Serious question here, Bill. As a libertarian, don't you have a problem with the following statement from your advertiser?

"The organization asked people to sign up at http://www.walmartwatch.com -- which it called a 'war room' -- to help fight Wal-Mart and said it would mail sample legislation to elected officials showing them 'how they can pass laws to put the brakes on Wal-Mart.'"

I have no issue with consumers putting pressure on businesses, but this call for legislation strikes me as nothing more than big government bullying.

I'm not exactly a "libertarian," I merely swing that way.

Second, my opinion would depend on the legislation. For example, legislation consisting of child labor laws is legislation that even many libertarians agree with. As for Wal Mart, the sum total of my education on the matter is a few stories and the above referenced South Park episode.

Most importantky, I don't endorse the advertiser, I just want you to click on them, read the ad and decide for yourself, so that I may reap the rewards of a high click-thru rate on my ads. I trust your judgment.

If forced to make a spot decision? Pressuring lawmakers with sample legislation is pretty standard activism. The devil is in the details.

Christ, I feel like such a whore. It's disheartening to know that I can be bought so cheaply. Got any extra pie :o)

The (Anti-Capitalist) Wal-Mart Haters

Sometimes economic and logical ignorance and anti-capitalist bias just must be rebutted, even though it should be obvious to everyone. In regard to the February 2004 report by the Democratic Staff of the House Education and Workforce Committee concerning the “federal costs” to taxpayers of “Wal-Mart’s success in holding employee compensation at low levels,” and the economic idiots at walmartwatch.com, the following observations:

First, where do they think Wal-Mart gets these apparently exploited and “badly paid” employees? From the ranks elsewhere of better-paid full-time employees with full benefit packages? I haven't heard about any Wal-Mart gangs shanghaiing people and forcing them to work for Wal-Mart, so Wal-Mart's employees must be there voluntarily, presumable because Wal-Mart offers them better employment opportunities than they had before.

Second, even if it is true (which I doubt) that most of these employees rely on government-provided or subsidized health care and government assistance paid for by "US taxpayers," is it not then likely these same people were also relying on government-provided or subsidized health care and assistance before they voluntarily chose to work for Wal-Mart? So Wal-Mart's employment of these people would, at worst, have no effect on the cost to taxpayers for these people's government-subsidized health care and other government assistance. More likely, at least some of these employees would now qualify for at least some employer-provided benefits and others would have improved their economic lot sufficiently to pay for at least some of their own maintenance and health care, rather than relying on government assistance. In addition, since these employees must now have better employment opportunities than they had had before, presumably most of them are earning more than they did before, and paying more taxes! In fact, some of these employees may have had no employment before and been surviving entirely on welfare benefits. Therefore, when Wal-Mart employs these people, tax collections go up, use of government-subsidized health care goes down, and welfare benefit payments go down, which is a net benefit to everyone. The only logical conclusion one can draw is that rather than costing “federal taxpayers … a total annual welfare bill of $2.5 billion for Wal-Mart’s 1.2 million US employees,” Wal-Mart’s employment of these people reduces the welfare bill the US taxpayers otherwise would pay for these people.

When such obvious logic and facts are omitted from a “report” damning a successful business operation, it is clear the objective is not truth, but rather, to bash successful business and to attack our competitive capitalist system.

I can just see how this logic will play out in the Dems next report attacking not only Wal-Mart, but also all US businesses large and small, for employing anyone at all. Given the actuarial imbalance in the Social Security system, each new hire can be expected to add tens of thousands of dollars to the actuarial deficit. When summed across the entire economy, the deficit is not just a measly $2.5 billion, but rather tens of trillions of dollars! As a result, all these evil businesses in the US are shackling the US taxpayers with TRILLIONS in future tax liability by employing anyone!