Wal-Mart didn't really need Chicago anyway

[KendallJ]

Unions are bad because they support the status quo. They support existing workers at the expense of potential new entrants.

... they seek to remove policies that favor individual merit, and recognition of performance. ... buy maybe that's redundant.

Edited March 28, 2007 by KendallJ

[D'kian]

1. Chicago will survive without WalMart. It has never had WalMart and it still prospers. It would prosper more with less government regulation, but that's beside the point I'm making.

For now. Mark my words. Plenty of Chicagoans will regret not allowing WalMart, and the other big box stores, in.

Helping strangers if selfish if 1) you aren't sacrificing yourself or your values

It can be. However, if you do so in order to appease the altruists, you're helping to destroy your values.

Let me give you an example. In this thread, I am defending certain principles. I am not trying to apease you. If I were, I'd discuss my own contributions to charity. But that's not the point, and my defense would only be weakened if I did.

In other words: if someone accuses you of being selfish, you should defend your selfishness. But to do that you need to be confident in the rightness of your own morality. Otherwsie you'll wind up with an argument along the lines of "I may be selfish, but I do give to charity, and buy fair trade coffee, and I'm not a bad non-altruistic person, really."

[BlackSabbath]

If someone worked 60 hours a week (although companies like Walmart like to employ them for 39 so the won't be full-time) at $6/hour, that would be $360 a week and roughly $14k a year... and that's if they can fine a second job since WalMart won't give them fulll-time. 14K pre-tax for a 60 hour work week and no vacation... That kind of sucks...

Your arithmetic is dire. A 60 hour week at $6 an hour is $18720.

Can I just point out that the state is the villain of the piece by taxing people and regulating the economy, therefore reducing the average amount of capital, per head, creating unemployment and lowering people's living standards?

[softwareNerd]

So-called "fair trade coffee" is probably a good analogy to unionization: one is deciding to pay slightly more for a product. Therefore you pay less to someone else. (ref. Economics in One Lesson). Perhaps you buy one less pair of shoes. So, instead of one poor coffee-grower and one poor cobbler, you give a little more to the coffee-grower, and its too bad for the cobbler. Every time you pay someone some money, you also do not pay that to someone else.

So, while some may feel warm and fuzzy thinking about the coffee-grower, while sipping their "fair trade coffee", I will feel warm and fuzzy drinking regular coffee while wearing my new pair of shoes. [bTW: "Fair trade" is a redundant term if the trade actually takes place.]

Edited March 29, 2007 by softwareNerd

[aequalsa]

I stopped liking, defending, and shopping at Wal-mart when I found out they use eminent domain to steal land on which to build their stores. I refuse to support anyone who acts against property rights.

As far as I am concerned Wally's world is getting what it richly deserves in Chicago and could care less if the same thing happens to them in every other city. They take full advantage of government guns when it lines their pockets and then clamour against them when it affects them. Blah.

[Korthor]

So-called "fair trade coffee" is probably a good analogy to unionization: one is deciding to pay slightly more for a product. Therefore you pay less to someone else. (ref. Economics in One Lesson). Perhaps you buy one less pair of shoes. So, instead of one poor coffee-grower and one poor cobbler, you give a little more to the coffee-grower, and its too bad for the cobbler. Every time you pay someone some money, you also do not pay that to someone else.

So, while some may feel warm and fuzzy thinking about the coffee-grower, while sipping their "fair trade coffee", I will feel warm and fuzzy drinking regular coffee while wearing my new pair of shoes. [bTW: "Fair trade" is a redundant term if the trade actually takes place.]

It's my money and I'll spend it as I want. But if the peasant has more money, then won't they buy more shoes? The fact that people on this board object to even the slightest bit of non-coercive capitalist benevolence explains why lots of people think Objectivists are assholes... which isn't true, although some are.

[softwareNerd]

It's my money and I'll spend it as I want.

And you should have the right to do so.

The fact that people on this board object to even the slightest bit of non-coercive capitalist benevolence explains why lots of people think Objectivists are assholes... which isn't true, although some are.

"capitalist benevolence"? Is that some special type of benevolence? What is so benevolent about giving money to one person rather than to another? If people think that someone who does not give charity is an asshole, then that simply shows that the evaluator has their priorities screwed up. Personally, I give a considerable amount to charity: and it goes primarily to get those people to have their heads screwed on right.

[Korthor]

By "capitalist benevolence," I meant benevolence that tries to work through capitalism (e.g., the microlending schemes that won the Nobel Prize or Fair Trade coffee) as opposed to just giving money to people on the streets.

I don't think people are assholes because they don't give to charity... but I was disturbed when people accused me of being altruistic, statist, and wealth destroying when I explained why I didn't shop at WalMart.

[softwareNerd]

There are good reasons to prefer a neighborhood mom and pop shop to Wal*Mart. As for Chinese goods being made from slave labor, and China being a potential threat to the U.S., those are moral reasons too, though you'd have to cut out a lot of retailers, not just Wal*Mart.

However, I disagree that Wal*Mart treats their employees unfairly. As for being altruistic, Wal*Mart has done more for the poor than most other companies. As for Bill Gates, I admire him as a software businessman, but his particular form of charity shows how little he understands about the importance of political systems in wealth creation; pouring money into Africa is something that has been done for ages with little avail. He'll probably do better than most, but it's still a relative waste. Anyhow, it's his money and he's free to waste it.

[KendallJ]

I stopped liking, defending, and shopping at Wal-mart when I found out they use eminent domain to steal land on which to build their stores. I refuse to support anyone who acts against property rights.

As far as I am concerned Wally's world is getting what it richly deserves in Chicago and could care less if the same thing happens to them in every other city. They take full advantage of government guns when it lines their pockets and then clamour against them when it affects them. Blah.

I am much more distressed by the practice of municipalities, and states (that is, govt) trying to "attract" business by offering such things as tax abatements, and by executing eminent domain siezures to provide cheap land. Wal-mart and other corps certainly are the recipient of such spoils, but legally, I believe only governments have the right of eminent domain.

I also thought the Kelo case would have put an end to eminent domain siezures for private development. Obviously not.

[KendallJ]

By "capitalist benevolence," I meant benevolence that tries to work through capitalism (e.g., the microlending schemes that won the Nobel Prize or Fair Trade coffee) as opposed to just giving money to people on the streets.

I don't think people are assholes because they don't give to charity... but I was disturbed when people accused me of being altruistic, statist, and wealth destroying when I explained why I didn't shop at WalMart.

I'm a fan of charitable organizations that foster capitalist values as well.

Just to be fair. D'kain didn't accuse you directly. He stated that your stated idea was altruistic. And no one called you a statist, but rather suggested you might be appeasing them by compromising the fundamental principles in order to appear more "palatable". And I only see one "people" doing that in one post.

Appeasement is my bigger concern as well. Not that you feel you give out of Aristotilean benevolence, but that you feel not doing so compromises a position that your trying to sell to others.

The "coroporate responsibility" schtick is the same sort of appeasement. Making a corporation appear more palatable and not standing up for your primary responsiblity which is to the owners of the company.

[bobsponge]

The only responsibility corporations have is to profit.

I'm rich, beeyotch!

[Korthor]

The only responsibility corporations have is to achieve the aims of their oweners. If the owners want to do other things besides make profit, there's nothing wrong with that.

In the case of publically owned companies, it's up to the shareholders. If companies are pursuing strategies that might lead to short-term reductions in profits for benevolent reasons, it's up the the shareholders and the board to evaluate such decisions.

I'm not sure about this "appeasment" thing. If I drink fair trade coffee, the terrorists win? I can't be held responsible for the altruistic motives of others who drink FTC or boycott WalMart. I feel comfortable with my own justifications, but less so with the thinking of those who are so annoyed with the altruism of leftists that they are highly suspicious of anyone that tries to help anyone else. I've been thinking about this issue more, and hopefuly in a few days I'll post something about the line between benevolence (philia) v. charity (agape).

Edited March 29, 2007 by Korthor

[KendallJ]

If we want to convince people that capitalism isn't evil, then we should stop sticking up for companies that make people think capitalism is evil.

Look at Bill Gates and all the wealth he created for himself and others. Now he's giving up much of it that he doesn't need to make the world around him better. That isn't altruism. It's virtue in the fullest sense of the word.

Hi Kothor, this is the statement that made people stand up.

You do realize that people think Wal-Mart is evil because of practices that actually are in no way evil? Paying an employee a low wage in a voluntary arrangement is in no way evil. Busting a union isn't evil. It's peoples wrong ideas about capitalism that are evil, and you seem to have better ideas than that. Why would you capitulate your ideas in the name of convincing them?

You do realize that most people who like the fact that Bill Gates is giving away his money think that him keeping it is evil, that he darn well should give away his money?

[KendallJ]

The only responsibility corporations have is to achieve the aims of their oweners. If the owners want to do other things besides make profit, there's nothing wrong with that.

In the case of publically owned companies, it's up to the shareholders. If companies are pursuing strategies that might lead to short-term reductions in profits for benevolent reasons, it's up the the shareholders and the board to evaluate such decisions.

You think shareholders combine their benevolence and their financial interests into one mixed bag of inseperable ownership? If you're allowing that that might be the case, then you must have some evidence of it, because overwhelmingly most do not think this way, and the way share ownership works, it's really set up to magnify fundamental interests, meaning financial.

You do realize that most people think that companies have a moral obligation to be "socially responsible", right? So what would you say to those people?

I've been thinking about this issue more, and hopefuly in a few days I'll post something about the line between benevolence (philia) v. charity (agape).

I'd like to see that.

[softwareNerd]

...in a few days I'll post something about the line between benevolence (philia) v. charity (agape).

Great. While doing so, it would be interesting if you could address the question of how one decides who should be the object of one's charity, and whether the principle of justice is at all relevant in that choice.

[bobsponge]

The only responsibility corporations have is to achieve the aims of their oweners. If the owners want to do other things besides make profit, there's nothing wrong with that.

In the case of publically owned companies, it's up to the shareholders. If companies are pursuing strategies that might lead to short-term reductions in profits for benevolent reasons, it's up the the shareholders and the board to evaluate such decisions.

I'm not sure about this "appeasment" thing. If I drink fair trade coffee, the terrorists win? I can't be held responsible for the altruistic motives of others who drink FTC or boycott WalMart. I feel comfortable with my own justifications, but less so with the thinking of those who are so annoyed with the altruism of leftists that they are highly suspicious of anyone that tries to help anyone else. I've been thinking about this issue more, and hopefuly in a few days I'll post something about the line between benevolence (philia) v. charity (agape).

People do not start businesses to save the world. That's what charities are for. Businesses are for making money.

You seem like a bright person, but you've got an awful lot of liberal altruism to get rid of before you can classify yourself as an objective thinker.

[D'kian]

but I was disturbed when people accused me of being altruistic, statist, and wealth destroying when I explained why I didn't shop at WalMart.

As Kendall pointed out, my criticism was of your argument. That is most definitely not a personal attack.

[D'kian]

The only responsibility corporations have is to achieve the aims of their oweners. If the owners want to do other things besides make profit, there's nothing wrong with that.

That depends on what they want to do. I grant you in 99% of the cases, they ahve a right to do whatever they want, be it good or not. But whether it's good or not does depend on what it is. Having a right to do evil does not mean the evil is justified.

I'm not sure about this "appeasment" thing. If I drink fair trade coffee, the terrorists win?

No, the altruists win. Do you think only terrorists can be appeased?