RoR: Forum

Hi Nicole,

From an Objectivist perspective, the only way to prevent Wal-Mart from moving into your neigborhood would be to buy all the property you want to have free of wal-mart.
Once they were in place you may have a case for legal recource if the wal-mart is affecting your property via various means: noise, property value, trash, etc.

Understand that Objectivism doesn't support the concpet of "initiation of force" and would recognize what you are advocating as an attack upon the rights of a private enterprise to engage in its business.

Regards,

Ethan

Post 21

Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 11:41am

Kurt,
Of course you are right. The tremendous wealth accumulated in US attest to the productivity of its workers and all other producers, as well as the efficiency of the capitalist system.

Post 22

Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 1:22pm

Hong - Yes, I was just trying to clarify what you had said in that it is more of a result than a cause. I also think China is now too far connected to the global economy to possibly disengage, so I think that the idea behind trading and "normalizing" relations was the correct move towards ultimate victory over Communism there. It will just "wither away" as things continue to get better for the people there - which is kind of ironic, really.

Regarding some of the people who hate Wal-Mart, I think that a couple of factors affect the experience of shopping there. One is that when I went to stores in the south, and some in better areas, they had great service. In the newer store near me, it is atrocious because the quality of worker they can attract in that area is very poor. So, there may be many local factors that are affecting stores that might not be the case elsewhere, or when the company was smaller. Also, shopping there tends to be more of a "working class" experience, so if you want higher line products and better service, you have to pay more for it and go to the higher line stores.

Post 23

Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 3:39pm

Hello there, Ethan.

Thank you for your response. As it is, I do see Wal-Mart as an intrusion on the things you mentioned: they build close to residential properties (I have seen this personally) and bring the values down (no one wants to live behind a Wal-Mart... or buy a house behind one... ask my Grandmother, this has happened to her subdivison), and they bring noise (large trucks and lots of traffic) to previously peaceful areas. This goes on 24/7 at newer stores.

When people try to block Wal-Mart, they are blocking these aspects. They do not oppose economic growth or private business, just the negative that this particular company brings. I see it as akin to putting a landfill in next to homes. A Wal-Mart in an established retail area is fine, (I still won't shop there because the service is awful) but when they try to build in places where they are not wanted because they are a major disruption to residential life, you're saying people do have a right to keep them out, right? I agree with some of the others on this thread... give me a Target any day. They are smaller and tend to be able to find property closer to retail areas that is big enough for them. (Even in downtown areas.) But I wouldn't support anyone who came close to Wal-Mart's negatives.

So, then does my argument still stand that when government officials "take care of" these complaints and allow the store despite other property owners' views, this is wrong?

And make no mistake, I support big business... it does a lot for me. Wal-Mart is literally one of my only sticking points as far as philosophy goes. It's difficult to be so lovey-dovey to a store that has had such a negative effect on so many things in my life. Don't think I'm not a card-carrying Objectivist! But I think many of us have some questions about the application of the philosophy in everyday life. If everyone just blanketly accepts every premise... well, that's what makes a Randroid, right?

Post 24

Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 5:03pm

Nicole,

One of our inalienable rights is the right to property. It is a right that nobody can infringe on, especially not the government. If Wal-Mart or any other individual business purchases the lot next to your house, they are free to do whatever they want on that property so long as they are not infringing on your rights, i.e. initiating force. If you did not want Wal Mart moving into the lot next to your lot, then you should have either bought that lot or negotiated terms with Wal Mart that are mutually agreeable. It is wrong to go to the government to prevent a business from exercising their rights just because you don't like their customer service. If you don't like their customer service, don't go there. Nobody is making you.

You say a community should have control over who comes into the community. I take it you mean that if a majority of the community votes a certain way, then can make the government enforce their will. If we say property rights are not absolute, we slide down a slippery slope. Today, we get the government to ban Wal Mart from moving next to our homes, even if we don't own the property. Tomorrow, a neighborhood of whom the majority are Evangelical Christians could get the government to ban atheists from moving next to their homes, even if they don't own the property. These Christians can argue to the government that the atheist will bring down their property values by making the neighborhood less attractive to other Christians (who, after all, are the majority in this country). The next day, the majority of the whole country votes to make certain individuals or groups unable to buy property anywhere in this country, because these individuals or groups will lower existing property values. Just because a majority votes one way does not make it right, even if that majority was everyone except for one individual. There is a reason they're called individual rights, not collective rights.

I think the debate here has to do with an economic principle called negative externalities. I am an absolutist when it comes to the right to property, so I think the government should have nothing to do with negative externalities. Such problems are best resolved in the free market. That's capitalism.

Post 25

Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 5:17pm

There is something else Nicole wrote that disturbed me and I forgot to comment on in the previous post. Here is the line in question:

"Even if Wal-Mart should be able to do what they do, they should obey the law in the mean time . . . Laws should be followed... until they are changed. There is always opportunity for change."

Nobody has any obligation to obey an unjust law, and sometimes waiting for the law to change is not an option. The entire history of America is ripe with examples of brave souls who disobeyed unjust laws. Our Founding Fathers disobeyed the laws of the British Empire. The African slaves in the 1800's who escaped from their plantations by the Underground Railroad to Canada disobeyed the laws. The African Americans who sat at the front of the bus in the 1950's disobeyed the law. The gay men and women who married in San Francisco disobeyed the law. Imagine where we would be today if these men and women obeyed the law and waited for a day to come when the majority of people see things their way.

Ayn Rand was right. Then and now, the most persecuted minority is Big Business. Wal Mart is no exception.

Post 26

Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 5:47pm

I do think that Nicole has a point in that a neighborhood without the risk of someone buying the land next door for a smelly landfill or a noisy Wal-Mart is a legitimate value for an individual to want in choosing property to buy. But as has been pointed out, to expect government to enforce that sort of value through zoning laws, community standards, or the like is to reject property rights.

So I think that a free market would probably naturally evolve towards something like the government solution—i.e., developers might purchase large areas and construct subdivisions, and sell/lease that land only to owners who agree to certain conditions in the contract, such as not using that land to build a Wal-Mart.

Post 27

Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 5:51pm

Nicole Theberge writes:

What sort of control do you think that people should have over their communities?

None.

Think carefully about what "control over their communities" means. What it means is control over other people. What it means is controlling how other people behave and what they do with their own property. What it means is, essentially, collectivism.

A key to your error is evident when you write

...and the people they elected to work in their interest...

That sort of voting is merely assembling a bigger gang to enforce your will ("interest") against those who disagree with you.

That sort of thinking is anti-capitalist, anti-freemarket, and is certainly not Objectivist.

Right now, even a large group of people being dissatisfied with Wal-Mart will do nothing to hurt them

Now this is just plain false. Since they presumably hoped to make a profit in Canada, their pulling out due to the insistence of the unions certainly has hurt them by reducing their profits. Of course it probably hurt those customers and employees who will no longer have a WalMart too.

I don't count a business as being a good one just because they are cheap. They need other redeeming qualities, and Wal-Mart has none.

A business is a good one if it is profitable. WalMart is very profitable.

Post 28

Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 5:52pm

Nature,

I think you gave a perfect example of how the free market already does solve problems of negative externalities, like communities not wanting the negative elements of a Wal Mart. They're called planned communities or homeowner associations. There is no need for government to intrude, much less infringe on property rights.

Post 29

Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 8:16pm

Hi Nicole. The others answered much of your post in a satisfactory manner. No need for me to explain property rights and the non initiation of force again. I do have a couple of questions. I've heard of a lot of people "outraged" by Walmart but they never provide any evidence of Walmart commiting any crimes.

"And make no mistake, I support big business... it does a lot for me. Wal-Mart is literally one of my only sticking points as far as philosophy goes. It's difficult to be so lovey-dovey to a store that has had such a negative effect on so many things in my life."

There is no need to be lovey-dovey of Wal-Mart. If you don't wish to shop there, then no one will force you to. If you don't wish to live near one move to a different location. I suppose my big question is -- what exactly does Walmart do to you that has such a negative effect on "so many things" your life? Does Walmart, in some way directly hinder your freedom? If it does not, then you have no right to take any forceful action against it and neither does any government entity. To do so would be a direct violation of the rights of millions of Walmart shareholders.

- Jason

Post 30

Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 11:05pm

Wal-Mart moves into places where groups of individuals do not want them. These groups of individuals are called communities. This is not in itself collectivist. It's just true that banding together occasionally can get more done. (Clearly a website such as this could count as a community, you work together as individuals to get things done.) Defending yourself is also about control over people... it's about controlling something you can prove is having direct ill effects on you. That's how they hinder my freedom... there are direct and ill effects. I also ask, is there ever a reason for a WalMart not to be able to build? What if it's in your backyard?

As an individual, you're saying my only choice is to move when WalMart comes into town. Okay, I'll move. At some point though, I'm going to have no where logical to go... eventually, WalMart's going to be everywhere. I will have to deal with their intrusiveness on my peaceful life wherever I go. (And yes, I like my downtown more than WalMart. What would a college town be without a downtown? I ask again, where would my bars go? My study lounges? My coffee houses? My uncensored record stores? Specialty book stores? They certainly won't last if all the drug, grocery and clothing stores close down and get left vacant. Is WalMart going to provide these things after they drive business in the area out?)

And when I speak of WalMart's ill effects on my life, I speak mostly of the fact that my Grandparents live in a retirement community that was on a quiet stretch of road in a perfectly nice and rural part of town. They aren't rich, and they are very elderly. Of course, it was very easy for WalMart to build here with little complaint, they were just a bunch of sick old people, right? They clear cut acres of forest surrounding the development, and property values plummeted. If my Grandparents tried to sell, they'd lose out big time. But it would be ridiculous anyways, because they are both quite ill and can't relocate anyways. Also, their quaint backyard was left with 10 feet of grass, a hideous fence, and then a parking lot, where trucks and cars drive loudly all day and night. Teenagers gather in the dark back lot and climb the fences into the backyard and vandalize their property... I know this sounds ridiculous to many of you, but it happened, and it did not make me very happy. The police don't seem to take it seriously; we have complained several times. They took advantage of these folks and the fact that they are unlikely to even know what is happening before it is too late. Also, the WalMart in my local town here moved into a Superstore and left its old building vacant. Every business surrounding the old in the strip mall went out of business, and now the property values there have also plummeted... they are not taken care of, and no developer can sell even a small vacant property. It's a stain on an otherwise nice retail street. One of their 2 new stores (yes, in a single town [the geographically smallest in the state], we have 2) also moved into the middle of the residential area where my apartment is located... I live in a college town, and the traffic in this classically residential area was always bad anyway, now its ridiculous. And we have more ugly and empty buildings where grocery stores have gone out of business. I'm glad I'm only renting; I won't have to worry about what the homeowners will have to worry about. Old communities cannot suddenly become planned communities, and they should not be forced to deal with these intrusions just because they are older. When are people allowed to say no? When a waste dump is put in? A slaughterhouse? Do we really just allow this because it's business? Would you allow government to put a road through your yard? No! So why WalMart? They manage this with the help of government.

Are you all really saying that I should just get over these issues? And Rick, do you really suggest that all a good business is is profit? Many people shop at WalMart because it is cheap, yes, but I'd like to preserve the idea of customer service and workers knowing what they are talking about for just a little while longer. Many stores only compete with WalMart because people want that service. I worked at one: Publix grocery stores, one of the top 100 companies to work for in the world. Non-union, and I made almost $10/hr as a cashier... but they chose to focus on being "the premier grocery provider in the Southeast" and I heard everyday how much people loved our smiles and service more than WalMart. WalMart doesn't need to be nice to their customers: the poor have to shop there no matter what. But luckily, I can take my dollars somewhere else. I can only hope that continues to be possible, since I am not allowed to use any means to get around it. Why is it okay for WalMart to get their way using government, but not me? I am told to "buy up all the land myself". What?!

And I'd also prefer to have stores that dont censor their products or pass value judgements on me for buying contraceptives... in all of your praise of WalMart and your desire to allow it to run whatever course it likes, no one seems to be concerned that they are one of the reasons that society is taking this deep rightward and moralist turn... they don't think I know what's best for me. They don't think that groups of individuals know what's best for themselves where they live. I certainly think that I (and anyone else who feels the same) should be allowed to say no... and that doesn't make me collectivist. It makes me concerned about my area become less valuable because the majority of people are not looking to live in a cookie-cutter city that looks like every other one in every other place in the country. No one will buy my Grandmother's house, and they will not buy yours if WalMart moves in behind you. And trust me, even your Objectivist ears won't be able to ignore the sound of those trucks rolling by at 4 am and idling for a couple of hours... and maybe even you in all your wisdom might miss the quiet that used to be your home. WalMart would satisfy more customers if they would build in areas that people wanted them in. (Oh right. All that matters is the money.) So in the mean time, I'll put up with whatever unsatisfactory issues WalMart throws my way. I'll try to be a better Objectivist... but WalMart is certainly not helping my sense of life to improve in any way.

I thought the point of this site was not to be like the other Objectivist areas that bring massive guilt trips on people for being human and sometimes not being the perfect John Galt. Anything else would be fine, but I had to get invoved in the WalMart discussion. Sheesh.

That's it. I guess I'm done now. *Let the vultures come to pick at my corpse.* Sigh.

Post 31

Friday, February 25, 2005 - 12:48am

Nicole, unless I'm missing something you are saying pretty much what I was saying. You might protest against a Wal-Mart building in a certain location but you wouldn't resort to supporting laws that excluded them from being free to build wherever they wanted. Is that about right? There is a world of difference between protesting (making your opinions/values known) and supporting a government that eliminates private property rights.

A more essential issue about all this is education. It's the underdeveloped human beings that frequent Wal-Mart stores that create a distasteful environment. These underdeveloped human beings (under-educated, lacking in dignity and desire) are a part of Wal-Mart's business model. While there is nothing illegal about that there is certainly nothing noble about it either.

Post 32

Friday, February 25, 2005 - 12:52am

Nicole,

Profit is made by satisfying consumer demand. It makes no sense to say that WalMart (or any company) goes where it is not wanted. It may go where some people don't want it but it wouldn't go there if there weren't enough people who were willing to spend their money to make the location profitable.

The key element about prices and profits — and simultaneously the element that is least understood — is all the information that is encapsulated in them. The highest bidder for a resource is the one who values it the most. The fact that a business moves into a particular location is evidence that there is no one else who values that property more. The "best" use for a property changes over time. The fact that an area has been residential for the last 50 years is only one factor in determining is current most economical use.

One thing that bothers me about complaints such as yours is that the people who make them often want to eat their cake and have it too. These people want the benefits of higher population (greater variety and quality of easily available goods and services) but think they can have them while retaining their old, accustomed environment. It's not going to happen.

Post 33

Friday, February 25, 2005 - 6:36am

Hi Nicole,

You suggested that I and others were saying your only recourse was to move. That isn't entirely true. You could:

1) Negotiate with the entity (Wal-Mart)
2) Form a corporation or other organization of local citizen's to raise money. This money would be used to purchase properties that the individuals didn't want to see developed and or only used in a certain way.
3) Go to court and present evidence that Wal-Mart has a negative impact on your property and get some redress of that grievance.

You must understand the basic value that lies under your statements. That is, a group of people living in an area has the right to control other people's property, in the name of their rights to their own property. The ways I suggest above are certainly better, as they don't deny, violate, or over-ride the rights of others.

Regards,

Ethan

Post 34

Friday, February 25, 2005 - 7:00am

Lance,

I don't think Nicole was saying what you are saying. What you are saying is okay because there is no initiation of force involved. Here is what she really said:

"What sort of control do you think that people should have over their communities? If they don't want something in their area, do they or do they not have the right to refuse it? And if they do refuse it, and the people they elected to work in their interest go behind their backs and do what they said they didn't want, that isn't wrong? And if it's the law that the people have the right to decide what they do or don't want, should that law or shouldn't it be followed by those in power?" (emphasis mine)

In other words, she says that a people can vote for laws that enforce their preferences, including Wal-Mart not doing business near their property. In other words, she appears willing to ignore private property righrts. I think Nicole is confused about how property rights should work. She appears to think that people have a say in how others do business in property these people don't own themselves, just because that property is near their property. That is the flawed premise behind her arguments.

Post 35

Friday, February 25, 2005 - 7:03am

Nicole wrote: "I thought the point of this site was not to be like the other Objectivist areas that bring massive guilt trips on people for being human and sometimes not being the perfect John Galt."

Huh? There is a difference between being honestly mistaken and willful evasion. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt, so I think the former pertains to Nicole, not the latter. If I suspected the latter, I would not go to the lenghts I did to point out an error in thinking, especially when I know we probably share common values that I can reach out to.

Post 36

Friday, February 25, 2005 - 7:23am

In regards to where Wal-Mart builds, much of this argument seems to be about "zoning" and such laws, which are in fact a violation of property rights. However, there are some other factors that need to be considered. First, I doubt that Wal-Mart disobeys any laws, rather they probably manipulate the zoning laws in various ways instead. That is one of the problems with seeking protection via zoning laws, because they can be turned around to attack you just as easily. There is a good series of articles about this at: http://capmag.com/article.asp?id=2832

Now, a much better solution is called "coming to the nuisance" and is described here: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=637

What this means is basically that whomever has been there longer can have certain rights that won't allow violations such as building a Wal-Mart (a commercial use) next to a neighborhood (residential) because that property has been used for residential use much longer than commerical use. Therefore, he is in effect creating a nuisance (and thus a conceptial initiation of force) by buying 10 houses next to me and creating a huge mess.

Post 37

Friday, February 25, 2005 - 7:26am

Nicole,

I agree with Byron. I don't think your a wilful evader and just want to point out things from an Objectivist perspective.

I've noted that some people lately are having a tendancy to get really upset when there staements are challenged. Look, if you want to talk about things, lets talk. If I think someone is in error, I'll say so. If they prove that it is indeed me in error, I'll admit it and learn something new. I wouldn't expect to just say my piece and have it bought or respected just because I said it. I could get that level of discussion anywhere. Here you will be challenged. Nicole, I suggest you hang round, rather than disapearing after a few posts becasue you think you are being attacked. You have to understand that, if your going to post on Objectivist sites, your going to face Objectivist ideas. If something you say goes against what Objectivists hold to be right, you should explain rationally why you hold that view. If you can't, then don't expect your view to be respected. Ideas are important, and they should be understood and challenged if false. No offense was intended in my posts to you.

Regards,

Ethan

Post 38

Friday, February 25, 2005 - 9:40am

Well, imo, Wal-Mart could gain this "monopoly" by those government sponsorship. It is always by government that a company can get a monopoly. And I think Chris pointed to an interesting reason behind Wal-Marts huge expansion across the US and its success.

Otherwise the competitive forces of the market would give rise to more than one leading giant (for example, the decline of the Sony, the automobile market (though Toyota is strong, there are several other huge manufactures of cars).

However, there is one point I'd like to have an answer:

What if a company got its position by subsiding on government funds and then uses its monopoly to vanquish other competitors?
(F.e. if there'd opened a new company in New York state to challenge Wal-Mart. They could go down with the prices and run on a negative cashflow for some years, until the new company is running out of funds.)
When there is fear to compete against this government-created monopoly leads to a monopoly of power. Then the Wal-Mart CEO and Board decide that it is a good idea to create a balanced low-level of wages, as I call it.
They are going as far down with the wages as possible (without getting the workers to boycott the markets) and then creating an environment of fear inside the markets, so that every worker must do more and more work, because he has to fear being reported by a co-worker.
Those a strategies that only a monopoly or unchallenged company can use without fear of punishment.

I grant Wal-Mart that they have succeded in developping a competitive model and being the leader of a whole segment of retailers (bundled in one :P).
But I suspect that this sort of monopoly is not what one wants in a free-market society...

@Wal-Mart Construction Locations:

I think you both have something right here, pros and cons. She said that Wal-Mart uses politics to get their shops where they want them to be (because it is cheaper than building it in a location where the government would want much more money for the land).
If the US had a private property system for land-usage, all your Objectivist ideas would work. but as Nicole said, there is no such thing anymore. The zoning is made by laws, so her only defense is using government and law to get Wal-Mart out of the area.
I also think that there'd be several better places for Wal-Mart, then in the middle of a retirement-colony.
But from what I read here, all seem to ignore the idea that Wal-Mart might use government-power as the means to their end, but rather focus on the noble idea of private property and private business.

I can tell you from my experience with big shops across Europe, that there will never be anything like Wal-Mart, because the market doesn't allow it. A Wal-Mart moved into the town I live in and they tried the same approach as in the US, but the German competitors fought it off easily. This always happens, if a huge brand has to challenge other business on an even playing-field. Ultimately, there will be some companies that lose the battle, but there will always be 3-4 competitive business left to share the market.
And this is one of the reasons, why I believe that something like Wal-Mart is a creation by government-funding and intrusion rather than private business.
Don't get me wrong, I think Wal-Mart would be a big retailer anyway, but not that big and powerfull...

(Edited by Max on 2/25, 10:10am)

Post 39

Friday, February 25, 2005 - 11:05am