The US is one of the freest markets in the world and you expect me to believe that the problem is the lack of freedom? Please, if you want to be more "free" whatever that means I think you can but I predict just more crony capitalism in your horizon since that's what it inevitably leads to. It's like giving a wolf free roam over a herd of sheep. free to you means only 40% servitude, cool, i disagree. free to you means government picking winners and losers, cool, i disagree. free to you is government taking private land to give it to private companies, cool, i disagree. free is the banning of goods people like and use and are cheaper than the alternatives, goods like the incandescent light-bulb, for ideological reasons, cool, i disagree. free to you is entities accumulating as much money as they want and influencing the market without any entitlement, cool, i disagree. free to you is huge economic conglomerates easily crushing the small guy without much consequence, cool, i disagree. free to you is companies without any ecological compromise, cool, i disagree. free to you is economic powers taking advantage of their workers, cool, i disagree. Etc, etc, etc. Anybody can play that game[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] yea if i made 40% more i would so be in a worse position, the tax should be 100% then i would be able to better my lot in life like a pro
surrealnumber5
6 Waltons are wealthier than 30% of Americans
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]free to you means only 40% servitude, cool, i disagree. free to you means government picking winners and losers, cool, i disagree. free to you is government taking private land to give it to private companies, cool, i disagree. free is the banning of goods people like and use and are cheaper than the alternatives, goods like the incandescent light-bulb, for ideological reasons, cool, i disagree. free to you is entities accumulating as much money as they want and influencing the market without any entitlement, cool, i disagree. free to you is huge economic conglomerates easily crushing the small guy without much consequence, cool, i disagree. free to you is companies without any ecological compromise, cool, i disagree. free to you is economic powers taking advantage of their workers, cool, i disagree. Etc, etc, etc. Anybody can play that game free to me is only free, free to use your person and property to whatever ends you wish as long as it does not infringe on other people and their use of their property. if a person accumulates all the money in the world and never breaches another persons freedom.... good for them, they can still only sell to people willing to buy and buy what people are willing to sell. my freedoes not advocate force, yours does.[QUOTE="kuraimen"] The US is one of the freest markets in the world and you expect me to believe that the problem is the lack of freedom? Please, if you want to be more "free" whatever that means I think you can but I predict just more crony capitalism in your horizon since that's what it inevitably leads to. It's like giving a wolf free roam over a herd of sheep.kuraimen
free to you is entities accumulating as much money as they want and influencing the market without any entitlement, cool, i disagree. free to you is huge economic conglomerates easily crushing the small guy without much consequence, cool, i disagree. free to you is companies without any ecological compromise, cool, i disagree. free to you is economic powers taking advantage of their workers, cool, i disagree. Etc, etc, etc. Anybody can play that game free to me is only free, free to use your person and property to whatever ends you wish as long as it does not infringe on other people and their use of their property. if a person accumulates all the money in the world and never breaches another persons freedom.... good for them, they can still only sell to people willing to buy and buy what people are willing to sell. my freedoes not advocate force, yours does. Of course yours advocates force. How do you define "never breaching another persons freedom". When Walmart becomes huge and makes other smaller guys go broke by manipulating prices doesn't it breaches people's freedom? Having a healthy environment is also not breaching people's freedom for a healthy life? Making people highly dependent is not breaching people's freedom. The definition of freedom people like you use is highly naive, it doesn't take into account how much power big economic conglomerates have over our lives. You think that the market magically regulates itself and that it will somehow work like a meritocracy which is the most impressive example of utopical naivety I have seen. I support less government too but not at the expense of giving corporations free pass to do with the world as they please. Big corporate powers are as bad as big government powers and more often than not they are the same.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] free to you means only 40% servitude, cool, i disagree. free to you means government picking winners and losers, cool, i disagree. free to you is government taking private land to give it to private companies, cool, i disagree. free is the banning of goods people like and use and are cheaper than the alternatives, goods like the incandescent light-bulb, for ideological reasons, cool, i disagree.
surrealnumber5
That depends if you see limiting choice (as a consumer) as limiting freedom.How is an entity influencing another entity to produce goods that it will buy through a demonstrated willingness to purchase those goods in any way counter to freedom? Coca-Cola (the previous example) doesn't have to produce goods that Wal-Mart will buy, they are free to choose not to do so. They are equally free to offer goods which Wal-Mart will buy.
thegerg
free to you is entities accumulating as much money as they want and influencing the market without any entitlement, cool, i disagree. free to you is huge economic conglomerates easily crushing the small guy without much consequence, cool, i disagree. free to you is companies without any ecological compromise, cool, i disagree. free to you is economic powers taking advantage of their workers, cool, i disagree. Etc, etc, etc. Anybody can play that gameHow is an entity influencing another entity to produce goods that it will buy through a demonstrated willingness to purchase those goods in any way counter to freedom? Coca-Cola (the previous example) doesn't have to produce goods that Wal-Mart will buy, they are free to choose not to do so. They are equally free to offer goods which Wal-Mart will buy. You confound freedom with limited choices. Choosing one course of action because it is the less worse is not the same as freedom. It is like someone pointing a gun to your head and telling you that they'll shoot if you don't become their slave. Sure you have a choice but the choices suck. And once you become their slave you call that freedom? Freedom is the most overused and most manipulative term ever created. There's no much true freedom in the capitalist version of it.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] free to you means only 40% servitude, cool, i disagree. free to you means government picking winners and losers, cool, i disagree. free to you is government taking private land to give it to private companies, cool, i disagree. free is the banning of goods people like and use and are cheaper than the alternatives, goods like the incandescent light-bulb, for ideological reasons, cool, i disagree.
thegerg
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]free to you means only 40% servitude, cool, i disagree. free to you means government picking winners and losers, cool, i disagree. free to you is government taking private land to give it to private companies, cool, i disagree. free is the banning of goods people like and use and are cheaper than the alternatives, goods like the incandescent light-bulb, for ideological reasons, cool, i disagree. free to you is entities accumulating as much money as they want and influencing the market without any entitlement, cool, i disagree. free to you is huge economic conglomerates easily crushing the small guy without much consequence, cool, i disagree. free to you is companies without any ecological compromise, cool, i disagree. free to you is economic powers taking advantage of their workers, cool, i disagree. Etc, etc, etc. Anybody can play that gameIf the little guy is getting crushed....it's because that is what consumers want. And a consumer has the right to choose how to allocate their resources.[QUOTE="kuraimen"] The US is one of the freest markets in the world and you expect me to believe that the problem is the lack of freedom? Please, if you want to be more "free" whatever that means I think you can but I predict just more crony capitalism in your horizon since that's what it inevitably leads to. It's like giving a wolf free roam over a herd of sheep.kuraimen
[QUOTE="thegerg"]That depends if you see limiting choice (as a consumer) as limiting freedom. Is Walmart the only place to buy Coke products? Then how is the choice limited?How is an entity influencing another entity to produce goods that it will buy through a demonstrated willingness to purchase those goods in any way counter to freedom? Coca-Cola (the previous example) doesn't have to produce goods that Wal-Mart will buy, they are free to choose not to do so. They are equally free to offer goods which Wal-Mart will buy.
Engrish_Major
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]free to me is only free, free to use your person and property to whatever ends you wish as long as it does not infringe on other people and their use of their property. if a person accumulates all the money in the world and never breaches another persons freedom.... good for them, they can still only sell to people willing to buy and buy what people are willing to sell. my freedoes not advocate force, yours does. Of course yours advocates force. How do you define "never breaching another persons freedom". When Walmart becomes huge and makes other smaller guys go broke by manipulating prices doesn't it breaches people's freedom? Having a healthy environment is also not breaching people's freedom for a healthy life? Making people highly dependent is not breaching people's freedom. The definition of freedom people like you use is highly naive, it doesn't take into account how much power big economic conglomerates have over our lives. You think that the market magically regulates itself and that it will somehow work like a meritocracy which is the most impressive example of utopical naivety I have seen. I support less government too but not at the expense of giving corporations free pass to do with the world as they please. Big corporate powers are as bad as big government powers and more often than not they are the same. competing for other peoples voluntary exchange is not force, and destroying the utility of other peoples property infringes on their property rights...... you dont seem to understand ownership in the slightest.[QUOTE="kuraimen"] free to you is entities accumulating as much money as they want and influencing the market without any entitlement, cool, i disagree. free to you is huge economic conglomerates easily crushing the small guy without much consequence, cool, i disagree. free to you is companies without any ecological compromise, cool, i disagree. free to you is economic powers taking advantage of their workers, cool, i disagree. Etc, etc, etc. Anybody can play that gamekuraimen
[QUOTE="thegerg"]That depends if you see limiting choice (as a consumer) as limiting freedom. if limiting freedom is not forcing other people to produce ... well hot damn .....How is an entity influencing another entity to produce goods that it will buy through a demonstrated willingness to purchase those goods in any way counter to freedom? Coca-Cola (the previous example) doesn't have to produce goods that Wal-Mart will buy, they are free to choose not to do so. They are equally free to offer goods which Wal-Mart will buy.
Engrish_Major
That depends if you see limiting choice (as a consumer) as limiting freedom. if limiting freedom is not forcing other people to produce ... well hot damn ..... It's called barriers to entry.[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="thegerg"]
How is an entity influencing another entity to produce goods that it will buy through a demonstrated willingness to purchase those goods in any way counter to freedom? Coca-Cola (the previous example) doesn't have to produce goods that Wal-Mart will buy, they are free to choose not to do so. They are equally free to offer goods which Wal-Mart will buy.
surrealnumber5
keep arguing, puppets... keep arguing.
there is no such thing as free market capitalism, just like there is no such thing as true communism.Well that isn't free market capitalism. Shouldn't be allowed.
Communist_Soul
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]if limiting freedom is not forcing other people to produce ... well hot damn ..... It's called barriers to entry. Could you explain how you are applying this to Coke and Walmart? Also how other similar stores seem to co-exist with Walmart?[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] That depends if you see limiting choice (as a consumer) as limiting freedom.Engrish_Major
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]if limiting freedom is not forcing other people to produce ... well hot damn ..... It's called barriers to entry. i know well about barriers to entry and argue we need to get rid of artificial ones in to days market place all the time on this forum[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] That depends if you see limiting choice (as a consumer) as limiting freedom.Engrish_Major
For the record, I do not shop at Walmart. Take that Walton family!
There are many artificial barriers (if by artificial you mean government) such as regulation and zoning, however, many types of barriers to entry are also created in a free market.i know well about barriers to entry and argue we need to get rid of artificial ones in to days market place all the time on this forum
surrealnumber5
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]There are many artificial barriers (if by artificial you mean government) such as regulation and zoning, however, many types of barriers to entry are also created in a free market. capital requirement is a huge natural barrier to entry, you cant run a factory that produces widgets if you dont have a factory, but there is nothing that can be done about that barrier, and i dont advocate dropping all regulations over night, but i do think we should trend to less more specific regulations and not more blanket ones.i know well about barriers to entry and argue we need to get rid of artificial ones in to days market place all the time on this forum
Engrish_Major
Also, Walmart is everything that has gone wrong with capitalism. They rely on exploitation of workers (both their own and those who make their products), exporting all our American jobs, union squashing, and undercutting their competition to drive them out of business through these processes. They get tax breaks to bring their massive operations into small communities where they destroy smaller businesses and ultimately hurt the economy, but line the pockets of politicians and the aleady rich.
It is unreasonable to expect people (who already have busy lives trying to get by) to drive farther to pay more in order to protest them. The Walton's have dirty money as far as I am concerned and the amount of wealth disparity between one family and a massive part of the population only highlights that something is seriously wrong with our current system.
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="thegerg"]That depends if you see limiting choice (as a consumer) as limiting freedom. I do not. We (and Wal-Mart, for that matter) do not have the right to purchase what we want at the price we want, just as we (and Wal-Mart, for that matter) so not have the right to have what we have bought at the price we wish ti sell it for. Not necessarily. We have laws (such as the Robinson-Patman Act) that attempt to encourage consumer choice and limit monopolies by limiting predatory pricing. Edit - though I may have mis-read what you mean. Perhaps you can clarify.How is an entity influencing another entity to produce goods that it will buy through a demonstrated willingness to purchase those goods in any way counter to freedom? Coca-Cola (the previous example) doesn't have to produce goods that Wal-Mart will buy, they are free to choose not to do so. They are equally free to offer goods which Wal-Mart will buy.
thegerg
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="thegerg"]How is an entity influencing another entity to produce goods that it will buy through a demonstrated willingness to purchase those goods in any way counter to freedom? Coca-Cola (the previous example) doesn't have to produce goods that Wal-Mart will buy, they are free to choose not to do so. They are equally free to offer goods which Wal-Mart will buy.You confound freedom with limited choices. Choosing one course of action because it is the less worse is not the same as freedom. It is like someone pointing a gun to your head and telling you that they'll shoot if you don't become their slave. Sure you have a choice but the choices suck. And once you become their slave you call that freedom? Freedom is the most overused and most manipulative term ever created. There's no much true freedom in the capitalist version of it. No, I am not confounding freedom with limited choices. You seem to be confused.thegerg
You seem to always justify your stances with the "you seem to be confused" motto. Which makes it seem there's no much substance to your argument just posing.
Also, Walmart is everything that has gone wrong with capitalism. They rely on exploitation of workers (both their own and those who make their products), exporting all our American jobs, union squashing, and undercutting their competition to drive them out of business through these processes. They get tax breaks to bring their massive operations into small communities where they destroy smaller businesses and ultimately hurt the economy, but line the pockets of politicians and the aleady rich.
It is unreasonable to expect people (who already have busy lives trying to get by) to drive farther to pay more in order to protest them. The Walton's have dirty money as far as I am concerned and the amount of wealth disparity between one family and a massive part of the population only highlights that something is seriously wrong with our current system.
Well said ,So if I got a single dollar in my wallet, but no debt, I'm richer than almost 25% of the US citizens? horgen123That's probably accurate - if you're counting wealth as current assets instead of income.
Also, Walmart is everything that has gone wrong with capitalism. They rely on exploitation of workers (both their own and those who make their products), exporting all our American jobs, union squashing, and undercutting their competition to drive them out of business through these processes. They get tax breaks to bring their massive operations into small communities where they destroy smaller businesses and ultimately hurt the economy, but line the pockets of politicians and the aleady rich.
It is unreasonable to expect people (who already have busy lives trying to get by) to drive farther to pay more in order to protest them. The Walton's have dirty money as far as I am concerned and the amount of wealth disparity between one family and a massive part of the population only highlights that something is seriously wrong with our current system.
Well said , How so? Most products are imported today and from countries that exploit their workers. So unless the two of you are buying American for everything then you are hypocrites.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="thegerg"] No, I am not confounding freedom with limited choices. You seem to be confused.thegerg
You seem to always justify your stances with the "you seem to be confused" motto. Which makes it seem there's no much substance to your argument just posing.
I think your post here is quite exemplary of a post with no substance. The fact is, you are either confused or you are being intentionally deceitful. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you are simply ignorant, rather than willfully malicious. Simply because limited choices exist (buy/sell X from/to Y) does not mean that freedom to make or not make decisions does not exist. The point is that even if some choices exist that doesn't equate to freedom. A huge corporate conglomerate can limit the people's choices highly and I find it pathetic to call that freedom.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="thegerg"] No, I am not confounding freedom with limited choices. You seem to be confused.thegerg
You seem to always justify your stances with the "you seem to be confused" motto. Which makes it seem there's no much substance to your argument just posing.
I think your post here is quite exemplary of a post with no substance. The fact is, you are either confused or you are being intentionally deceitful. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you are simply ignorant, rather than willfully malicious. Simply because limited choices exist (buy/sell X from/to Y) does not mean that freedom to make or not make decisions does not exist. Try to be more condescending next time[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="kuraimen"]I think your post here is quite exemplary of a post with no substance. The fact is, you are either confused or you are being intentionally deceitful. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you are simply ignorant, rather than willfully malicious. Simply because limited choices exist (buy/sell X from/to Y) does not mean that freedom to make or not make decisions does not exist. The point is that even if some choices exist that doesn't equate to freedom. A huge corporate conglomerate can limit the people's choices highly and I find it pathetic to call that freedom.A huge corporate conglomerate can limit choices how so when the internet makes it easy to buy from most anywhere one desired. Explain..... In addition there are similar stores to Walmart which means there IS competition something everyone is ignoring in this thread. Why don't people go to small businesses? Simple. People have gotten too lazy and they want everything in the same place. And that hurts the small specialty business shops.You seem to always justify your stances with the "you seem to be confused" motto. Which makes it seem there's no much substance to your argument just posing.
kuraimen
The point is that even if some choices exist that doesn't equate to freedom. A huge corporate conglomerate can limit the people's choices highly and I find it pathetic to call that freedom. I have not said that the existence of choices equates to freedom.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="thegerg"] I think your post here is quite exemplary of a post with no substance. The fact is, you are either confused or you are being intentionally deceitful. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you are simply ignorant, rather than willfully malicious. Simply because limited choices exist (buy/sell X from/to Y) does not mean that freedom to make or not make decisions does not exist.thegerg
The fact remains, you are free to make any decision you wish. Simply because Wal-Mart will not facilitate your decisions does not mean that your freedom is being limited.
Eh yes it means that. Limiting your decisions is limiting your freedom. By your same reasoning you could say that the government doesn't limit your freedom since you can always live in exile without any kind of attachment or dependance to the government but your government doesn't facilitate you that. Although you still have a choice.
[QUOTE="LustForSoul"]People are still whining about this? Why are rich people being blamed? They set up a good business and made money like any other. Let's limit their success and take away the land of opportunities. kuraimenA couple of mega rich plus lots of poor plus no middle class. The wonders of the land of opportunities. Welcome to "third worldness" http://finance.yahoo.com/news/census-shows-1-2-people-103940568.html Say, I'm not sure if you are trying to debunk my comment with that. It's not even close to Third World that's for sure. It also says below 45000 is low income for a family of four. My parents did with way less when their 2 children were younger and managed. (=more costs) I just don't get how the rich are at blame. Call it unfortunate for the low incomes. I know it's getting worse over there and stuff but it seems people just need to blame someone.
The point is that even if some choices exist that doesn't equate to freedom. A huge corporate conglomerate can limit the people's choices highly and I find it pathetic to call that freedom.A huge corporate conglomerate can limit choices how so when the internet makes it easy to buy from most anywhere one desired. Explain..... In addition there are similar stores to Walmart which means there IS competition something everyone is ignoring in this thread. Why don't people go to small businesses? Simple. People have gotten too lazy and they want everything in the same place. And that hurts the small specialty business shops. y u ignore me ljs? i am part of this thread and never once agreed walmart is a monopoly.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="thegerg"] I think your post here is quite exemplary of a post with no substance. The fact is, you are either confused or you are being intentionally deceitful. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you are simply ignorant, rather than willfully malicious. Simply because limited choices exist (buy/sell X from/to Y) does not mean that freedom to make or not make decisions does not exist.LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LustForSoul"]People are still whining about this? Why are rich people being blamed? They set up a good business and made money like any other. Let's limit their success and take away the land of opportunities. LustForSoulA couple of mega rich plus lots of poor plus no middle class. The wonders of the land of opportunities. Welcome to "third worldness" http://finance.yahoo.com/news/census-shows-1-2-people-103940568.html Say, I'm not sure if you are trying to debunk my comment with that. It's not even close to Third World that's for sure. It also says below 45000 is low income for a family of four. My parents did with way less when their 2 children were younger and managed. (=more costs) I just don't get how the rich are at blame. Call it unfortunate for the low incomes. I know it's getting worse over there and stuff but it seems people just need to blame someone. Wealth is relative. You could probably be considered rich in some countries if you had 45000 and yet in the US you would struggle making a living. I'm not saying it is a third world country but it certainly looks like it's going that way. The point is that the system that allows such accumulation of money and such inequalities is to blame not specifically the rich.
A huge corporate conglomerate can limit choices how so when the internet makes it easy to buy from most anywhere one desired. Explain..... In addition there are similar stores to Walmart which means there IS competition something everyone is ignoring in this thread. Why don't people go to small businesses? Simple. People have gotten too lazy and they want everything in the same place. And that hurts the small specialty business shops. y u ignore me ljs? i am part of this thread and never once agreed walmart is a monopoly. If you're not disagreeing with what I believe....what do you want me to say?[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
[QUOTE="kuraimen"] The point is that even if some choices exist that doesn't equate to freedom. A huge corporate conglomerate can limit the people's choices highly and I find it pathetic to call that freedom.surrealnumber5
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]y u ignore me ljs? i am part of this thread and never once agreed walmart is a monopoly. If you're not disagreeing with what I believe....what do you want me to say? "something everyone is ignoring in this thread." i disagree with that part of your post[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]A huge corporate conglomerate can limit choices how so when the internet makes it easy to buy from most anywhere one desired. Explain..... In addition there are similar stores to Walmart which means there IS competition something everyone is ignoring in this thread. Why don't people go to small businesses? Simple. People have gotten too lazy and they want everything in the same place. And that hurts the small specialty business shops.
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="thegerg"] I have not said that the existence of choices equates to freedom.Eh yes it means that. Limiting your decisions is limiting your freedom. By your same reasoning you could say that the government doesn't limit your freedom since you can always live in exile without any kind of attachment or dependance to the government but your government doesn't facilitate you that. Although you still have a choice. Again, Wal-Mart does not limit your decisions. Wal-Mart may limit your ability to fulfill your wishes, but that's hardly equal to an impediment of freedom. If one was living in exile of rule, with no dependence on, attachment to, or prosecution by a government, then they certainly would be free of said government's influence on their freedom. However, since I am attached to my government through citizenship by natural birth, this government limits my freedom. No consumers are attached to Wal-Mart in a manner which limits their freedom as they are attached to governments, nor does Wal-Mart have the lawful ability to limit one's freedom.The fact remains, you are free to make any decision you wish. Simply because Wal-Mart will not facilitate your decisions does not mean that your freedom is being limited.
thegerg
It is a similar thing in the end. You could always try an live a live in exile and the government could pursue you but you can always hide in the mountain or wherever. You still have a choice. Big conglomerates limit your choices to the point it is not easy to not depend on them. In the end your freedom is being limited either way. To pretend it is not is naive.
Most of the countries that are dragging the Eurozone down have troubles that are the result of conservative politicians... Greece has a right wing government falsifying the country's debt level for years prior to the 2008 collapse, just as an example. Meanwhile Germany, the land of high taxes and comprehensive safetynets, is considered the only thing capable of holding the Eurozone together.[QUOTE="sonicare"]
Europe is fairly socialist and the euro is failing because they have extravagant social progrmas and not enough money to fund them.
htekemerald
No, this problem is directly the result of the 'spend and don't tax' craziness that's swept the world.
Right wing government? The things people like you spew out of where the sun doesn't shine amazes me. Both the former, and currently the new Greece's prime Minister is the leader of Socialist party. There is nothing conservative or right wing about the way that Greece has governed the last 10 years. Spending money on social and corporate welfare. Employing a huge number of citizens by the government, and retirement and benefits plans that are so unreasonable and over the top, all while unemployment is high and you're asking the employed to pay the bill...is a far cry from conservative governance. DevilMightCry
:lol:
The conservative New Democracy party was in power until 2009. Please, consider getting your news and views from somewhere other than fox. Like all conservative governments of late they were not willing to 'tax' enough to provide the level of government they were providing.
[QUOTE="thegerg"]nor does Wal-Mart have the lawful ability to limit one's freedom. z4twenny
surely in the history of america, no business has EVER given funds to politicians.....
You'd have to provide the correlation that said funds caused limited freedom.....you're up.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="thegerg"] Again, Wal-Mart does not limit your decisions. Wal-Mart may limit your ability to fulfill your wishes, but that's hardly equal to an impediment of freedom. If one was living in exile of rule, with no dependence on, attachment to, or prosecution by a government, then they certainly would be free of said government's influence on their freedom. However, since I am attached to my government through citizenship by natural birth, this government limits my freedom. No consumers are attached to Wal-Mart in a manner which limits their freedom as they are attached to governments, nor does Wal-Mart have the lawful ability to limit one's freedom. thegerg
It is a similar thing in the end. You could always try an live a live in exile and the government could pursue you but you can always hide in the mountain or wherever. You still have a choice. Big conglomerates limit your choices to the point it is not easy to not depend on them. In the end your freedom is being limited either way. To pretend it is not is naive.
Exactly, if a government is pursuing you in a manner which influences your ability to be free against your will, they are limiting your freedom. Wal-Mart, though, is not doing this. Freedom is not the ability to purchase what you want, from whom you want, for the price you want. Freedom is not the right for a business to remain profitable in a market in which it is not competitive. Freedom is not the right to have the choices you make facilitated by others. Please answer this question: What of your freedoms is Wal-Mart limiting? What they do is exactly influencing your ability to be free against your will. By becoming so big they greatly limit the capacity of small businesses to become competitive. Small businesses can't handle such low prices so they start to disappear. That is ONE instance where they limit people's freedoms(the small business owners who want to become competitive but it is not possible in this environment which goes against their will). I couldn't care less about your own definition of freedom which I find incredibly naive if you don't consider having a huge control over the market as limiting people's freedoms.How do you fix this inequality? I like competition and being able to make more if I am clever and resourceful, but I dont want a society where 1% controls 95% of the wealth either. I would prefer some spread of wealth, just not where I have to genuflect to the waltons everytime they walk by.
What they do is exactly influencing your ability to be free against your will. By becoming so big they greatly limit the capacity of small businesses to become competitive. Small businesses can't handle such low prices so they start to disappear. That is ONE instance where they limit people's freedoms(the small business owners who want to become competitive but it is not possible in this environment which goes against their will). I couldn't care less about your own definition of freedom which I find incredibly naive if you don't consider having a huge control over the market as limiting people's freedoms. Freedom is not the right to become/remain competitive in a market in which a business can't compete.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="thegerg"] Exactly, if a government is pursuing you in a manner which influences your ability to be free against your will, they are limiting your freedom. Wal-Mart, though, is not doing this. Freedom is not the ability to purchase what you want, from whom you want, for the price you want. Freedom is not the right for a business to remain profitable in a market in which it is not competitive. Freedom is not the right to have the choices you make facilitated by others. Please answer this question: What of your freedoms is Wal-Mart limiting?thegerg
Again, please answer this question: What of your freedoms is Wal-Mart limiting?
I already answered your question. And what makes you an authority to define what freedom means?Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment