Re: The poor are not getting poorer

> There was no claim regarding Libertarians NOR whether they do or do not want Government.
> You complained that 'money' achieves 'quicker' Government action.
> As I noted, your problem is with Government.

Not just government, but the wealth that buys government as they see
fit to have.

Wealth is not relevant.  It is Government that usurped or has power that
is sought.

> <sigh>"I think of myself as a realist, preferring to focus my attention on better and worse ways of accomplishing ends, mindful that our visions of the "ideal" will be forever changing and beyond our grasp.

I sympathize with your beliefs, no matter how unrealistic in today's
world or not, it's still amounts to a Utopian idea.

Actually, no. We can certainly pretend for your benefit.

> > Black Patron has a right to his life.

No what your saying is he has a right to die... as quietly as
possible.
Because in your scenario, hospitals wouldn't have to serve him either.

Again, you demonstrate a lack of grasp for rights.
One cannot have a right to what another must provide.

> > IF Sam Walton did NOT want to serve Black Patron, it is certainly his right.

That's where we differ... if he wants to sell, then he must sell to
everyone equally or not at all.

Why?
Should the guy wanting to buy HAVE to buy from certain vendors? Why not?

You're scenario denies that right to masses of people while securing
it to an individual.

Bullshit. The scenario presented denies ZERO rights.
EVERYONE has a right to life; his OWN life; self-ownership.
Again, there is no right to what another must provide.

Perhaps he wants to sell at different prices to different people also?
So you're all for price gouging too?

<sigh>
There is no such thing as price gouging -- unless someone can FORCE another to buy at
a price they do not want to pay. Such is not possible by violating natural rights.

Every citizen who has produced or acquired a product,

should have the option of applying it immediately to his own

use or of transferring it to whoever on the face of the earth

agrees to give him in exchange the object of his desires. To

deprive him of this option . . . solely to satisfy the convenience

of another citizen, is to legitimize an act of plunder and to violate

the law of justice. -- Frédéric Bastiat

> > Black Patron has no right to FORCE Sam Walton to 'serve' him (slavery).
> > Similarly, Sam Walton has no right to FORCE Black Patron to buy from him.

All you're doing is securing the right to enslave people through
denial of services.
What you are claiming makes no sense.
'If a Person refuses involuntary servitude ... he is enslaving those who want him as their slave'? Huh?

> >    "There is only one boss--the customer. And he can fire
> >     everybody in the company from the chairman on down,
> >      simply by spending his money somewhere else" -- Sam Walton.

That's a nice little saying but the fact is;
If pure capitalism ruled the day, you'd still be waiting for AT&T to
lower your $1,000 a month phone bill, as there would be no
competition.

ROTFLMAO!
You REALLY have no clue.
Please explain how allowing people to mutually trade with one another will result in a single provider at an enormous price.
While you are at it ...  cite one (1) example of monopoly that was not secured by Government restricting entry into the marketplace. Good luck.

> There is no 'weighing' of rights.  Perhaps you do not grasp the ideal of rights -- your response certainly suggests this.
> One cannot have a right to what another must provide.

Again, you want people to die slowly and quietly by denial of
services.

I have no interest in anyone dying. Similarly, I have no interest in FORCING people into slavery.
You have not demonstrated your claim -- not surprising as it did not occur.

> In the Sam Walton illustration, you imagine anyone wanting Walton's wares has a RIGHT to them.

They do and it works pretty well for everyone.

If they have a right to them ... then no payment is required by definition. This, of course, is theft. Theft is equally as immoral as the slavery you are championing.

> His wares, his decision with whom he trades. That he will necessarily trade with anyone for 'green' also escapes you (his goal will inevitably be to make money ... why forego a potential market?)

For potential power and influence is why.

 
Power and influence? Do tell.

> You seek a right to slavery.  Such is NOT a right.

Slavery? ha-ha, no slavery doesn't come from telling hungry people
they have a right not to starve while looking at a warehouse full of
food.

Again, there is no right to what another must provide. That is slavery.

> Should Walton be able to FORCE people to buy his wares?

He doesn't have to because laws exist that tells him he must already.

We were not talking about laws.
You obviously did not understand what was written.
No law forces people to buy -- (well, Obamacare is seeking to do so)

I merely REVERSED the premise you are clinging.
You believe that Individuals can enslave any other Individual merely because he offers a product/service. I wondered if those offering the product/service can FORCE others to buy them.

> Why do you imagine Others should be able to FORCE him to sell to them?

The laws already exist so he does for good reason.

<sigh>

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its

extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will.  But

rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will

within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.  I do

not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but

the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an

individual. --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.

Laws are not actually relevant to this discussion.

> It doesn't have to stop at Black Patron, it could be White Patron,
> Christian Patron, not-from-my-town Patron, poor Patron, long-hair
> Patron, people-who-wear-glasses Patron, etc. etc. etc.
> So you're going to send cops to enforce all of those?
> You're going to need a mighty big police state to do that.
> Curious how such a large police state will happen after Libertarians
> gut government?

> There was no mention of Costumed Government crime historians.

Not exactly sure what that's supposed to mean???

> If Joe opens a business and seeks only to hire 4 foot Asian women, why would he need cops?
> If he only want to sell his product to Lesbians, why would he need cops?

If Joe decides only to sell to 4' tall Asian lesbian women, chances
are very good you'll need cops and lawyers.
But chances would also be good that Joe isn't very business savvy
either.
That's a rather weak argument.

You keep repeating the same nonsense without explaining why.
Again, why would cops be necessary?

Good to see that you are recognizing that the market will correct
the problem WITHOUT force and WITHOUT requiring people to
associate with people they may not choose.

Sam Walton's refusal to sell to Black Patron and others like him *might* be a detrimental business decision. It could encourage everyone else to refuse to shop his establishment. He would either change his policy or go out of business. Bill K-Mart would see the market for 'servicing' Black Patron and others like him ...

Suppose that someone cornered the corn market and only sold to a
foreign country, or to only people that were rich enough and only for
personal use?
Yeah, you'll have to send lots of cops and lawyers for that one too.
But never mind all the dead people and animals, they should die slowly
and quietly, it's their right, right?

Like the Government has done with the loser ethanol, but I digress.
Other people might see the 'reward' and employ THEIR lands in the production of corn.
Consumers would seek alternatives.
Again with the police .... why would they be necessary?

In reality, no person has the right to what another must provide.

Brothers Nelson Bunker Hunt and William Herbert Hunt attempted to
corner the world silver markets in the late 1970s and early 1980s, at
one stage holding the rights to more than half of the world's
deliverable silver.
During the Hunts' accumulation of the precious metal, silver prices
rose from $11 an ounce in September 1979 to nearly $50 an ounce in
January 1980.
Just think how good cornering markets will be for everyone right?
Especially the poor.
Yet that's exactly what you propose.

Their attempt, as you note, fell well short of their goal -- demonstrating something you do not seem to grasp.
I have not proposed that *anyone* corner *any* market.

> You appear hopelessly confused.
> Minimum wage only ensures that someone MUST be paid at least X.
> > > It does not guarantee employment.  In fact, those worth LESS than
> > > X will not be employed.
> > Half true.
> > The part of the Civil War that many people overlook is the fact that
> > many northerners were out of work precisely because of the low cost of
> > slavery.
> > Lincoln's War is irrelevant to the Minimum Wage.
> It's completely relevant to employment though.
> Lincoln's War is not relevant to employment either.

And I'm the one who's confused?
Why do you suppose there was rampant unemployment?
Wouldn't have anything to do with free labor would it?
Nah, couldn't be.
Just frees up more people to be in the army and make war, right?

Is this where I interject the Great Depression as though it might be
relevant to something ... then insist it was ...?!?!?

Can you demonstrate that the minimum wage guarantees *anything* other
than Individuals must be (legally) paid more than some arbitrary amount?
If not, this portion is complete.


Regard$,
--MJ

Do you not know that freedom means competition, and that competition, according to M. Louis Blanc, is a system of extermination for the common people, and a cause of ruin for the businessman? For evidence that the freer nations are, the closer they are to destruction and ruination, should we not look at Switzerland, Holland, England, and the United States? Do you not know that, again according to M. Louis Blanc, competition leads to monopoly, and that, for the same reason, low costs lead to high prices? That competition tends to exhaust the sources of consumption and pushes production into a destructive activity? That competition forces production to increase and consumption to decrease? Whence it follows that free people produce in order not to consume -- that liberty means both opppression and madness, and that M. Louis Blanc simply must step in and set matters straight?  -- Frédéric Bastiat