Wal Mart

Robert Greenwald was on Morning Sedition today discussing his documentary on Wal Mart. See http://www.walmartmovie.com/ for details. The gist of the movie, as far as I can tell, is that Wal Mart is owned by greedy bast***ds that make $10 billion a year and don't pay their employees enough or provide them with good enough benefits. Moreover, they discriminate against women and force people to work overtime and won't let their employees unionize. Although Greenwald never came out and called outright for coercive state intervention against Wal Mart, the implication of his remarks and the web page is that the "democratic process" should be used to change Wal Mart. It appears that he means legislation and coercion.

Here's where I come out on Wal Mart. I hate to shop there because I don't like the atmosphere in the store or the complete lack of service. They sell a lot of crap, and the prices aren't really all that fantastic. I also think that businesses should be a good bit more socially responsible, and I am willing to pay more for goods to patronize businesses that are more in keeping with my values. But if other people want to shop at Wal Mart, it is none of my business. And if Wal Mart doesn't care what people like me think and prefers to continue employment practices that I find objectionable, there is nothing I can do about it. It is morally repugnant to me to consider participating in coercing the owners of Wal Mart to bow to my will or to adopt my values.

On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with the kind of "democratic process" that involves declining to shop at Wal Mart if I am offended by something that they do. I am also free to suggest to others that, if they don't like Wal Mart, they don't have to shop there. If I want to live in a world of mom and pop shops or a world where employers are fair, as I see it, to employees, then I should determine how much I am willing to pay in higher prices or inconvenience to express my values and preferences. I don't have to invest in companies that do evil in the world, and I should be free to encourage others to join me in making our economic actions conform to our social or religious values. That's freedom of association at work.

It is also completely rational for me to tie my economic activities to my moral values. In doing so, I am taking action directed at fulfilling my subjective preferences. If I buy a snowblower, for example, I would like to be certain that I am not helping the retailer or maker from whom I am buying it violate my moral values. For example, I would be willing to pay considerably more for a snowblower from a libertarian seller.