving my goods on the checkout candy shelf because five more minutes in line was worse than a splinter under a fingernail. BTW, I don’t know if this is a common occurrence, but in my burg, the number of retailers went up dramatically AFTER Wal Mart came to town and the main local grocery store actually expanded into a regional chain.

  Published: February 27, 2006 9:52 AM

• CJ Maloney

  Best part of the article, "Wal-Mart has never caused any firm to go out of business. Wal-Mart can't close down any store but one of its own. It is the customers who no longer do business with a company or shop at a particular store who put that company out of business or closed that store."

  This is the most basic economic fact which nearly everyone seems to miss - it is the customers that determine who sinks or swims. If you have a problem with Wal-Mart being "too big", you have a problem, at base, not with Wal-Mart but with the people who choose to shop there.

  Published: February 27, 2006 10:16 AM

• antilib

  Mr. Vance has it *almost* right: If you don't like Wally World - and I despise the place - then don't shop there. Full stop.

  Whether you have a "good" reason (and who appointed Mr. Vance God to make THAT decision I'll never know) or a "bad" reason...your own rationale is all that's necessary. I hate virtually everything about Wally World, so they haven't seen one red nickel from me in many years and have a snowball's chance in Houston of ever seeing another one.

  The point that hacks me is this smarmly little comment about "If you don't like it, then don't live in a town with a Wal-Mart". Talk about an arrogant, intellectually bankrupt little comment.

  Thank you, Mr. Vance, but I'll live wherever I damn well please - and there ain't jack you can do about it...cept live with it. If I don't want a Wally World to be built in my neighborhood I have every right to convince my elected officials to decline the permits. It's called "Freedom" - something which this Libertarian site should know a thing or two about.

  If someone *wants* to live next to Wally World, I say Go For It. Buy a house RIGHT NEXT DOOR to Wally so you can just walk over instead of having to drive. Knock yourself out.

  For Iceberg who doesn't liky the NIMBY's, well, it's *their* right to dislike Wally World as much as it is *your* right to adore it. So I'd say that everyone is exercising their right to free expression. Just because you've lost the battle so far doesn't make everyone else wrong. Of course, I know that doesn't fit in with the Lib perspective. In the Wonderful Land of Lib the *only* thing that counts is, well, I'm not exactly sure....and neither are Libs. But I digress.

  Mr. Vance - if you want to shop, work, eat, sleep and live at or with Wally World....you go right ahead. I wouldn't want to interfere with your rights in the slightest. However, keep the smartass smug little ad hominens to yourself when it comes to those of us who'd rather eat bugs than walk in the door.

  It's that pesky FREEDOM thing again.....You're free to do as you please, and, *gasp* so am I!

  Published: February 27, 2006 10:25 AM

• homeimprovementninja

  "If I don't want a Wally World to be built in my neighborhood I have every right to convince my elected officials to decline the permits."

  In other words, you can't convince people not to shop there, but you can get some government bullies on your side to tell people that they can't build a store there where people want to shop. What if they got together and told you that you couldn't park your car in your driveway, or leave your window open? That's okay, right? If a politician is behind you, that must make it right, right?

  Published: February 27, 2006 10:38 AM

• Roy W. Wright

  In other words, "I have every right to point a gun at you." Beautiful reasoning.

  Published: February 27, 2006 10:52 AM

• Tom Burger

  Exactly, ninja. It's not whether your reasons are "good" or "bad," it's whether or not you try to impose your choices on others either directly or through the auspices of government.

  Published: February 27, 2006 10:58 AM

• Roderick T. Long

  "Wal-Mart has never caused any firm to go out of business. Wal-Mart can't close down any store but one of its own. It is the customers who no longer do business with a company or shop at a particular store who put that company out of business or closed that store."

  Well, yes and no. It's not as though Wal-mart is a pure market firm, operating with no government patronage. For one thing, Wal-mart often gets the land for its stores by eminent domain. Since land obtained by eminent domain is generally land obtained below the market price (i.e., below the price at which the owner would have sold voluntarily -- otherwise eminent domain wouldn't have been needed), Wal-mart's operating costs are lower than they would have been without government help.

  So, sure, customers voluntarily choose to shop at Wal-mart because of its lower prices; but those lower prices have been made possible, in part, by theft -- so it's not exactly fair competition. If I got to steal my means of production I could offer lower prices too. (And eminent domain is only one of the many ways in which big corporations are aided by state violence.)

  And if Wal-mart first uses government intervention to help it defeat its competitors, and then takes advantage of the absence of such competitors in order to offer employees lower salaries than they could if the competitors hadn't been wiped out, then Wal-mart's low salaries are not exactly a pure market phenomenon either.

  To be sure, Wal-mart's success isn't due solely to state patronage; there's been genuine entrepreneurial skill involved too. Still, Wal-mart's success is rather tainted.

  Published: February 27, 2006 11:16 AM

• Don Beezley

  The emotionalistic responses, even among those who would rightly defend Wal Mart's right to pursue their business model, is strange, peppered with words like "hate" and "despise." At the end of the day, Wal Mart is just a big box with lots of stuff in it run by people who do a much better job than others of moving stuff that people want from point A to point B. I personally don't like to shop at Wal Mart (though I often do since one is across the street from my ofice) because I think the stores are junky and too crowded. But I would be hard pressed to "despise" them for it. I'll just shop at Target more often. The one area it might be rational to muster up some hatred is their use of force with eminent domain, but no one mentions that with regard to their emotional responses.

  As Mr. Long points out, their unfortunate and immoral willingess to use eminent domain definitely taints their success, though, given the economic benefits of their distribution system, I'd be very surprised if their pricing structure were any different than if they hadn't. Certainly, their balance sheet is presumably somewhat richer with ill-gotten gains. Not enough data to draw pricing or equity conclusions definitively, though. So I suppose I might hate them a little for eminent domain (something my family has been hurt by with a situation not involving Wal Mart). Of course, if they come out for a minimum wage increase they know will hurt their competitors, perhaps I'll take may hate full time, but not over crowds, parking lots, building size or other trifles that are none of my business--except as to the choices of my patronage.

  Published: February 27, 2006 11:39 AM

• Laurence Vance

  I certainly agree that land obtained by eminent domain is theft. It may be a "good" reason to not shop at Wal-Mart, but it is not the reason usually given by Wal-Mart bashers, who prefer the "bad" reasons that I mention in my article (exploits its workers, practices predatory pricing, destroys small towns, etc.). But I wonder how many of the 3,700 Wal-Mart stores in United States and 1,500 in foreign countries were built on land obtained by eminent domain. I suspect it is a very small number. And, of course, the root of the problem with eminent domain is the federal, state, and local laws that allow governments to take property in the first place.

  Published: February 27, 2006 11:59 AM

• Beefcake The Mighty

  Laurence Vance is the Sean Hannity of
  libertarianism.

  Published: February 27, 2006 12:02 PM

• Laurence Vance

  I despise Sean Hannity so I take that as an insult. What exactly do you mean?

  Published: February 27, 2006 12:17 PM

• antilib

  homeimprovementninja: Are you attempting to say that we DON'T have the right to shape our own neighborhoods? It's OUTSIDE the rights of the average citizen to say they don't want a Wally World (or a liquor store, or a brothel, or a coal mine or *whatever*) in their neighborhood?

  Are you saying that zoning is a bad thing? If you are, then I wanna open a trailer park on your street.

  Just because I don't want to live next to a Wally World (or a Target or Costco, for that matter) that doesn't make me anti-capitalistic. It makes me want to shape my neighborhood in a way I find acceptable. Are you willing to give up the freedom to do so in your neighborhood?

  Besides, you got it ENTIRELY backwards. I don't give one red flying flip where you shop, or what you buy. I support your right to behave peacably as much as I demand my right to do so. I just don't want the usual Wally World crowd in MY neighborhood. Yep, I'm a NIMBY. There are Wally's galore within 10 or 15 minutes of every location in Dallas. You can't swing a dead cat without whacking one.

  So, YES, I can petition the government whackos to enforce zoning, and deny Wally World the right to build. As far as where you shop, that's entirely up to you. So to infer these are one in the same is a red herring.

  As for your comment about a gun, Mr. Wright, what in the world are you talking about? I won't shoot at you if you shop at Wally World - but it's more likely you'll BE in a gunfight at Wally's than at almost any other store in the US. And save the tired, old Lib canard about every government action being "a gun to your head". That's just a bad metaphor posing as a rational statement.

  Hmmm...gunfights in the lobby of the store, huge traffic congestion, trash, an eyesore of a building, parking lots as big as subdivisions....it's NOT Wally World per se that most folks object to (in this scenario) it's all the negatives that come with one of their stores.

  If Wally wants to build a store in the poor part of town, I could not care less. That's a capital improvement. Of course, you may get carjacked driving to and from it. However, when they wanna drop one of those boxes in my part of town, I want to ask them to compensate me for the loss of property value I'll experience. (Not like that will - or should - happen.)

  Do you seriously think that having a Wally World in your neighborhood HELPS property values? Try selling your 6- or 7-digit home when you've got a zillion junkers full of the seething masses running to the local junk mart at all hours. Now there's a pretty picture.

  No - you're confusing the issues: Shop where you want. Who cares. I don't want Wally in my neighborhood. The only guns are in Wally's lobby. Get a grip.

  One last thing: BB&T has announced a policy of NOT lending to developers that "acquire" land via eminent domain. Now there's a free-market perspective for you. Just this morning I opened an account with them. They do something I like and get rewarded with my business. You gotta love that freedom!

  Published: February 27, 2006 12:53 PM

• Person

  antilib/Mike Huben: I don't think that's what he said at all. The libertarian position on "shaping one's community" is not that it's wrong, or that everyone is obligated to live next to any brothel that wants to set up shop near their home. The libertarian position is that *if* you want these things, you must accomplish them through explicit contract, and that you don't have a right to these goods merely because of your proximity. So go ahead – set up an agreement with the neighboring property owners that they will not permit their property to be sold to or used by Wal-mart or whomever else you don't like. But that's not what your city council does. It shoves them off, irrespective of previous ownership rights and agreements.

  Published: February 27, 2006 1:03 PM

• Person

  I think what beefcake meant is that Laurence makes the arguments that make libertarianism look bad. Here, we have an article that totally ignores any legitimate political complain against Wal-mart (such as eminent domain abuse). And remember his FairTax articles? He argued, and I'm not making this up, that the FairTax is a bad idea because 1) programs other than the FairTax are bad; 2) it doesn't solve all problems with government; and 3) some of its supporters aren't pure libertarians. You have to read it to believe it!

  Published: February 27, 2006 1:08 PM

• antilib

  Person,

  I would agree with your perspective - as a matter of fact I'd be delighted if that's how things worked - but as long as we have capricious city councils and eminent domain, then we cannot have the kind of world you describe.

  I'm not saying that a purely voluntary, contractual world is not worth seeking. We can do both. Recognize that which *IS* and work toward that which *SHOULD BE*.

  Published: February 27, 2006 1:08 PM

• Beefcake The Mighty

  Person has it exactly right.

  Published: February 27, 2006 1:33 PM

• Curt Howland

  Antilib is Mike Huben??? Wow! I haven't crossed swords with comrad Huben since the mid 1990's in talk.politics.libertarian, and actually was recently (within the last couple of months, anyway) trying to remember his name.
  

  Could have been that "antilib"'s overwhelming combination of arrogance and ignorance had reminded me of comrad Huben's frightful style from those heady days of yore.
  

  Certainly nothing has changed, still frequenting forums full of people that have heard it all before, proclaiming how everyone else is wrong and he is right, and responding to any disagreement by ignoring what the person said and going directly to points never made and how using force in response to these straw-men is fine so long as he agrees with it.
  

  At least, with a track record as long, distinguished and perfectly consistent as comrad Huben's, replies will be very easy.
  

  No, it is not justified to force your opinion on others through political power simply because you nag a majority of the politicians into doing your will. Such a majority is not moral, any more than two thugs raping one woman in an alley is moral because it's a majority. It's not justified when WalMart uses it, either. It is always wrong because it is always an initiation of force. Period.

  Published: February 27, 2006 1:34 PM

• George Gaskell

  Are you attempting to say that we DON'T have the right to shape our own neighborhoods?

  Yes.

  What you call "shaping your neighborhood" is really just a euphemism for "telling someone else what he may or may not do with his property."

  You have the right to "shape" your own property. You do not have the right to "shape" other people's property.

  Published: February 27, 2006 1:54 PM

• Roderick T. Long

  Wal-mart's efficient "distribution model" is also subsidized by the fact that the highways are tax-funded, no? Federal funding for highways means (ceteris paribus) that businesses relying more heavily on long-distance shipping have a state-funded advantage over those who don't.

  Published: February 27, 2006 2:00 PM

• Person

  Roderick T. Long: I appreciate that you're doing your best to fend off a "vulgar libertarian" charge by Kevin Carson by talking about the state intervention that taints Wal-mart, but you're maybe going too far with your last comment. Yes, highways are state funded. But this doesn't give it an advantage over the current competitors that its detractors laud, who have access to the same roads. Further, did Wal-mart -- or any supermarket whatsoever, have anything at all to do with the federal and state governments' long-term policy of building roads? They didn't. And who are the biggest supporters of "public roads"? The people most opposed to Wal-mart.

  (They *have* of course, probably lobbied for traffic light changes near their stores. My mother has thousands of such stories, having worked in traffic planning, but Wal-mart is far from alone in this respect. Further, that to me looks more like a case of a company doing the best it can to satisfy customers in the face of tedious bureaucracy.)

  On top of that, what's to say transportation costs wouldn't be even *lower* absent state intervention, and goods would be shipped from even further away, giving Wal-mart an even bigger advantage in their ability to manage distribution? One must be careful not to justify one's pre-existing dislike for a company by hunting out any intervention, no matter how small.

  Published: February 27, 2006 2:12 PM

• JB

  I would like to add a "good" reason to not shop at WalMart. I do not "hate" WalMart, but I find some of their business practices questionable and virtually unknown to the consumer.

  The "reason" I would like to add is DECEPTION.

  The example I will use is from a lawnmower manufacturer about 15 miles from me: Simplicity in Port Washington, Wisconsin.

  I own a manufacturing facility here. I have 100 employees and do about 10 million a year - been in business since 1986.

  We met with Simplicity (some salesmen and a VP) about 5 years ago for a project. After discussing our deal, we began making small talk. One of the things that came up was our feelings about WalMart as a customer to our companies.

  I had a bad experience with WalMart prior to the meeting (basically, the buyer took my price and hammered his current vendor to match it - not illegal, but not something that will have new vendors beating down your door if word gets around - it's like a guy in highschool who screws every girl he can as quickly as he can: he gets a "bad rep" pretty quick and no girls will go out with him at all soon enough).

  When I brought this up (my bad experience with WalMart, not bad reps from too much sex!), I was surprised to hear that Simplicity had recently turned down a huge deal with WalMart - until I found out why.

  According to the VP in our meeting, WalMart was all set to go with a specific model of Simplicity lawnmower. On the day they went to see the buyer in Bentovnille to get the final p.o. and go over a few minor changes to the graphics, the buyer suddenly let the VP (and owner and a few others that flew down)know that in order for the purchase to go through Simplicity would have to "cheapen-up" many of the parts, but not change the name or model number in comparison to what was sold at their "mom and pop"/other dealers.

  So, in a nutshell, the buyer wanted to undercut all other vendors (which is understandable) not with volume, but with DECEPTION.

  I have heard so many stories like this from so many different manufacturers, that I have a hard time seeing myself using WalMart as a vendor in the future. To me, this IS "the market" working - it won't start with consumers, it will start with vendors such as myself depriving WalMart of selection due to their behavior - if WalMart responds to the concerns, they will stay in business, if they don't, they will be Kmart in 30 years.

  I now must question just about any product I buy from WalMart - am I really getting a "better price" or am I just buying lower quality product that has the same name/label as the higher quality product?

  With WalMart, it really may be that we are "getting what we paid for".

  Published: February 27, 2006 2:13 PM

• George Gaskell

  Federal funding for highways means (ceteris paribus) that businesses relying more heavily on long-distance shipping have a state-funded advantage over those who don't.

  Actually, wouldn't it mean that these businesses are not subject to a natural disadvantage they would otherwise have? I don't see how that necessarily gives retailers like Wal-Mart an advantage over other businesses, although it may take away one advantage that competitors would otherwise have over Wal-Mart.

  But wouldn't this non-disadvantage be measured only by extent to which competitors sold only local products? In other words, as between retailers, don't the benefits of state-funded roads have to be calculated as to all users of them?

  Published: February 27, 2006 2:15 PM

• antilib

  Mr Howland: I don't know who Mr. Huben, so you're barking up the wrong tree. As for your calling him "Comrade", well that's between the two of you.

  "Arrogance and Ignorance". Catchy. Smarmy, off point and petty. But then again, that's what one expects from you. Your comparison of zoning to rape is a huge stretch, even for your fertile imagination. I won't even attempt to argue with that one......it's just too bizarre for rational thought.

  Mr. Gaskell: I disagree with your perspective vehemently. The actions of *others* can and do have an effect on my property. I don't want a cement plant on the lot next to mine, nor to I want a Wally World in my neighborhood. If those things can be done WITHOUT affecting my values, fine - but we all know they cannot. So, in your perfect world these things must not occur. In the world in which the rest of us live, they do. Pray tell, oh wise one, just how DO you set about protecting that value you've worked for? Or is that perspective beneath consideration for the great minds of this forum?

  Apparently there aren't any Libs who have concern for their neighborhoods or property values. At least that's how this thread seems to be leaning. I suspect, however, that there's more than just a smattering of self-righteousness going on. If Mr. Howard's next door neighbor decided to put up a trailer park or Mr. Gaskells neighbor opened an all night liquor store, I bet we'd hear squeals of protest until doomsday. Yeah, you gentlement promote "Liberty" and "Freedom" to the water's edge....as long as it's not YOUR boat getting rocked.

  Published: February 27, 2006 2:42 PM

• Vince Daliessio

  Antilib;

  "Are you saying that zoning is a bad thing? If you are, then I wanna open a trailer park on your street."

  Yes, zoning IS a bad thing. There is no room for zoning in any libertarian conception of a community. I have personally seen some of the evils that zoning enables right here in my town, that of manipulation of the ordinances by developers.

  There is, however, a tradition of restrictive covenants that performs the same function without force. Houston TX has no zoning and does just fine.

  Antilib / Mike - I for one enjoy engaging you in discussion, but why so angry all the time? It gets tiresome. Lay out your evidence and arguments, and spend less time expounding on why and how much you hate a given allegedly evil business enterprise, while ignoring equally heinous things done by other enterprises, such as government, that you do not hate.

  Published: February 27, 2006 2:50 PM

• Curt Howland

  Antilib, "I won't even attempt to argue with that one."
  

  But you did. You said it was "a huge stretch", implying that it was too huge to be reasonable. That is an argument.
  

  "If those things can be done WITHOUT affecting my values, fine - but we all know they cannot." ...and... "Yeah, you gentlement promote "Liberty" and "Freedom" to the water's edge....as long as it's not YOUR boat getting rocked."
  

  What an interesting double-talk. It is you, Antilib, who is talking about initiating force against those who would effect your property values. You may proclaim loudly and falsely how everyone else doing so, you cannot hide that you do it yourself.
  

  If you are not Mike Huben, I beg your pardon. No one falsely deserves such a reputation to be laid at their feet. As far as "between the two of" us, the honorific "comrad" was earned, not gifted.

  Published: February 27, 2006 3:22 PM

• antilib

  Vince,

  Once again (Maybe all caps will help): I AIN'T MIKE. OK? Now moving along.....

  "There is no room for zoning in any libertarian conception of a community"

  That may be true, strictly speaking. Practically speaking, however, we don't live in a libertarian community. If it were possible for a community of people to exist under a set of restrictive covenants *only* that would be wonderful. I have yet to see one (on anything other than a minor scale) that exists.

  I didn't know that Houston has no zoning. That's quite interesting. The small towns in and around Dallas are rife with it, and yet, still have myriad issues with things like rock quarries popping up in - formerly - upper-6 and lower-7 figure neighborhoods, primarily because Lot A is subject to zoning, while Lot B is not.

  My initial concern is still extant: How does one, even in a pure libertarian world, meaningfully protect one's property investment if, on the adjacent lot, you may find (years after your initial purchase) a Wally World, or a brothel or trailer park? It is my perception that the canned Lib response is: Tough Luck. That doesn't answer, however, for the damage to the value of my property because my neighbor elects to do something different with his property. I agree that it doesn't give me the right to dictate what he does with his property, but is there no consideration for the negative impact on my property?

  It's not like I can pick up my house and move it a distance away, and yet retain the investment. Unlike bank accounts or shares of stock, which are transportable, one's home (or any real estate) are fairly fixed.

  I would not argue with you at all about the evils of developers manipulating ordinances. It goes right back to my comment about capricious city councils and eminent domain. It brings me to a question, tho: If, as you assert, zoning is bad (and I'm not convinced it is), then how does a community of individuals control their environs?

  Would you assert that no one has any right to want to live in an area that adheres to a given set of rules? I live in a new development on a former ranch in which the covenants document is about 2 inches thick. I can't even paint my house without ARB approval. It's a real PITA, but it helps the area retain the character for which I bought the property. All the houses are in the mid-6 to low-7 figures. Across the street from our community are other, similar, neighborhoods, each with relatively similar price points.

  There is a development about a half mile away which is being built into a moderately sized commercial center. I'm perfectly fine with it, as the centre will be composed of mostly mid-to-upper level stores. Many of my neighbors have their knickers in a serious twist.

  It is my perception that the Lib philosophy says, pretty much, tough luck jack. If the development were for low-end establishments (Yes, Wally World would qualify as low-end) I'd be screaming, too. Unfortunately, I don't think any of this leads to a good answer.

  The concept that you ONLY can have influence on the piece of dirt YOU own has both merit and is troublesome. If your dirt affects my dirt (meaning sale potential) then we have a conflict. On the other hand, having someone else have the right to tell me that I can, or cannot, do a thing with my dirt causes me discomfort. What to do, what to do?

  With regard to your advice: thanks for the perspective. Sorry if you perceive I'm angry. I'm actually not. This forum is interesting and refreshing - even if I don't agree with a lot of it. I've tried to say in many ways that I am not a Wally World proponent, but it's absolutely OK if others are. I also don't have much good to say about governments, but have a great deal of difficulty swallowing all the "pure" arguments here about how universally BAD everything non-Lib is supposed to be.

  The Lib perspective of Freedom and Liberty is awfully attractive. If it weren't I sure wouldn't spend my time trying to learn more about it. However, there's an entire line of BS that get's bandied around in here about how perfect Lib-ism is, how corrupt everyone and everything else is, and how Libs have all the answers. If the coating of intellectual arrogance and downright nastiness were stripped away, there's much to be said for the Lib philosophy. I find myself taking a more Lib approach every day. However, as my elders were fond of saying "These folks talk like a man with a paper asshole".

  Libs want to talk about how universally heinous government is, to denigrate anyone and enything associated with it (Just look at some of the discussions about the Armed Forces) and yet demand "The Rule of Law" as if it's gonna magically appear. I guess my biggest complaint is that, for all the talk of Freedom, Liberty and Morality, most Libs are hypocrites - at least they have the appearance of hypocrites.

  Is there such a thing as moderation in the Lib world? If so, I've yet to see it. Is there room for personally held moral perspectives? Virtually every time someone in this forum has expressed a moral objection to something, they're derided and denigrated. Is that what Liberalism is all about? Ad hominems and belittlement?

  Admittedly, I'm still learning and have a lot to learn, but I can't accept the Lib world-view that everything right now is terrible, Libs are the only ones with answers and that there is no room for anything other than rank consumerism in the world. If that's all Liberalism has to offer it's never going to be much more than a sideshow - and all the really potent, powerful ideas will be overshadowed by the negative character of its proponents.

  Published: February 27, 2006 3:30 PM

• George Gaskell

  The actions of *others* can and do have an effect on my property.

  The actions of others have an effect on the market price of everything you own and everything you do. That's the nature of economics -- everything affects everything else.

  If someone were to open a business that competes with yours, even if it is across town or across the country, his doing so affects the value of your business and the prices at which you can sell your goods or services. By your logic, since his actions have "an effect" on your property and income, then you believe that you somehow have the "right" to control his ability to enter the market and operate his business.

  Actually, this is the rationale behind the entire universe of economic domination and brutality called "protectionism."

  It is brutality because those who employ government protectionism do so in order to force others to refrain from engaging in peaceful, non-harmful conduct. "Harm" is the key word here. It has a narrow and specific meaning. Harm (or the threat of harm) is the only thing that justifies the use of force. Peaceful conduct that "affects" prices is not harmful.

  Like every other government-loving brute, you would prefer that government-violence be used whenever something merely "affects" you, not when something actually harms you.

  
  Pray tell, oh wise one, just how DO you set about protecting that value you've worked for?

  By a variety of means. But you are not yet ready to hear them, Grasshopper.

  
  Apparently there aren't any Libs who have concern for their neighborhoods or property values.

  My my. Quite the strawman-manufacturer, aren't you?

  Some of us simply refuse to promote or engage in aggressive violence to control other people's non-violent, non-harmful behavior.

  As for the liquor store that may open up next door to my house, the absence of zoning or road subsidies or all of the thousands of other land-use regulations would fundamentally change the structure of most neighborhoods. The entire system of land use would reorganize itself along completely different lines. It is impossible to simply say that one specific change would take place, isolated and out of context of every other change.

  Published: February 27, 2006 3:37 PM

• antilib

  George,

  "Like every other government-loving brute" Ah Ah Ah. Never said I loved government, I also never said I hated it. Keep your own prejudices to yourself, thank you.

  "whenever something merely "affects" you"
  OK, oh wise one, I would suppose that a large drop in the value of my real estate is not "harm" right? Or is it only an "affect" when it "affects" me, but "harm" when it "harms" you? I know, your predictable, yet wholly-unconvincing argument, is that it's an "affect" no matter who. Right. When you have no fat in the fire it's an "affect", when your buns are sizzling it's "harm".

  "But you are not yet ready to hear them, Grasshopper" Well, edjumakate us masses, will ya? You seem to have all the answers....or is that just subterfuge?

  "Some of us simply refuse to promote or engage in aggressive violence to control other people's non-violent, non-harmful behavior"

  Oh please. I only fell off the turnip truck last week......

  It's your last argument that makes sense. You're right that if all zoning, etc., were immediately gone, the entire system of land use WOULD reorganize. But that ain't gonna happen anytime soon. And if it does I suspect it won't be pretty. So, shall we deal with what IS instead of what MIGHT be?

  Published: February 27, 2006 3:46 PM

• tz

  I won't speak for "beefcake" as to what he meant by calling you the Sean Hannity of Libertarianism, but I would understand it to mean you are an apologist for something which is at best mixed, and at worst an actual evil, but because they are a corporation, you will say no evil, or cut them breaks just like Hannity "hannitizes" every evil word or deed of the current junta in DC.

  As best I can tell, WalMart is best at getting the newly printed fiat currencies nearest the source (in China, generated through various credit shell games). Mises noted inflation is not neutral, so the first to get the currency - before it devalues much - are the beneficiaries.

  The fact that a corporation and not government employees or contractors are near the source of the spring ought not make a difference to declaring the whole thing evil.

  To say Wal-Mart doesn't put others out of business is technically true, but that is like saying someone didn't lost to an opponent in a sports game with a bribed referee who made calls that changed the outcome.

  Mom and Pop don't have equal access to Chinese megacredit and megainflation. Nor to the regulatory arbitrage - they can't move their shop from the downtown to a greenfield just outside of the tax and regulation line, nor have all kinds of new infrastructure built around them (not doing so will cause a nuisance).

  The manufacturers are in the same situation. After destroying our manufacturing base (I responded to "the incredible bread machine" with a line "not better bread nor better bakes, but bookkept games and money fakes."), I DON'T have the option to buy something american made (even expanding to mexican, etc.) except for a very narrow line of expensive specialty items.

  I've noted earlier that if we don't approve of buying stolen merchandise (being apathetic to where the cheap goods come from) we do care about the merchant and merchandise. If the theft is merely well hidden like in inflation, or via some other hidden confiscation, then if WalMart is able to sell cheaply only because of the theft, fraud, or whatever you want to call it, it is immoral to support them.

  But I suppose if Sean Hannity doesn't care about torture or the destruction of habeas corpus, maybe you shouldn't care about where WalMart gets its goods, as long as you can buy stuff cheaply and the stock price goes up.
  

  Published: February 27, 2006 3:51 PM

• Don Beezley

  A critical point made by Mr. Gaskill within the context of this conversation: "the absence of zoning or road subsidies...would fundamentally change the structure of most neighborhoods. The entire system of land use would reorganize itself along completely different lines. It is impossible to simply say that one specific change would take place, isolated and out of context of every other change."

  An additional point to be made is that one of the reason individuals are so concerned with the impact on property values, is that governemnt policy (monetary policy, FNMA/GNMA) has RADICALLY inflated proerty values. This makes it a much more contentious issue vis a vis zoning, etc. than it would (should) otherwise be.

  
  

  Published: February 27, 2006 3:53 PM

• Curt Howland

  Antilib, "How does one, even in a pure libertarian world, meaningfully protect one's property investment if, on the adjacent lot, you may find (years after your initial purchase) a Wally World, or a brothel or trailer park?"
  

  An excellent question. You are not the only person so effected, and voluntary cooperative action by more than just a small handful of people is one of the great feats that language has allowed human beings to perform.
  

  So you, other neighbors, their neighbors, and other effected and interested individuals come together and find something that works. I have no way of knowing what that will be, because I am not there. However, I can guess at what could happen.
  

  A blighted house? The interested individuals buy the house (cheap), invest in it and resell to someone who shares your appreciation of the community. A stone quarry or WalMart? The interested individuals either bid more than the developer, or come up with a plan to keep the mine or store from overwhelming the community and then work with the developer to make it happen. Same for a brothel or all-night pub. However, if the brothel or all-night pub is operating in such a way as to be unobtrusive, then it is not for me to say what they do with their own property and on their own time.
  

  Keep in mind that the developer has a vested interest in their property's value also. Even a stone quarry must run out of stone eventually, and WalMart wants customers.
  

  If a polluting industry opened up next door, I would prosecute for violating my property with their wastes. I would assist my neighbors in doing the same, thus bringing "community standard" to a functioning phrase and not something to be frightened of.
  

  I keep using the word "community" because that is what a group of interested individuals is. Like "society", "community" pre-exists any government.

  Published: February 27, 2006 3:59 PM

• Francisco Torres

  Practically speaking, however, we don't live in a libertarian community.

  Hardly makes zoning laws moral or ethical.

  How does one, even in a pure libertarian world, meaningfully protect one's property investment if, on the adjacent lot, you may find (years after your initial purchase) a Wally World, or a brothel or trailer park?

  Seems hardly logical that a developer would build a trailer park in his property if the opportunity cost of developing the land for more expensive housing would be greater. My guess is that your fear of trailer parks is unfounded.

  Assuming their full legal status, Brothels are businesses, and as such they would be placed where the would be more clients, like docks, city downtowns, main streets and others. It would not make any business sense to place a brothel where clients would not find the business easily, like inside a suburban community. Again, your fear is unfounded - the only reason a brothel would exist in a clandiestine setting, inside a suburban community, would be government intervention.

  As for a Walmart near your home: the price of your land would depend on your client. If you manage to find Walmart-loving clients for your property, then the value of it is in pretty good shape. Uh, except, of course, if you have zoning laws, because then the property values are almost always lower than those places where there are NO zoning laws. People like to have options when buying property, bud.

  Published: February 27, 2006 4:03 PM

• averros

  "Post an intelligent and civil comment"

  Enough said. (Antlib, that concerns you, too.)

  Published: February 27, 2006 4:04 PM

• Roderick T. Long

  Person:
  "But this doesn't give it an advantage over the current competitors that its detractors laud, who have access to the same roads."

  It doesn't give it an advantage over others that do the same amount of long-distance shipping, true. But doesn't it over those who have less?

  "Further, did Wal-mart -- or any supermarket whatsoever, have anything at all to do with the federal and state governments' long-term policy of building roads?"

  No, not as far as I know. Why does that matter?

  "And who are the biggest supporters of "public roads"?"

  True. Again, why does that matter?

  "On top of that, what's to say transportation costs wouldn't be even *lower* absent state intervention, and goods would be shipped from even further away, giving Wal-mart an even bigger advantage in their ability to manage distribution?"

  I don't know, but the question is whether govt. intervention lowers costs for A more than for B, not whether it lowers the costs more for actual-A than for possible-A.

  "One must be careful not to justify one's pre-existing dislike for a company by hunting out any intervention, no matter how small."

  True, but I don't have any particular animus against Wal-Mart. I'm living off tax-paid salary myself. I'm just questioning how much of Wal-mart's success story is due to free-market activities.

  George Gaskell:
  "Actually, wouldn't it mean that these businesses are not subject to a natural disadvantage they would otherwise have? I don't see how that necessarily gives retailers like Wal-Mart an advantage over other businesses, although it may take away one advantage that competitors would otherwise have over Wal-Mart."

  If a govt. intervention removes one competitor's disadvantage I don't see how that's different from increasing the other party's advantage. It's relative advantage that matters anyway.

  "But wouldn't this non-disadvantage be measured only by extent to which competitors sold only local products? In other words, as between retailers, don't the benefits of state-funded roads have to be calculated as to all users of them?"

  Right, but don't local stores usually sell a higher percentage of local products compared with big-box chain stores?

  Antilib:
  "Apparently there aren't any Libs who have concern for their neighborhoods or property values."

  Not true -- it's just that while you have a right to what you own, you don't have a right to the VALUE of what you own -- because its values consists in the beliefs and preferences of other people, and you don't own other people. (The central principle of libertarianism is: Other people are not your property. Everything else follows from that.)

  "If Mr. Howard's next door neighbor decided to put up a trailer park or Mr. Gaskells neighbor opened an all night liquor store, I bet we'd hear squeals of protest until doomsday. Yeah, you gentlement promote "Liberty" and "Freedom" to the water's edge....as long as it's not YOUR boat getting rocked."

  And what is your evidence for this charge?

  
  

  Published: February 27, 2006 4:12 PM

• Stephen Gordon

  If libertarians are supposed to be for the free market and opposed to the abuse of government force, I fail to understand all of the pro Wal-Mart commentary on the blogosphere.

  I'm involved in fighting my third ALABAMA (same state as von Mises) Wal-Mart. In each case, they either used eminent domain to get the land, take money from the govt (which is not provided to the competition) to set up shop, or a combination of both.

  My argument to some of the wording in this article is laid out here.

  Published: February 27, 2006 4:29 PM

• George Gaskell

  OK, oh wise one, I would suppose that a large drop in the value of my real estate is not "harm" right?

  By itself, no.

  There is an old, long neglected principle of English common law that provides that everyone is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his property, and therefore no one is permitted to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of anyone else's property.

  Changing prices are not a form of harm. The cause of the changing price might be harm, if it takes the form of some behavior or condition that interferes with the peaceful enjoyment of one's property. Once upon a time, this meant that polluting your neighbors was not allowed. Then, in a fit of 19th century statist economic protectionism, the American courts changed the ancient common law rule to permit activities that interfered with their neighbors' uses of their property so long as the activity was "reasonable."

  This use of the term "reasonable" was basically a euphemism for "we're going to let this coal-belching factory operate right here because we want it to be here." This was a bad change in the law.

  As pro-commercial as free-market libertarians are, we still believe in property rights.

  
  Or is it only an "affect" when it "affects" me, but "harm" when it "harms" you? I know, your predictable, yet wholly-unconvincing argument, is that it's an "affect" no matter who. Right. When you have no fat in the fire it's an "affect", when your buns are sizzling it's "harm".

  I really don't understand what all of this means.

  
  Well, edjumakate us masses, will ya? You seem to have all the answers....or is that just subterfuge?

  Actually, it was a joke, meant to lightly tease you in return for the "wise one" crack. I had no idea you would go off on some racist tangent. Sheesh.

  
  So, shall we deal with what IS instead of what MIGHT be?

  No. That would be foolish and small-minded. If you do not understand the importance of accounting for that which does NOT come into existence as the result of some governmental action, then I highly recommend you take a look at the essays of M. Frederic Bastiat, particularly That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen.

  Published: February 27, 2006 4:34 PM

• antilib

  Don: Your assertion that property values are inflated is spot on. At least IMHO. I just wonder how long this house of cards can remain standing and what tiny breeze it will take to knock it down.

  Curt: Your perspective on competing economic interests for the same piece of property is, indeed, one mechanism to protect one's property values. It's not the only one, but not unheard of. I don't know that it's practical in many cases, however, because not every group of homeowners happens to have a potload of cash laying about.

  The comment about a quarry running out of stone is accurate - but the intermediate negative effects aren't without consideration. Not to mention that big hole in the ground. As far as Wally World wanting customers: They do, but they don't give a flip about the neighborhood. That's not what they're about, and, truthfully I'm not sure it should be.

  I am concerned with "thus bringing "community standard" to a functioning phrase" because isn't that analagous to the beginning of a "City"? Yes, I know it's a discussion of a voluntary group of people right now, but isn't the establishment of "standards" exactly what folks are complaining about when the word "government" is used as opposed to "community". Aside from the argument of "force" (which may or may not have merit) once a group creates a "standard" to be imposed on others, aren't they exerting "force" as well? I'm not asking to be facetious, I'm really trying to understand the meaningful difference between "government force" and "community force" in this model.

  Francisco: Thanks for your perspective about a liquor store in a 7-figure neighborhood. While I still believe that "inappropriate" businesses (or slovenly homeowners) do pay a premium to buy into an area and harm housing values, it is true that my neighbor has the same incentive as I do to maintain - or increase - or respective property values. I will admit that I'm not entirely comfortable with that being the only motivational factor, but I'm not comfortable, either, with many of the alternatives.

  Averros: Grow up.

  Roderick: I have absolutely no evidence whatsoever for presuming that Mr. Howard and Mr. Gaskell want to preserve their property values. I cannot fathom they would not. I could be entirely wrong. It's their adherence to a shaky perspective that I take issue with. So, to your point, I am guilty as charged.

  To your previous point "you don't have a right to the VALUE of what you own" I'm not so sure I agree with you in total. If your actions render my property valueless (or of significantly less value) you have engaged in behavior which is NOT peacable and without harm. When it comes to, for example, some good I own (say my car) you if you don't damage it, then its depreciation is not your concern. However, if you engage in an activity that does harm my car (say you painted your fence, and my car as well) then your actions have harmed my property. Yes, I still own the car, but it is of less value now.

  This straw-man is analogous to the property value argument. I still own both items. Both items are still functional to me, and thus, have not been rendered less than useful. It's just that my car is now more "colorful" than before, and less valuable. Did you not harm me? Or rather, harm my economic interests?

  What am I missing here?

  Published: February 27, 2006 4:43 PM

• George Gaskell

  If a govt. intervention removes one competitor's disadvantage I don't see how that's different from increasing the other party's advantage. It's relative advantage that matters anyway.

  I suppose, but that's not what you said. You first said that the subsidized roads gave Wal-Mart an advantage over other competitors. You made a direct comparison between competitors.

  That is not the same thing as comparing Wal-Mart's position (given the existence of subsidized roads) with its own position (in the absence of subsidized roads).

  Considering the fact that every single business in America uses subsidized roads every single day, and that these centuries-old subsidies have had a profound, multi-dimensional, transformative effect on the economy as a whole, the mental experiment of asking whether Wal-Mart gains a special advantage compared to every other retailer out there is so complex as to be impossible and meaningless.

  This is what the Austrians meant when they said that economics is not a laboratory science because critical, determinative conditions can never be duplicated.

  Published: February 27, 2006 4:47 PM

• George Gaskell

  What am I missing here?

  You do not see the difference between sending condition-altering paint balls over a property line and onto your car, and someone who merely operates a business actvity within the confines of his own real estate?

  Published: February 27, 2006 4:53 PM

• Roderick T. Long

  Antilib:
  "I have absolutely no evidence whatsoever for presuming that Mr. Howard and Mr. Gaskell want to preserve their property values. I cannot fathom they would not."

  Now come on, obviously I wasn't asking for evidence that they care about their property values. I was asking for evidence that they would abandon libertarian principle in order to protect their property values -- which is what you implied. It's possible to care about something yet not be willing to use aggressive violence to keep it. (For example, if I love my wife and she leaves me, the fact that I don't use violence to force her to stay doesn't show I don't care whether she leaves.)

  "If your actions render my property valueless (or of significantly less value) you have engaged in behavior which is NOT peacable and without harm."

  Regardless of how the result occurs? Look, once again if my wife leaves me I might be devastated, but that doesn't mean she doesn't have a right to leave.

  "When it comes to, for example, some good I own (say my car) you if you don't damage it, then its depreciation is not your concern. However, if you engage in an activity that does harm my car (say you painted your fence, and my car as well) then your actions have harmed my property. Yes, I still own the car, but it is of less value now."

  Exactly. But that's my whole point. If your Volvo loses its value because I start a campaign that says "Volvos look silly," I've lowered your car's value in a way I have a right to do. If instead I paint your car without your permission, I've lowered your car's in a way I don't have a right to do. It matters whether I use invasive or non-invasive MEANS to lower the value. Just lowering the value in and of itself doesn't settle whether a rights-violation has occurred.

  "This straw-man is analogous to the property value argument. I still own both items. Both items are still functional to me, and thus, have not been rendered less than useful. It's just that my car is now more "colorful" than before, and less valuable. Did you not harm me? Or rather, harm my economic interests?"

  But what's wrong is not that I made your car less marketable but that I invaded your property without your permission. After all, if instead I painted your car a more popular color and so INCREASED its marketability, yet still without your permission, you'd still have grounds for complaint.

  George Gaskell:
  "If a govt. intervention removes one competitor's disadvantage I don't see how that's different from increasing the other party's advantage. It's relative advantage that matters anyway.
  I suppose, but that's not what you said. You first said that the subsidized roads gave Wal-Mart an advantage over other competitors. You made a direct comparison between competitors."

  Right, and that's still what I'm saying.

  "That is not the same thing as comparing Wal-Mart's position (given the existence of subsidized roads) with its own position (in the absence of subsidized roads)."

  Right, so now I'm confused. You're saying the same thing I just said, but you're saying it as though it's an objection to my position. No, it IS my position. We must be getting our wires crossed somehow.

  Published: February 27, 2006 5:06 PM

• antilib

  George:

  Sorry if I missed the humor....it's kinda tough to distinguish what's sarcasm and what's not in this forum. Please accept my apologies.

  The concept of "everyone is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his property" is exactly what I'm referring to. Would not a Wally World (or liquor store, et al) negatively impact my "peaceful enjoyment"? I sure perceive it would.

  I would agree with the assertion that an intermediate - and unseen - shift in property value as a direct result of outside forces is not "harm". It would only be "harm" when it came time for me to sell. Ceteris paribus, if I've done all the right things to keep my property at or above its original state, and the market in general has not shifted dramatically (i.e. comparable houses NOT affected by the "bad property" in question are similarly priced as a group) and yet my property is worth LESS because of my neighboring rock quarry, I would argue that said quarry IS interfering with me - and not in a peacable way. In virtually every respect, however, there's not much I can do about it at that stage of the game. Which then gives rise to a "pre-emptive" perspective - I don't want my property values to decline, so I'm going to fight Wally World/Quarry/Brothel from coming into my neighborhood.

  My point in the car/house argument takes one major point you (and others) made about "diminished use". The brothel next door and the paint spots on my car *do not diminish their use*. My car still takes me from pointA to pointB. I'm still able to live in my house. Neither of these goods have any less functionality or use. Yet, the "damage" to my home value is "unseen" and the "damage" to my car is "seen". Is this the primary factor that distinguishes between "harm" in either case?

  I would assert that a brothel next door is "condition-altering" it's just not VISIBLE. Again, I know these are straw-men examples, and we're splitting some hairs, but so far I've not heard any arguments that make good sense as to why there should be no ZONING, no STANDARDS, no COMMUNITY, or no CONTROLS.

  Don't get me wrong, I distrust government almost as I distrust the folks in Bentonville...the only difference is that I get a vote in my City Council composition. (Ignored though it usually is!)

  Published: February 27, 2006 5:08 PM

• Curt Howland

  Antilib, "I am concerned with "thus bringing "community standard" to a functioning phrase" because isn't that analagous to the beginning of a "City"? Yes, I know it's a discussion of a voluntary group of people right now, but isn't the establishment of "standards" exactly what folks are complaining about when the word "government" is used as opposed to "community"."
  

  No, because standards cannot be imposed without initiating force. Everything I mentioned was a cooperative effort by people, not imposed force.
  

  "Aside from the argument of "force"..."
  

  No. No no no NO NO! What you are "missing here", as you put it, is that everything that is being said to you is directly and specifically concerning force. You cannot dismiss the initiation of force from a discussion concerning voluntary cooperation verses government force because force is the single defining element. Everything else is just opinion.

  Published: February 27, 2006 5:19 PM

• Francisco Torres

  If your actions render my property valueless (or of significantly less value) you have engaged in behavior which is NOT peacable and without harm.

  That is totally absurd, tz. If I develop a new type of vehicle that renders yours obsolete overnight, and valueless, would you accuse me of initiation of force, using the same argument?

  Value is SUBJECTIVE. You cannot be certain of which actions can possibly bring the value of your property down without first marketing your property - lettint the market decide. Before that, you are just guessing.

  Thanks for your perspective about a liquor store in a 7-figure neighborhood.

  Ok. Even if a liquor store opens up in a 7-figure neighborhood, can you say that such will lower the property values with certainty? Even if such property values are lowered, thinking the liquor store is the culprint is nothing more than a classic case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning.

  Published: February 27, 2006 5:20 PM

• Francisco Torres

  Sorry, I meant to say: antilib.

  Published: February 27, 2006 5:21 PM

• antilib

  Curt,

  I used your exact terms "community standard" to question HOW you can make it (Again in your words) a "functioning phrase and not something to be frightened of". If you don't use force to do so, then how can any standard, whatsoever, ever have meaning? Wouldn't YOUR standard differ from MINE? If so, what would make YOUR standard better? More "right"? Even enforceable?

  Asserting that a "community standard" is not analagous to force is akin to calling it a "personal preference". A standard is no such thing unless it's adhered to. In your model, if I didn't care to adhere to your standard, what's to be done? You speak of joining your neighbors in a suit against a polluter. OK, that's certainly one method: through the courts. But that's applying tort law, and not a "community standard".

  I'm just reading what you said and trying to understand it.

  You said "No, because standards cannot be imposed without initiating force. Everything I mentioned was a cooperative effort by people, not imposed force." How is this different from a "community standard"?

  "You cannot dismiss the initiation of force from a discussion concerning voluntary cooperation verses government force because force is the single defining element". EXACTLY! I agree with you and said as much. A "community standard", if it's to be enforced AT ALL, is an exercise in FORCE. If your "standard" is unenforceable, then it's opinion, and it's meaningless.

  So a "community standard" and "government force" are of the same DNA if they're to have meaning. Otherwise they're just a lot of paper.

  Francisco:

  Your argument about a vehicle misses the point. If you invent a new car, my car will still get me from point A to point B. If your car is a SUBSTITUTE GOOD for my car, then you've engaged in the free market - and will, likely, make a lot of money. Good for you! That was never at issue and that particular argument doesn't address this issue.

  "You cannot be certain of which actions can possibly bring the value of your property down without first marketing your property - lettint the market decide. Before that, you are just guessing." Nothing gets past you, does it. Except that part where I explicity said that it would be determined AT SALE TIME. Other than that, you're right.

  "can you say that such will lower the property values with certainty?" Back to my prior statement about INTERIM, UNSEEN value shifts.

  And finally, "thinking the liquor store is the culprint is nothing more than a classic case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning", didja get to the part about CETERIS PARIBUS, the whole enchilada about comparable value, etc, etc, etc? It's the whole price comparison activity that determines where changes have occurred.

  Can one state with absolute certainty whether a liquor store is the cause of a negative property value? I doubt it. Does a reasonable person want to take that chance? You may, I don't.

  So, while you may be right in what you say, attempting to slam me FOR SAYING MUCH THE SAME don't cut it. Was your whole point to be nasty or to show a genuine difference of opinion?
  

  Published: February 27, 2006 5:46 PM

• Entelechy

  antilib: Here's the distinction that you're missing:
  

  
  Situation One: A group of homeowners form a covenant and agree that any future home sale shall be approved by the group. Later, one homeowner decides to sell his home to WalMart and the other homeowners object. The person in the wrong is homeowner trying to sell his home.
  

  
  Situation Two: A group of homeowners have no agreements between them. One of them decides to sell his home to WalMart. The homeowners successfully petition the city government to block the sale. The people in the wrong are the petitioners.

  See the difference? In Situation One, a "community standard" was created by voluntary agreement. In Situation Two, a community rule was established ad hoc and after the fact. I think it is entirely reasonable to prefer situation one to situation two -- the former society is much more peaceful than the latter.

  Published: February 27, 2006 6:31 PM

• Curt Howland

  Antilib, a community standard does not require force. That is why every example I gave were voluntary actions by interested individuals to assert their subjective standard through their wallets. Yes, wallets, because that is the primary tool human beings have evolved for working together, measuring success and failure, and generally keeping 6 billion people alive at the same time.
  

  Or do I have to explain the benefits of profit and loss as opposed to central planning in an Austrian economics forum?

  Published: February 27, 2006 8:06 PM

• iceberg

  What I think also warrants a mention is that the only true standards are those which are voluntarily agreed upon by the market participants. Anything enacted through force or coercion is tainted with the possibility of being the less than optimal solution.

  There are plenty of standards which didn't require the state to intervene. Graphic, motion and audio codecs have standardized baselines which are operable cross industry. For example Sony's DVD discs work on Toshiba set top players.

  The lesson you draw from that is that manufacturers will often find it in their interest to market materials to their customers in standardized formats. While its not a rule, it seems the only time "standards" have been ignored is when consumers deem the so-called 'standard' to be inferior to a non-standard alternative (witness the success of iTunes and its proprietary lock to the Apple iPod). When success is not the case, the usual culprit to look at is some government-created monopoly which favors the current proprietary solution.

  In any case, there never is an instance when standards should need to be imposed; for if the standard is truly the optimal, it probably will be whole-heartedly supported by market participants. If the standard is less than optimal, you will see the opposite. If coercion is needed to impose the standard, its probably less than optimal, and in all cases exudes elistism on part of the enforcer.

  Published: February 27, 2006 8:37 PM

• Vince Daliessio

  Antilib;

  Sorry for joining in on the "Mike" thing.

  If a truly libertarian society, particularly with regard to property, ever actually comes about, it will entail a LOT of work on every property owner's part to mitigate the "harms" that you mention. I, for instance, will have to go to each of my neighbors and get them to agree to covenants regarding their use of their land, as will they and their neighbors, and so on. This will take a lot of time, money, agg, hurt feelings, and in many cases will still be unsuccessful. Rich property owners will pay people to do it, some of whom will act unethically and try to pressure people to agree to things they don't want to agree to. Tell me how this scenario, despite all the drawbacks I have mentioned (and there are, I am sure, many more) is less desirable than the current situation where the government has any number of levers with which to pry you out of your home with little or no compensation at all?

  With regard to your quarry example, there are certainly a number of tangible ways the quarry might actually cause harm (alter or deplete your wells, crack your foundation, trespass on your property with pollution)that in a libertarian world with full property rights would be both actionable and compensible. The current system runs these torts through government at the expense of the private individual because of the bogus presumed "public good". The hookers in the brothel might trespass on your lawn, assault your guests, trash the place - these things would all be actionable.

  Stephen Gordon;

  With all due respect, none of the government evils you are fighting is unique to Wal-Mart. My current list of companies I try to have little or nothing to do with includes Costco, W-M, Home Depot, and Stop & Shop (the last one pains me greatly). All of these evils (eminent domain, zoning, taxpayer financing) are tools in the arsenal of greedy local governments and avaricious developers, and they do NOT only deploy them in favor of the reviled Wal*Mart, but seem eager to use them for ANY developer that comes along and suggests it. So either broaden your criticism a little bit to include other companies similarly situated, or continue to be painted with the broad brush of "anticapitalism". Simple.

  Published: February 27, 2006 9:26 PM

• Larry Ruane

  Mr. Vance's number one reason against shopping at Wal-Mart is the crowds. But most people like crowds. I base this on a simple observation: Wherever I see a large crowd, there are always a lot of people around. Conversely, wherever I don't see a crowd, hardly anyone is around. Q.E.D.

  Published: February 27, 2006 10:32 PM

• Roy W. Wright

  Ruane's Theorem, to be sure.

  Published: February 27, 2006 10:49 PM

• Vince Daliessio

  "Nobody goes there anymore - it's too crowded" - Yogi Berra

  Published: February 27, 2006 10:57 PM

• John Delano

  Antilib has a lot to learn. In a society that lacks municipal zoning, cities would be laid out much better than they are now. They were a hundred years ago when it didn't exist. Zoning is the cause of suburban sprawl and poorly laid out communities.

  Here are some things for you to learn about, Antilib, "covenents", "easments", "homeowners associations", "contracts".

  Would you also say that Wal-Mart has a say in who is allowed to live in a community to protect its investment? Wouldn't they want to have only Wal-Mart type people living nearby?

  Chicago has also been hostile to Wal-Mart wanting to locate there. Wal-Mart's strategy is to surround the city with stores in the surrounding communities that are often glad to have them. Where I live in Hammond, Indiana (next to Chicago) there was a Wal-Mart built. It is very busy at times. I think There should be a second one built. I have heard that they may build another one here.

  
  BTW: I also dislike many of the things mentioned in the article. Much of that comes from them not being allowed to build additional stores. I also have to add their support of eminent domain as a critisism.

  Published: February 27, 2006 11:29 PM

• Francisco Torres

  Antilib wrote:
  If you invent a new car, my car will still get me from point A to point B.

  Irrelevant: your basic argument states unequivocally that any, ANY, action done on an unrelated property that translates to a loss of value of your property, is akin to violence. We are not discussing usefulness, but VALUE.

  didja get to the part about CETERIS PARIBUS,

  This is what happens when you misapply a logic tool. Ceteris paribus, if you do nothing to change the value of your home, and the market stays the same, and then your dog barks and the value of your house goes immediately down, would you then say the mutt influenced buyers? Again, you cannot infer a consequence from an unrelated happenstance.

  Besides, if the people of the community really believed the liquor store could bring the property values down, notwithstanding the truth, then the liquor store would find it difficult to gather clients. This is why liquor stores are placed in busy streets, where the most number of clients can drive by and find it.

  Published: February 28, 2006 12:01 AM

• mac

  My sister has a more personal reason to hate Wal-Mart. She lives on a narrow residential road that goes nowhere. Or it didn't before it became an alternate route out of the Wal-Mart parking lot. Now there's tons traffic zooming down the road, and she can no longer go for walks with her kids on their street.

  The price of "progress", eh? Of course, such externalities are not grounds for a lawsuit, but it certainly hasn't helped their property value.

  Published: February 28, 2006 12:13 AM

• xteve

  antilib:

  "(i.e. comparable houses NOT affected by the "bad property" in question are similarly priced as a group)"

  They're not really comparable houses then, are they?

  Also, I had friends a few years back who had an empty lot next to their house. When the owner mademoves to sell it to a developer my friend bought the lot themselves. Now they preserved the value of their house AND the potential value of the lot. I don't remember them even considering asking the government to push anyone around.

  Published: February 28, 2006 5:37 AM

• Stephen Gordon

  Vince Daliessio,

  So either broaden your criticism a little bit to include other companies similarly situated, or continue to be painted with the broad brush of "anticapitalism".

  I've targeted other corporations before (hosts of them in the Alabaster case, Ruby Tuesday in the Roebuck case). In the three Birmingham area situations I mentioned, Wal-Mart is the common denominator -- and there is no other non-governmental corporate entity involved in the only ongoing case.

  I'm anti-corporate welfare and anti-eminent domain (but promote truly free markets) and take on targets as they encroach my life. If this makes me "anticapitalism", perhaps those doing the painting should re-examine the size of their brush.

  Published: February 28, 2006 7:18 AM

• Stephen Gordon

  Dr. Long gave the example of Wal-Mart's distribtion mechanism (using state roads). Perhaps a less contentious example might be the taxpayer funded bribes to bring Wal-Marts to town which are not shared Wal-Mart's competitors.

  Specifically, Wal-Mart was given a $10 million tax abatement in a recent Birmingham (Roebuck) deal. The ongoing Birmingham (Crestwood) has an $11 million payout -- I've got the contract on my desk which the city council will like vote in favor of in a couple of hours.

  Note this payout is not going to the competition (either mom and pop or major corporations -- the new Wal-Mart will share parking lot space with a K-Mart which did not get any government payola).

  Do libertarians support one-sided government welfare these days? If so, this is a truly scary development.

  Published: February 28, 2006 7:30 AM

• Vince Daliessio

  LOL Stephen. Perhaps MY brush was too broad.

  An illustration of my point of view - I am in favor of eliminating medical welfare (Medicare and Medicaid), though I am aware that this will create hardship for poor people in the short run. I am equally well aware that this hardship is due, for the most part, to other government-aided screwups like tax-free employer-paid insurance, the AMA and state medical boards restriction of supply of medical providers, and the role of FDA regulations and drug patents in massively increasing the price of even simple medical care. The chance of eliminating all of these government usurpations at once is virtually nil, yet it redounds to the benefit of all if even one of them is rescinded. This parallels your fight against eminent domain abusers.

  My point is that Wal*Mart is a high-profile target that is in no way unique in its malfeasance, yet also still performs some genuinely useful entrepreneurial functions in our very unfree economy, and to focus solely on its malfeasance while overlooking its benefits is to bolster the case of the anticapitalists.

  Sorry if it sounded like I was calling you an anticapitalist. You, like I, are probably more of an anti-state-capitalist.

  Published: February 28, 2006 7:39 AM

• Vince Daliessio

  Stephen;

  Right or wrong, Kmart and the established businesses are already there, so, in the town fathers' eyes, need no inducements to do business there. The concept of tax abatements is generally looked upon by libertarians favorably, though the way it is being employed here certainly seems unfair.

  But the real responsibility lies with the town government. Wal*Mart is simply exploiting the politicians greed for more tax money.

  Published: February 28, 2006 7:46 AM

• Stephen Gordon

  Kmart and the established businesses are already there

  Unfortunately for the free market, this K-Mart (the last existing one in Birmingham proper) will now have to compete with a mega Wal-Mart which will share a common parking lot. The outcome of their future competition is almost predetermined. That $11 mil sure reduces the level playing field quite a bit.

  True, the government is guilty. However, the contract proposal (from Wal-Mart) demands the $11 million. They are truly co-conspirators in this scheme.

  Published: February 28, 2006 8:01 AM

• Stephen Gordon

  Vince,

  Your medical arguments strike home for this spouse of a free market physician. Toward this end, she is a member of the AAPS and not the AMA.

  This said, it does us a PR disservice to pretend that Wal-Mart is not without fault.

  The AAPS is not fighting all free market issues with respect to medicine, as their resources are very finite. But they are fighting the big ones (i.e. pain meds, Medicare rx plan) as they are in the forefront of the press right now.

  My opinion is that we need to fight (short of blog postings, I'm fighting city hall for the most part, not Wal-Mart) the battles we can win. Eminent domain and one-sided tax abatements are examples of such battles.

  Published: February 28, 2006 8:10 AM

• antilib

  Curt: You can make a point and not be an ass, as evidenced by "Or do I have to explain the benefits of profit and loss as opposed to central planning in an Austrian economics forum". Be more precise in what you said - as the post in question where you propound "community standard" was broad, vague and imprecise.

  Entelechy: The distinction you're making is one I completely understand - I live in one right now. Curt's posting on this issue did NOT point to a private collection of homeowners, but rather to a "community standard", and made no mention whatsoever of a pre-existant covenant. What you're saying is absolutely correct, but Curt's phrasing was missing several key components.

  Vince: "Tell me how this scenario, despite all the drawbacks I have mentioned (and there are, I am sure, many more) is less desirable than the current situation where the government has any number of levers with which to pry you out of your home with little or no compensation at all?"

  I agree - the current system is NOT desirable. I won't argue otherwise. You're right.

  Mr. Delano: "Here are some things for you to learn about, Antilib, "covenents", "easments", "homeowners associations", "contracts"."

  Back it up, bud. You don't know how much you don't know. Apparently, you can't read either. Did I not just say that my covenants document was 2" thick and even discussed how it makes community standards? Criticize if you like, but at least make the criticism valid.

  Francisco: "Again, you cannot infer a consequence from an unrelated happenstance." Your right, but you're talking apples versus rubber bands. Again, go back and read what I said. On second thought, don't. I'm overfull with your snide, nasty, condescending manner.

  Steve: "I don't remember them even considering asking the government to push anyone around." I did the same thing at a home in Florida. But that's never been in question, has it? You act as if though it's possible for this to occur on a regular basis. Maybe in the nirvana you describe, but nowhere else.

  Xteve: "They're not really comparable houses then, are they?" You've never read a CMA have you?

  I'm constantly amazed that in this forum - full of supposedly intelligent people - the rhetoric has to be filled with such nasty comments and petty ad hominens. It's a big world, and none of the snottiness in here does much to advance Lib'ism. I fully admitted - many times - that I'm attempting to understand. Education isn't what you want in here - it's sycophany. Get over yourselves. I'll leave you to your mental masturbation and spend my time elsewhere. Who knows, maybe I'll made a donation to Hillary in the VMI name!

  Published: February 28, 2006 8:59 AM

• Terry

  I think Stephen has it right that we need to fight the politicians over eminent domain and one-sided tax abatements (thus my opposition to the Brandon bill), etc. but once we start trying to use the power of the government to force our will on Wal-Mart and others we are no better than the Wal-Marts doing the same thing using the power of eminent domain for their purposes. If you do not want a Wal-Mart in your community fight tooth and nail to keep them out but do not use the power of government to do so. Once you do you lose all credibility because you obviously can't convince enough other people to be opposed to them and you end up being no better than the company you are trying to keep out if they are using the power of the gov't to get into your community. You are using the easy way out just like Wal-Mart is doing.

  What it all boils down to is where the power lies. Right now it lies with the government and the money they can hand out. The power should reside with individuals and the money that the politicians are doling out should have stayed in the individuals pockets, not the government coffers, which sometimes ends up in companies like Wal-Marts pockets. If the money stayed with the taxpayer instead of the government than each individual could decide what was best for them. Now it is left up to a few politicians who are easily bought off or crave power. If this power and money was more dispersed it would be much harder for Wal-Marts to enter a community if enough people didn't want them there.

  Published: February 28, 2006 9:28 AM

• Stephen Gordon

  Terry,

  FYI, I've never fought any Wal-Mart opening shop using fair and free market mechanisms. Unfortunately, that is happening less and less often in my neck of the woods.

  The only political angles I try are those directed at the government for abusing the powers lawfully granted to it.

  Published: February 28, 2006 9:41 AM

• Yancey Ward

  antilib (and others),

  Like you I find the nastiness to be detrimental to the debate, so I try as hard as possible not to engage in such heated rhetoric, even when I am the one targeted (I fail occasionally, but not often). In other words, you have to practice what you preach- retaliation is almost always self-defeating in such forums.

  Published: February 28, 2006 10:06 AM

• Philip

  Not one of us disagrees that the state has too much control, but when has there ever been a successful down sizing of the state. The more I read about the problems with our state the more I feel that we have a leviathan that is beyond repair. Inevitably I feel that our state is destined to go the way of the Dinosaur. We may some day have a libertarian society but it will not be apart of the US.

  Published: February 28, 2006 10:50 AM

• Stephen Gordon

  The Birmingham City Council just (a few minutes ago) gave Wal-Mart $11 million to compete with other businesses.

  This should truly be a proud day for Wal-Mart loving libertarians.

  Published: February 28, 2006 11:36 AM

• Yancey Ward

  Stephen,

  I would be careful with the language you use when talking about tax abatements. Technically, if I understood your earlier comment, the city council wasn't giving WalMart $11 million, but, rather, was contracting not to take $11 million if WalMart opened the store.

  Now, it is certainly true that the council has voted to give WalMart an advantage over its local competitors, but their competitors are free to bargain with the council as well. I would argue that the competitors could bring a suit alleging unequal treatment under the law of Birmingham. Any lawyers out there?

  Published: February 28, 2006 12:35 PM

• Gintas

  I like Wal-Mart, I can always go there when I want to feel thin again.

  Published: February 28, 2006 12:42 PM

• George Gaskell

  Unfortunately, there is no such thing as an equal protection claim when it comes to taxation. There should be, of course. But then again, to expect a State to restrain itself and abide by its own rules is naive.

  Stephen, the whole "Wal-Mart loving libertarians" thing is a bit excessive. I believe we all get your point -- that Wal-Mart engages in the same kind of rent-seeking special government privileges that most other large companies do.

  I don't want to exaggerate the size of my brush, but I believe I speak for many libertarians, or Austrians at least, when I say that our comments about Wal-Mart is more in the nature of a rebuttal to a recent flurry of typical Leftist complaints about Wal-Mart's prices, employment practices, health coverage, etc.

  In other words, we are responding to the usual Left-wing claptrap, demanding that government force some business to incur costs in favor of a particular voting block, and demonizing it to garner irrational public sympathy. Leftists generally don't complain about land seizures because Leftists like broad governmental powers.

  In other words, our comments have nothing to do with loving Wal-Mart per se, other than the fact that Wal-Mart happens to be the battleground du jour for debating the problems with these recycled socialist economic proposals.

  In any event, I am sure that you will find no more ardent critics of subsidies and land seizures than you will among Austrians.

  Published: February 28, 2006 12:57 PM

• Stephen Gordon

  Yancey,
  
  
  
  Sorry for the confusion. I'll clarify:
  
  
  
  Those are two seperate measures. A couple of years ago, Birmingham provided a $10 million tax abatement for the Roebuck Wal-Mart.
  
  
  
  This morning they simply gave away $11 million for the future Crestwood Wal-Mart. This money comes initially from the general fund, but ultimately will be paid back from a bond -- if the measure passed the way it reads in the paperwork on my desk. I haven't yet read what actually passed.
  
  
  
  If any lawyer wishes to tackle this one, I'd recommend hooking up with the PAC Birmingham First, which has some limited resources and a lot of institutional knowledge to take them on.

  Published: February 28, 2006 1:27 PM

• Christine Bradford

  I worked at WalMart in the early 1990's. The only reason I took the job was because we had just moved to this particular small Southern town and there were no other jobs available that provided medical insurance. They refused to start medical coverage, so I quit. My last check had deductions for medical insurance for two months, which they applied retroactively without informing me. I will never shop at WalMart due to their unfair labor practices.

  Published: February 28, 2006 2:04 PM

• Jon Doe

  Christine, I have a similar story regarding a retirement account I was enrolled in without my permission. Come to find out, there is no guarantee that I will ever receive any sort of payout; but the real kicker is that now they won't even let me opt out of the program. Stupid Social Security.

  Published: February 28, 2006 3:34 PM

• Curt Howland

  I was listening to NPR here in North Carolina recently. They were interviewing "activists" who were declaring loudly that, in order to provide services to people unemployed because of the manufacturing companies closing their doors, taxes had to be raised.
  

  Less than 10 minutes later there was a story about Dell Computers, building a manufacturing facility near Raleigh specifically because they were given tax breaks and, ah, assistance in acquiring the property.
  

  What astounds me is that there are people who cannot notice how these two stories are related.
  

  Antilib, I was very specific. Just because you disagree doesn't mean I was being vague. It is also obvious that you do not understand the benefits of entrepreneurial management verses bureaucratic management since you continuously state that you believe your best interests lie in leveraging government power in your favor.

  Published: February 28, 2006 4:58 PM

• Lisa Casanova

  Curt,
  I heard about the Dell deal. I believe there is a lawsuit going on arguing that the incentives given Dell were unconstitutional, the state had no right to do it, and the deal should be revoked. If that kind of thing is successful, it should happen a lot more often.

  Published: February 28, 2006 5:08 PM

• noddy

  Antilib "If I don't want a Wally World to be built in my neighborhood I have every right to convince my elected officials to decline the permits. It's called "Freedom"

  
  That's quite a statement. Lets see, freedom is a mob using government coercsion to prevent Walmart from buying land in their neighbourhood and building a store on it. Freedom is not the right to purchase land and set up a business on it. Interesting. Would you object then if I physically prevented you from shopping at a store you do business with or is it only freedom when a majority persuades government to do the same thing?
  In todays society you may have a legal right to prevent Walmart from locating in your neighbourhood but I would hardly call that freedom. As to the fact that it may lower property values, does this priciple apply to everything we own as well.If I buy a painting worth 5 thousand dollars and then a well known art critic states publicly that the artist is over rated and subsequently the value of my painting drops can I sue the critic.
  If a business locates in your neighbourhood that you approve of and furthermore the value of your house increases significantly as a result should you be required to compensate the business owner for the increase in value to your property. Does this right you proclaim to have apply to people as well. Can you and your neighbours prevent certain ethnic groups from moving in to the neighbourhood on the basis that you do not approve of them, and that it may in your opinion, right or wrong,have a detrimental effect on property values. I can't see why you would object since it fits in nicely with your definition of freedom.

  Published: February 28, 2006 7:34 PM

• Dee

  Well, Laurence, China thanks you and Wal-Mart thanks you and thousands of small mom and pops and former mom and pops, small and mid-sized chains and many, many vendors and distributors don't thank you because you just gave Wal-Mart a great big advertisement under the guise of why not to shop there.
  
  As someone who still holds a Wal-Mart vendor # but got out of general merchandise WHOLESALING two years ago, I can tell you you are full of it. I can give you a long list of distributors who are no longer existant because of the way Wal-Mart changed the marketplace by its direct importing techniques. Remember when its slogan used to be 'Support America Made"??? (Suppressing laughter here) Well, while they were shoving their patriotism down our throats, they were building a huge network of manufacturers in China, Bengladesh, India, etc., that could cut out American distributors and manufacturers.

  Why do so many work there? So many work there because Wal-Mart has put so many other employers out of business that they are the country's largest or one of the largest employees, with over ONE MILLION of the poor, hardworking, ripped off minimum or close to minimum wage drones. Their employee turnover is unbelievable; I think (but haven't checked lately), it's almost half of their workforce every single year. If they're so HAPPY....why do they quit??? The people who don't work for the company are concerned about the lack of good health insurance for OVER ONE MILLION WAL-MART DRONES because they go on public health care assistance in many cases and we help pay Wal-Mart's insurance bill.
  

  Published: March 1, 2006 12:01 AM

• John Delano

  "Back it up, bud. You don't know how much you don't know. Apparently, you can't read either. Did I not just say that my covenants document was 2" thick and even discussed how it makes community standards? Criticize if you like, but at least make the criticism valid." - antilib

  Is the property being developed for retail use in your developement? If so, then you have a very valid claim to stop them if you are against WMT and it violates the 2 inch thick covenant. From the way you wrote it, It sounds like it isn't in your developement.

  I'm all for associations and developements with Architectural Review Boards. I just wish the ARBs knew what good design is. Most of the houses I see being built are very ugly. This includes those in the upper six figure range. They are often snout-houses with large blank walls and a hodgepodge of exterior materials that look awful togethor. Usually the front of the house has no stylistic relationship with the other sides of the house. But these are sold as "luxury".

  
  Stephen Gordon, you are correct that K-Mart is being treated unfairly with the tax abatements. That is the real problem, not the fact that WMT may get a tax break that all property owners should get. I also agree about the way these tax abatements are written. It is often a municipality paying for part of the developement costs with bonds that are to be paid for with the future taxes collected on the property. All property owners in the municipality ultimately garantee the payment of those bonds with their future property taxes. I saw a case of one of these types of deals here in Hammond, Indiana where a store bought the bonds itself, so it is not as bad.

  Published: March 1, 2006 1:05 AM

• John Delano

  Dee, without an income tax, employer provided health care would be a non issue, as it would likely be purchased by the individual rather than the employer in nearly all cases. Also, I don't think WMT deserves much blame for the existence of state funded health care.

  Published: March 1, 2006 1:18 AM

• Rob

  This IS a heated exchange! From what I can see so far Wal Mart is guilty of the following:

  Continually striving to provide its customers the most variety at the lowest prices. It arguably has been more successful at this than any retailer in history. All the complaints boil down to the methods used to achieve this end. Some methods involve purely private contracts (such as changing distribution networks) others involve unilateral state decrees (tax breaks and eminent domain, although no one has cited an actual Wal Mart ED case…given the press over New London v. Kelo I am skeptical that one actually exists). How is Wal Mart different from any other business or even individual in this regard? Antilib started this whole ball rolling with talking of his right to petition the state to unilaterally prevent Wal Mart from opening a store in his town. How can we then criticize Wal Mart for exercising the same “right�? Every Ma & Pa’s grocery routinely changes distributors to remain profitable, how is Wal Mart wrong to do the same? All of the criticisms leveled at Wal Mart are equally applicable to most businesses and citizens. What makes Wal Mart different is that they are successful and We hate that. If a business remains a single main street store front, we find that charming and honor the owners at Rotary club meetings. If that same business grows beyond this, at some point we think them evil profiteers and decry the owners at town hall meetings. That’s the
  

  Published: March 1, 2006 8:20 AM

• Dee

  Rob, everyone changes distributors, but Wal-Mart cuts them out and goes directly to China, Bengladesh, etc. I'm not going to educate you any further. If the Frontline stories, what you read in the papers and personal experiences of people like myself whose businesses have been hurt by Wal-Mart tactics in the marketplace aren't enough, you're hopeless. And don't forget the old Wal-Mart motto: "Support America Made"!!! LOL Me, I'm enjoying the new American way. I'll you try to figure out what that is. :)

  Published: March 1, 2006 10:47 AM

• Dee

  Rob, I admire chains like In and Out Burgers, a privately owned company who pays their managers far above the industry norm, treats them well, and can give any national chain a run for their money in their region. It's not the size that people despise about Wal-Mart, it is their business practices. You really sound like you have only a very superficial understanding of Wal-Mart. It's much like people despising Halliburton not because they are a huge, profitable company, but because the reasons they are war profiteering and how they got their contracts is questionable. We don't have to admire every company that is hugely successful. I undertand some are in awe of the biggest but a much better model for awe would be the best because of standards, morals and good business practices. It seems some people always feel that defending a successful beast allows them to ride it and share somehow in that success, or makes them seem 'smart' for 'going with the winner'. Instead, it takes them on a ride they find later they might not have wanted to take.

  Published: March 1, 2006 11:00 AM

• Roy W. Wright

  I, for one, am glad Wal-Mart abandoned its nationalist rhetoric.

  Published: March 1, 2006 11:00 AM

• Dee

  Rob, I admire chains like In and Out Burgers, a privately owned company who pays their managers far above the industry norm, treats them well, and can give any national chain a run for their money in their region. It's not the size that people despise about Wal-Mart, it is their business practices. You really sound like you have only a very superficial understanding of Wal-Mart. It's much like people despising Halliburton not because they are a huge, profitable company, but because the reasons they are war profiteering and how they got their contracts are questionable. We don't have to admire every company that is hugely successful. I understand some are in awe of the biggest but a much better model for awe would be the best because of standards, morals and good business practices. It seems some people always feel that defending a successful beast allows them to ride it and share somehow in that success, or makes them seem 'smart' for 'going with the winner'. Instead, it takes them on a ride they find later they might not have wanted to take. Americans want fast and easy, short-term instead of long-term. I can get my jeans at Wal-Mart for $15 bucks (or whatever..I don't shop there), but someone else is paying the price and that's usually some little laborer in Bengladesh. Of course, those who 'share in Wal-Mart's success' don't mind knowing that. It's all about them. Wal-Mart services them well, much like a prostitute sevices her johns.

  Published: March 1, 2006 11:04 AM

• Lisa Casanova

  Dee,
  My fiance has worked for a number of small businesses for the past several years, none of which were in competition with Wal-Mart. And yet, some still managed to go out of business, leaving him without a job. Of five small business jobs, you know how many offered health insurance? Zero. His health insurance comes out of our pocket. It's naive to act as though in the absence of Wal-Mart everyone would be working for mom-and-pop stores that are paradises of high wages and generous benefits. Small businesses are struggling and trying to make a buck just like everyone else. They pay their employees according to what makes sense for their business, not out of generosity. And like Wal-Mart, sometimes they treat you well and sometimes they screw you. If you don't like Wal-Mart, fine. They're hardly an angel of the free market and deserve a lot of the criticism they get. But don't think that if the world consisted of small businesses, no one would ever be underpaid, uninsured, fired, or screwed by their employer. Those things are hardly the exclusive province of Wal-Mart.

  Published: March 1, 2006 11:45 AM

• Roy W. Wright

  I can get my jeans at Wal-Mart for $15 bucks... but someone else is paying the price and that's usually some little laborer in Bengladesh.

  Wait, what? Your previous comments indicated that Wal-Mart is increasing job opportunities in Bangladesh. Please be consistent (or explain why having a job is a bad thing).

  Published: March 1, 2006 12:22 PM

• Entelechy

  To antlib et. al. who seem to favor collective responses to WalMart:
  

  
  To state it succintly, the reason libertarians object to the growing practice of public protests against development is that it constitutes an attempt to impose a covenant on a community retroactively. In other words, previously settled property arrangements (where one could NOT object to WalMart building a store on land it had freely purchased) are disrupted.
  

  
  The practical effect of this is to render all property rights subordinate to majority will. Effectively, all property rights in that community are transfered from the title holders to whomever in their community gets a kick out of attending city council meetings. This politicization of daily life is disruptive of the social order to an extent that WalMart could never even hope to match.

  Published: March 1, 2006 12:27 PM

• Rob

  Dee,

  I am pretty up on Wal Mart business practices. I worked for M&M Mars briefly and nearly 60% of the factory production (Hackettstown NJ plant) goes to Wal Mart. If Wal Mart decides to stop selling M&Ms, that plant may well shutdown. While I don’t want to see anyone out of work, no one at Mars is entitled to their jobs. Like any other business, Wal Mart seeks reduction in operating cost to remain profitable. And like any other business, the driver for their profitability is consumer satisfaction…the one thing they may be better at than anyone else on earth. They got to the size they are now by selling what people want to buy at prices they want to pay, plain and simple. As long as they keep selling M&Ms at agreeable prices, the Hackettstown plant will keep running and many of my friends will keep their jobs.

  The fact that they petition the state for favorable treatment disgusts me. But such behavior disgusts me just as much when it is done by folks who want to shut Wal Mart out of their town. I don’t boycott the businesses of these folks and I won’t boycott Wal Mart either. The reality is every consumer product in the world has some one somewhere in its production chain who brokered with the state to smile on their business, so I would quickly starve or freeze if I were to consistently boycott on this principle.

  And I absolutely do not buy into the idea that Americans are more deserving of employment than Chinese or Bangladeshis. If the businesses in these countries can give me what I want for the price I want, than they will have my patronage. Some bloke in Portland, Oregon is as much a stranger to me as some dude in Guangzhou, China, so how does common political geography by accident of birth give him a higher moral claim on my money than his Asian counterpart? This one really galls me.

  I state again, Wal Mart is fundamentally no different than any other business. It is their unrivaled success alone that makes them a target. That is why questions as to their business practices arose in the first place. No one questions Ma & Pa’s hardware, and I am sure no one questioned Sam Walton’s five & dime. It is only after Ma & Pa figure out how to be more efficient, open up a few new stores and change their name to the Home Depot that the questions arise.
  

  Published: March 1, 2006 1:11 PM

• Vince Daliessio

  The problem with some of what some of you are saying isn't that the people here are "Wal*Mart Lovers" - it is that many of the proposed solutions to the alleged problems are unlibertarian and increase government control and decrease property rights.

  Published: March 1, 2006 1:43 PM

• Francisco Torres

  [quote]If Wal Mart decides to stop selling M&Ms, that plant may well shutdown. [/quote]

  Boo hoo.

  Published: March 1, 2006 2:05 PM

• Yancey Ward

  Vince,

  It isn't the case that many of the proposed solutions are unlibertarian, but that all of the proposals are.

  Published: March 1, 2006 2:06 PM

• Rob

  Entelechy,

  Very well said.

  Published: March 1, 2006 2:12 PM

• John Delano

  Dee, Wal-Mart has been good to many in the Third World. Many of these people would be starving dirt poor without their manufacturing jobs. They wouldn't go back to an $80k a year + benefits job if the factories left.

  Rob, many of the candy manufacturing is moving to Canada because of the cane sugar tariffs.

  "I, for one, am glad Wal-Mart abandoned its nationalist rhetoric." - Roy W. Wright
  I agree. Some of their commercials now brag of their more efficient supply chain that Dee complains of. Remember the 2 liter bottle of ginger ale commercial they have?
  

  Published: March 1, 2006 2:26 PM

• Rob

  John,

  Mars has a bunch of plants in Canada, but nearly all the candy making (and all of the chocolate production) is in the US. The capital expense of relocating chocolate production is currently prohibitive. The machines involved are hideously expensive and the ability to co-generate power on site is limited by law in Canada.

  Published: March 1, 2006 2:42 PM

• joseph wait

  i am doing an informative speech about wal mart in speech class. i came here expecting something completely different. i actually would rather not go to wal mart because of the crowds and the bad customer service, but they always seem to have what i need, so i go there anyway. but seriously, the people that work there look like they really hate their job and the customers.

  Published: March 1, 2006 4:26 PM

• Rob

  Joseph,

  Not sure what you were expecting but you definetly got a lot of something here!

  The crowds and the distance from home are what keep me from going to Wal Mart every trip, but the prices are a powerful draw. If we need basically more than one item, I make the trip and brave the lines.

  My view is that no one likes their job. If jobs were fun we'd be standing in line waiting to buy tickets. I have a high tolerance for pissy employees because I don't really interact with any of them (flirting with attractive female employee's excepted). A smile is nice but in no way a requirement.

  Published: March 1, 2006 5:00 PM

• Sione Vatu

  Gentlemen

  Some time ago I asked "antilib" whether or not he supported the initiation of force against other people. At the time no answer was forthcoming. From his writings on this thread it would appear the answer is that he would initiate force. He certainly does support the initiation of force by a third party so long as it is initiated on his behalf, to secure his goals. In other words antilib is a collectivist when it suits his purposes and pretends to be an individualist when that suits his purposes. Consistency, therefore, is out. Don't expect it from him. You are not dealing with a man of principle.

  What antilib needs to be taught is the world as is, and the world as it would be with a libertarian economic system, is not all about protecting him from unwelcome occurrences (such as negative evaluation of his home by other people). There is no right to protect himself from things going "wrong" by initiating force against others. There is no right to compel them to provide tribute to insure or prevent his potential "loss", nor to force them to behave according to a particular prescription that suits his particular vested interest. He has no right to force others to underwrite the price he lusts for by forgoing their liberty or property. But that's a topic that's already been well covered on this site by others.

  antilib is concerned about the falling value of a not inconsiderable investment in his home. He frets that the non-IOF actions of other people may reduce the value of his investment. One wonders how he would react to the possibility that members of the Vatu might move in next door, certainly that would reduce the price he'd be likely to get for his home (a common enough occurrence which has played out many times previously). Here we have an antilib (and doesn't the tag give away the game?) who appears to accept that people be allowed to treat THEIR property as they wish but remains adamant they be prevented from actions, or existence, on THEIR property that MAY result in him experiencing loss of value. He "solves" the contradiction by determining that other people should be forced to behave as he requires in order to protect his interests. Simple!

  antilib explicitly accepts IOF as valid. He pretends this is reasonable and practical; a dishonesty. The next step, employing third parties (government) to force people to behave as he wants, is not difficult for him to make, although it is much harder to justify (actually it is unjustifiable but he does not wish his chain of logic to be examined so he skips quickly past the issue). His demand of all other people is that they not be free to do ANYTHING that affects his property value. What we have here is the neighbour as a collectivist totalitarian with his "I want the neighbourhood and everyone else's property within it maintained according to MY taste". Too bad about private property then. Nothing can be private unless it is his. This conceit leads to an embrace of collectivism, never liberty.

  What is implicit within antilib's requirement that his property value remains high is that other people be directed to value it highly by whatever means. He wants any buyer to value the property highly as that would make him happy. Since it is difficult to get away with open promotion of the idea of directly forcing potential buyers to value the property as highly as he wants or of forcing someone to buy the property when he decides to quit it, he demands the next available options. Control the neighbours. This leads to consideration of how he deals with the wider scene.

  What would antilib think about a sharp rise in interest rates leading to a property market slump or even an inability on his part to maintain repayments on his mortgage? A forced sale and a considerable loss for him would be on the cards. It is likely he supports continued inflation of the money supply by the powers that be. Just so long as everyone gets to bear that burden a little and just so long as antilib doesn't realise a loss on his investment. Another risk; in the event that the house was rendered valueless, by termite attack say, we can be assured that antilib would demand all others be forced to pay him out (for top dollar) of his rotted investment. "My loss. You pay." Makes one wonder what other governmental and collectivist policies antilib is promoting and supporting to keep his interests protected. All of it expressions of force against other people.

  I know it is easy to cast aspersions on brothels, bottleshops, pubs, factories, retailers and mines as neighbours. antilib certainly does this and states how he wants to keep them out. I'd like you all to consider for a minute how this also affects people like the Vatu. antilibs in real life want to keep such neighbours out as well. And not just Vatu. Think on where that is leading...

  In the real world there is always the risk that an investment can go wrong. That can happen today and it certainly could happen in a libertarian economy. For instance, I imagine there were people who would have been concerned about the falling value of their investment in their aviation piston engine stocks (eg Wright Aeronautical). Would it be correct for the investors in the manufacturers of newer technology be forced to forgo some of their stock or dividend to recompense the piston engine investors? Why not prevent companies from selling product that reduce piston engine sales? That way the investment in piston engine manufacturing is protected. But who would enforce this? Of course the antilibs amongst us would vigorously lobby the government. There is that fundamental dishonesty again; the wish for profit but at the risk of everyone else (a typical part-time "individualist" who seeks insurance by full-time collectivism). Very dishonest indeed (the Matai always taught that socialists can never be honest- "They are all liars, all, every one").

  Now antilibs are always claiming that their situation, investment, activity, run of bad luck etc is different- special- exceptional- a market failure. They are most vocal when they perceive a situation is not going as they'd prefer. That's when they want other people to be forced to bail them out and so they whine on like an unstoppable police siren. In this case antilib claims special difficulties in selling his home. He'll offer that as the justification for an IOF against other people. "It's too difficult to sell my home" or "It's not fair that I have to sell at a loss" or "It's too capital intensive an investment on my part that I should face such risk" and so on. If you examine the argument it comes down to this, "It's too hard for me to assume my own risks. I want someone else to pay when things go against me." He mortgages everyone's freedom with his personal needs. He should be taught to understand that his wealth or lack of it are not a justification for the destruction of liberty. He should realise that his needs do not force an obligation against anyone else's freedom or their property. His needs are exclusively his, not theirs. Their freedom, property (and needs) are exclusively theirs, not his.

  How ironic that the value of antilib's home relies on what remnant of the population observe the non-IOF principle and to what extent they do it.

  --

  Despite the rhetoric antilib is clearly not here to learn anything. He's deliberately obtuse when it suits and designs his arguments for the purpose of petty point scoring and riling. The name tag gives him away. Gentlemen, think about it.

  Consider. It is to be highly recommend that should a person wish to learn he hit the books. That's how to learn (especially the basics), not by arguing for the hell of it. On the Von Mises site are the writings of Von Mises. Here we also find the works of Rothbard and others. All for free. No cost but the time to read them and think about them. It is to be recommended that people such as antilib (if they really are honest about learning) study them closely. You'll find each and every one of his objections and arguments anticipated, analysed and answered. So will he. Go see.

  Sione

  Published: March 1, 2006 5:25 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Sione,

  I agree; especially on the notion that it pays to study the works of the great Austrians before engaging in so much argumentation.

  I find often that people think they disagree with an Austrian or libertarian position, when in fact they are simply ill-equipped to grasp it in the first place. And this is not necessarily due to an intellectual lacking, but due to an unwillingness to work to acquire basic tools: economic knowledge and a hang for applying logical thought.

  The problem is they don’t appreciate the treasure of information that sites such as mises.org make available and so they don’t exploit it. That’s a pretty sad situation.

  Published: March 1, 2006 6:15 PM

• Dee

  You've all convinced me.

  Wal-Mart is the best thing since sliced bread.

  And remember: "Support AmericaMade". LOL

  Published: March 1, 2006 11:29 PM

• John Delano

  or support "Sold in America"

  Published: March 2, 2006 12:22 AM

• Rob

  Dee,

  I knew we would ;)

  Rob

  Published: March 2, 2006 5:45 AM

• Sione

  Paul

  Yes. It is impressive what's available on the Mises site and disappointing that more people don't bother exploiting it.

  Sometimes people enjoy arguing so much they forget all about learning.

  --

  From reading this and other sites I've discovered I'm a bit light on Hoppe- so off to buy some books we do go. Still, I always enjoy Reisman and Mises. Too good to put down sometimes.

  Talofa!

  Sione

  Published: March 2, 2006 6:09 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Hoppe is something else man! I didn't think i'd run in to an author i'd enjoy as much as Rothbard, but there he is. I've almost finished reading "Democracy the God That Failed" to my kids and i have to say it is outrageous! Outrageously spot on.

  On top of that, he's so politically incorrect we always get a good several laughs during the reading. Can't really say enough about it.

  Published: March 2, 2006 6:21 PM

• Dee

  Southern Paul, is that you?? Rob, I think Wal-Mart's phony 'Support AmericaMade' campaign while they were bustling around in Asia putting together a 'Screw AmericaMade' program indicates just how credible they are.

  Still, they are just the best thing since sliced bread. No doubt about it. You misunderstood something I said earlier about Pakistani workers. Yes, they give them jobs. No, the jobs are not anything that gives them even close to a decent lifestyle. If you really care (which alot of people don't seem to if it doesn't hurt them personally...the 'American Way') there are lots of articles written about this and programs such as Frontline have shown it as well.

  Still, Wal-Mart is just teeeeeee-riffic!!! I also especially like the fact that the leader items are cheaper there but other things aren't.

  And no one has commented on why their employee turnover is close to half their workforce? Could it be that these people who work for Wal-Mart are just spoil-sports? Has to be, because we all know that Wal-Mart corporate is teeeeeeriffic...don't we??

  And why all the crying because Wal-Mart gets opposition when coming into certain neighborhoods where alot of residents don't want them? Don't the residents have the right to make their views known; what about our dear First Amendment?

  As a small retailer to be, there are plenty of places I haven't been allowed to go into for one reason or another, whether zoning, or a competitor writing me out, or maybe the landlord just doesn't like the way I comb my hair.

  These arguments pro Wal-Mart bullying and buying and tax incentive-ing their way to the top are so lame. But I have to admit, you have certainly more than convinced me that Wal-Mart is, indeed, simply teeeeeeriffffffic!!!

  And I won't forget it, believe me! As for the Mars candy argument and all similar ones...if not for Wal-Mart our little plant, our big plant, our little factory, our little berg, would all close down and people would lose jobs: Honestly folks, they were here before Wal-Mart and they sell to someone if all the Wal-Mart executives suddenly went on a fateful hunting trip with Cheney never to return again.

  In other words: Life would go on.

  If you don't believe it, then stick an IV in your arm and run the tubing to Bentonville, AR, and suck up the corporate sewage to continue your life....if you just can't live without Wal-Mart.

  Published: March 2, 2006 6:49 PM

• Dee

  Here is a recent article on former and current Wal-Mart employees talking about how inadequate Wal-Mart benefits/pay are.
  http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/business/3691900.html

  
  For those who will say they should work somewhere else if they don't like it, think back to the argument about the Mars factory and how it might well shut down without Wal-Mart. It's either yes or no...either we are just so dependent on Wal-Mart we've got to have them and, in that case, finding other jobs must not be that easy, or they're irrelevant, in which case the 'we'd shut down except for Wal-Mart' arguments go up in smoke. It also reminds me of those who tell wives they should leave a marriage where they are being beaten or prostitutes (yes I use that illustration talking about Wal-Mart often) should quit hooking if their pimps are cruel. Of course they should...but does that mean the brutal husbands and pimps should have the right to beat them?? It's known as 'blaming the victim'. And, if the employees do stay, can they be likened to the wife or prostitute who stays because they need the financial support/money?

  Published: March 2, 2006 7:02 PM

• Rob

  Dee,

  Wal Mart is terrific in as much as they sell lots of brand name stuff for less then their competition. I have no loyalty to them beyond this.

  The idea that they force their way into communities that don't want them is silly. They did not become the most successful retailer in history by putting stores where no one wanted to patronize them. And the first ammendment don't enter into it. It is not about assembly or redress, it is about state control of private property. Seeking to have the state stop a Wal Mart from being built just that. Besides the simple fact that folks resort to this just means that there are more people who want the Wal Mart in the town than not (see my point above).

  Mars is hurting. They have lost market share in candy every year since 1991. Personally I think loading the NJ plant for Wal Mart is foolish (Cleaveland Tenn is the other M&M plant) but I am not a Mars (it is still a family owned company). The potential of that plant closing has been in the air for 10 years, for a number of reasons not the least of which is the cost of doing business in NJ. Wal Mart is THE reason it stays open.

  I have worked many countries in Asia and I am intimate with living standards over there. American plant operations are the highest paying semi-skilled and tech jobs available in most of these countries. It only makes sense because the firms want the best labor they can get so they outbid local firms by a wide margin. Every employee at the Golden gulf Hotel in Shantou dreamed of landing a job at the Kodak plant. Experiencing this first hand almost makes me want to give Asian companies my business just to spite whiny Americans (and I don't mean you personally). We truly don't know how good we have it here. The worst thing we can do to folks in poor countries is withold business from them.

  Back to my original point; Wal Mart is just acting like most other companies, for better or worse. Most other firms will seek government privilage if they can (would you turn down a tax break or subsidy?) I would like to say I am perfectly principled but I work for a defense contractor because they pay me well and jobs in my former industry (fiber optics) are scarce. That's right, my salary is entirely drawn from your taxes at this point. I routinely complain about this but my wife and six kids have much louder voices.
  

  Published: March 2, 2006 7:38 PM

• John Delano

  Dee, Wal-Mart isn't "teeeeeeriffffffic!!!". That is the reason that article was written. But rather than compete with them, you want me to support using the state to protect you from Asian competitors. Yes, we know their lifestyles have much to be desired over there, but why should I care more about some guy I know only as 'Dee' than I do some Asian who is probably being paid above market wages and would sink into deep poverty if you had your way.

  Who really wants to hurt the poor of Asia? People like me? or people like you who really don't seem to give a damn what happens to them, as long as you have your business protected from their competition?

  BTW, you keep throwing up this nationalist rhetoric, but that isn't going to get much sympathy here.

  Published: March 2, 2006 9:47 PM

• Dee

  First of all, Rob, I happen to know a specific incidence about 40 miles from me where Wal-Mart did force its way into a community that not only didn't want them but fought them for months. Hemet, California. Google it and see what you find. I also have a photo of the side of their huge supercenter built DIRECTLY across a narrow RESIDENTIAL street from homes with small children, where the neighbors say delivery trucks fly up and down now, endangering their families. That's just one instance. The City Council was responsible for this..much as our Congress and President are responsible for things many of us disapprove of.

  John, I'm a woman, not a 'guy' and I'm not in the wholesaling business anymore. I couldn't stomach what Wal-Mart was doing and I couldn't stomach anymore sitting in an glass cubicle in Bentonville being told by a buyer how much I should be paying and how much I should be charging for my products. I chose to get out.

  I'm not throwing up 'nationalist rhetoric'. I'm throwing up Wal-Mart's former nationalist rhetoric from their Support AmericaMade days.
  As to which of us cares more about workers in Bengladesh, I'd say me. You have talked yourself into thinking Wal-Mart helps them have a better life and I know better. That's the difference. Yours is no better an argument than the one that the Mars factory might close if Wal-Mart quit buying M&M's. If you really want Bengladesh workers to have a good life, you'd support import programs that would help them make a decent wage.

  You on the pro Wal-Mart side of this argument seem to feel that Wal-Mart=any business (any business would take tax cuts, any business would...). Wal-Mart is not ANY business anymore than the United States is ANY country. With size and power come more responsibility but, instead, just as with the U.S. government, we see in Wal-Mart less responsibility toward its workers, again with no one responding to the almost half the workforce turnover issue.

  But, go ahead, keep trying. I've lived the Wal-Mart saga...I started way back in the days when they had their program for small entrepreneurs with the universities where they evaluated your items. I spent years going from that, to local distribution, to regional, to national. I flew the little commuters planes from Dallas to Bentonville...I sat in the glass cubicles and worked my butt off, to be insulted, derided and told how to conduct my business. That's why now I'm doing something that is controlled by Wal-Mart. I could tell you examples of horror stories from big companies like Rubbermaid and Vlasic Pickles...but you wouldn't want to hear them.

  You are 'libertarians'...freedom for all, freedom for all, freedom for all. Well, Wal-Mart's freedom ends where my nose begins and no one can cry FIRE! in a crowded theater. And no man or company, not even you Libertarians (those who are) are islands. :)

  Published: March 3, 2006 1:04 AM

• Dee

  "now I'm doing something that is controlled by Wal-Mart"

  NOT. ;)

  Published: March 3, 2006 1:07 AM

• xteve

  I've heard the Vlasic Pickle story. No one forced them to agree to Walmart's terms. They took a gamble & lost.

  Published: March 3, 2006 4:01 AM

• Dee

  xteve, you're all heart. And at the same time, I'll bet you'd back up that Mars would likely have to close a factory if they didn't play Wal-Mart's game. Wal-Mart holds its' vendors hostage. You either have to believe they have the power to close down a MARS factory and strongarm a Vlasic Pickles because the other option is going out of business or getting hit hard or you don't. Which is it?

  It's people like you who enable the Wal-Mart's and the George Bush's of this world. Congrats!

  Published: March 3, 2006 8:45 AM

• Dee

  xteve, you're all heart. And at the same time, I'll bet you'd back up that Mars would likely have to close a factory if they didn't play Wal-Mart's game. Wal-Mart holds its' vendors hostage. You either have to believe they have the power to close down a MARS factory and strongarm a Vlasic Pickles because the other option is going out of business or getting hit hard or you don't. Which is it?

  It's people like you who enable the Wal-Mart's and the George Bush's of this world. Congrats!

  Published: March 3, 2006 8:46 AM

• xteve

  "Strongarm" & "holds hostage" is being melodramatic.

  Despite Walmarts faults (yes, I'll concede it has faults) it's under no obligation to buy anything from anyone at anytime. Any company that blames its customers for its failure will get little sympathy from me, even if that customer is Walmart. There could be scores of reasons why that company fails.

  "It's people like you who enable the Wal-Mart's and the George Bush's of this world."

  What does Bush have to do with it? You don't know me. Seriously. How dare you.

  Published: March 3, 2006 9:12 AM

• Lisa Casanova

  Dee,
  Part of what you said doesn't seem to make sense. You spoke of Wal-Mart forcing their way into a community. Presumably, if no one in the community wanted Wal-Mart there, no one would shop there. Why would Wal-Mart locate in a town where no one would patronize their store? The fact that they located there suggests that enough people in the community were willing to shop there, even if others objected to the presence of a Wal-Mart in their town becuase of traffic, aesthetic reasons, etc. Whatever else you think of Wal-Mart, they make a lot of money selling a lot of stuff, and it doesn't seem like they would do that by locating in a community where everyone truly hates Wal-Mart so much that they would never shop there. And if that's true, Wal-Mart can't put any other store out of business so there's no place else to shop (as I have heard claimed), since no one would go to Wal-Mart in the first place. It would sit there empty, go bankrupt, and shut down. So how exactly does Wal-Mart force its way in? Or does it just locate in a town where lots of people want to shop there and others want to stop them from doing so?

  Published: March 3, 2006 10:34 AM

• Yancey Ward

  Dee,

  You keep bringing up the turnover in WalMart's employees. So what? People are free to come and go as they please. If the turnover is really, really bad for WalMart, then they are just being shortsighted, but, again, so what? It is not my problem, it is not your problem, and even if it bothered me in the least, what right do I have to force WalMart to adopt policies that would reduce turnover?

  Published: March 3, 2006 11:00 AM

• Dee

  First of all, on Wal-Mart's right to be anywhere if some people want to shop there. Would you give the same right to a strip joint..to be in any community as long as someone wanted to come and watch women or men undress? Then why are there restrictions? We know there are always people who would go in any community. The reason is that they are looked upon as a negative by people in the community, as is Wal-Mart, for a number of reasons including lowering wages in competing industries, traffic problems, and their lack of support for American manufacturers (if there are any left).

  And, again the attitude that the employees don't matter, only what's good with Wal-Mart.

  It's amazing what people in this country think is valuable these days. It truly has become a corpocracy. We've seen that in the Iraq 'war' where the only ones who have benefitted are large corporations such as defense contractors and Halliburton and those who own their stock or get paid residuals from past employment, such as our Vice President.

  Published: March 3, 2006 3:13 PM

• xteve

  Halliburton forces its way into communities against people's will. I doubt you'll get any argument there. But to imply that's similar to Walmart, that's where you've lost me.

  & I don't think anyone here has said that employees don't matter, or that only what's good for Walmart matters.

  Published: March 3, 2006 3:26 PM

• Rob

  Dee,

  Wal Mart does not hold Mars hostage. Mars and Wal Mart have a voluntary agreement. The Mars family keeps the NJ plant open for mainly brand image and sentimental reasons (it's the flagship original M&M plant located next to the HQ)...it has been the least profitable candy plant in their stable for better than 2 decades. Wal Mart basically allows them to indulge their romance and save face by not closing the plant across the lawn from the family offices. This is the majority employee view BTW, not my lay Austrian analysis or libertarian cheerleading.
  But of course no one actually fears that Wal Mart will stop selling M&Ms.

  Employee turnover is high in the retail industry in general. I don't know if Wal Mart is better or worse than average in this regard, but it is very easy to see why retail employee retention is poor ...the pay is low and the work is arduous. Who wouldn't jump at a better opportunity?
  

  Published: March 3, 2006 3:55 PM

• drs

  If a property owner wants to start a strip club on his property that is his affair, unless he is bound by a preexisting agreement that says that he won't. When one starts dictating what, outside of initiation of violence, can and can't be done with private property, she opens the door for the most horrible atrocities.

  As to this notion of "corpocracy", if you are implying that a cabal of big businesses is running the show, I think you are off the mark. Big corporations have indeed become part of the power structure in the modern state, and deserve a great deal of blame for allowing themselves to be corrupted by the state, but they are not the ones pulling the strings. They get special priveleges in exchange for providing the state with revenue or aiding it in its regimentation of society, but when push comes to shove the men in jackboots still answer to the political class. I think that the idea of a group of evil businesses runnin the show is popular with those on the Left because it allows them to think, "well if we just removed the economic royalists from the government it could effectively solve all of our problems. It's greedy businessmen who cause the world's problems, not the good people at (name your government department)" Sorry, but aside from receiving stolen goods (eminent domain, subsidies), and advocating an increase in the minimum wage, Wal-Mart has done nothing to deserve the rancor thrown at it. While these abuses are bad in and of themselves, anti-market socialistic criticisms of the company are exponentially worse.

  Published: March 3, 2006 3:58 PM

• Manuel Lora

  Another reason to not like wal-mart is its photo service. I just got some film developed and scanned (yes, I have several cameras, including an archaic film camera) there and the results are awful. It varies, however, from place to place. But this time it was just terrible. Scratches, blurred scans, low contrast prints. We'll see if I can get a refund and pay only for the negs.

  Digital prints from there are just ok.

  Published: March 3, 2006 4:19 PM

• Dee

  I wish you would reread your comments. The employees are given little value and Wal-Mart is being defend vociferously. This incredible awe and protection of the largest company in the world, one who has turned the retail marketplace into a flea market, who is rife with lawsuits, who definitely pushes its way into hostile communities, including residential areas (as in Hemet), who bullies vendors, who is charged with working employees off the clock, sexual discrimination, using illegal alien workers via a subcontractor (don't say they had no clue..please)...it is quite amazing. Of course, alot of what people in this country defend these days is a complete puzzle to me.

  I am thinking that the 'then they came for me' scenario will be the final nail in the coffin for Wal-Mart cheerleaders. No one is secure, either from this government nor from the ripple effect of corporations like Wal-Mart.

  The ones who see it are the ones who are trying to prepare. We will all be selling eachother lattes, insurance and financial services, or taking eachother's temps and administering meds.
  An economy without manufacturing is a sick economy.

  Published: March 4, 2006 1:04 AM

• Roy W. Wright

  Can we please stop feeding the troll now? I should think her posts' lack of maturity and substance speaks for itself at this point.

  Published: March 4, 2006 1:59 AM

• J

  I don't get it. Even an article on reasons not to shop at Walmart garners over 125 responses?

  What do you people want? I am beginning to suspect it is to only have your own voice heard.

  Walmart people leave the anti-Walmart people alone and anti-Walmart people leave the Walmart people to their own devices.

  We can all get alone all you have to do is just realize what it is you want out of a super market and go get it and the two paths shall never meet.

  Published: March 4, 2006 2:17 AM

• J

  That is...we can all get along...

  Published: March 4, 2006 2:19 AM

• drs

  Who cares if someone hires illegal workers? As long as immigrants don't seek to line up at the trough, I welcome them with open arms. If a company engages in sexual discrimination don't shop there, but a firm has the right to discriminate against anyone for any reason, if it's a stupid reason it will come back and bite them in the end. You really make too much of Wal-Mart, remember A&P grocery? They were the Wal-Mart of their day. Wal-Mart will likely not stay on top forever, in fact allying themselves with the state might well prove their undoing as it could make them fat and lazy.

  I think the majority of criticism toward Wal-Mart is silly and far worse in the long run than anything Wal-Mart has done. Wal-Mart has gamed the system, well so have most other companies. This does not excuse it, but it prompts one to wonder why there aren't frontline specials about rent-seeking in general. The reason is simple, the overwhelming majority of those who criticize Wal-Mart can't do so for good reason without being hypocrites. Wal-Mart's actual misdeeds are the instances where they team up with a government to get what they want without respecting the laws of voluntary exchange. Since every non-libertarian by definition upholds the right of the jackboot class to ignore voluntary exchange and property, their complaints about Wal-Mart doing so would ring quite hollow. They target Wal-Mart because they feel they can portray it as an example of the market run amock. It is freedom and capitalism that they hate.

  I also must take umbrage with the idea that "this government" is somehow unique in its iniquity. If Gore or Kerry had been elected things would not be much different, they are every bit as power-hungry as the current bandit leader. Sure they might heap largesse on different groups but these are only differences of nuance. The government is like a play with a really bad script, it doesn't matter who directs or performs, it still sucks.

  When Wal-Mart accepts government favors, I will criticize them, and they will deserve it. But in a contest between this company and the ideals of the majority of its critics, Wal-Mart is deserving of vociferous support. Whatever their sins they don't pose one one-thousandth of the threat to the public that rabid anti-market ideology does.

  Published: March 4, 2006 2:23 AM

• Dee

  Interesting Roy, a troll? Someone let me know this was the topic here and it's a topic I'm passionate about. Your post is inane and useless. I'm gone.

  I love it. A blog is here to discuss an article. We discuss an article, and the elite begin critiquing why we do it.

  Do they want comment or not? If so, I'm not interested anymore. It turns out this is just another group of pack animals who follow a line the world must tow or they are trolls.

  As Paul Harvey says: "Good day."

  Published: March 4, 2006 12:58 PM

• Paul Edwards

  I tend to agree with drs.

  Good day. :)

  Published: March 4, 2006 2:03 PM

• drs

  Dee
  One guy says something about trolls and you pack it up? As for this group of pack animals thing, that is nonsense. The majority of the people who are here hold a principle that it is wrong to initiate the use of violence to get one's way, if the application of this principle leads them to disagree with you that hardly makes them pack animals, it means that they're consistent. Godspeed.

  Published: March 4, 2006 7:40 PM

• Adem Kupi

  hmm...

  There's a lot of signal, and a lot of noise here.

  At this stage of the game it is difficult to separate the "good" businesses who only accept government favors because they have to stay competitive, and the "bad" ones who actively seek more favors in order to improve their competitive position.

  The road socialism thing is a good point here. But one is still left asking, if road socialism helps, why don't all the businesses do it? (It's not that I don't have some idea, I'm just saying this is the relevant question to go further in this line of questioning.)

  At some point, the corruption of aggression infects all areas of society. There are no clean hands at the top. This is precisely what makes libertarianism supposedly unique is that we can say "a pox on all your houses".
  Ceteris is no longer paribus. There really isn't much of a market left here or anywhere else. Perhaps between states.

  So it's hard to say that Wal-mart is good, or heroic or even a nice peaceful organization. Yet, we're all buying goods made in sweatshops. And those factories are only sweatshops because of intervention.

  The root. The root is what must be assaulted. To do otherwise is to miss the point, and we could argue forever about the rest.
  These things exist because of the need for Government to expand their power and influence, and the desire of Fractional Reserve Bankers to do the same.

  Why is Wal-mart price competitive?
  Because it is too expensive to make things in America, and other businesses can't get funding to start a Wal-mart, version 2.0.
  Why does Wal-mart squeeze the hell out of their workers?
  Because those workers don't have other businesses to work for, because regulations have killed them off.
  Because the marginal productivity of those workers, once you take out the theft by Taxation and Fed and workplace regulations, is not very high. Without this theft, they wouldn't be getting squeezed at the same rate of pay and benefits.

  Does Wal-mart lobby for favorable treatment by the State (in all its forms)?
  To the extent that they do, they are villains.
  To the extent that they don't, they're just a business, like any other.

  Now the fact that Wal-mart is doing so well is IMO, given the society we live in, prima facie evidence that they are using the state to prosper.

  Not that it is wrong to do well. But it is wrong to actively use the state to get there.
  Or to make a more blunt analogy - I would suspect that any prosperous man in the USSR in the 70s or prior was a Leninist bastard.

  Published: March 24, 2006 1:25 AM

• Accidental Tourist

  for a commentator at what appears to be an intellectual think tank, Mr. Vance certainly has chosen the low-brow argument for why one should not shop at walmart. His child-like dismissal of the most cogent and relevant charges against walmart betray his extremely limited world view. To him there are only two kinds of people: capitalists and socialists. There is no room for improvement upon capitalism. If you criticize any aspect of it you must be a socialist.

  Well, I'm sorry to have to be the parent who tells his 15 year-old son there is no easter bunny, but the fact is the world is not so simple. Free-market capitalism may sound great in theory, but so did Communism. Both systems have resulted in extreme abuse of power and exploitation of the masses. You can stick your fingers in your ears and scream that it isn't true, but that won't make it so.

  I can only pray that my future google searches will never bring me back to this place of close-mindedness. good day to you all.

  Published: November 16, 2006 8:39 AM

• Brianna

  I do not shop at Wal Mart, primarily because it feels cheap and crass. Leaving Wal Mart makes me want to shower.

  Published: January 2, 2007 5:22 PM

• Brianna

  I do not shop at Wal Mart, primarily because it feels cheap and crass. Leaving Wal Mart makes me want to shower.

  Published: January 2, 2007 5:22 PM