Do you think Wal-Mart is evil?

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Sunday, November 27, 2005 20:12
VIEWED: 21084
PAGE 13 of 17

PREV PAGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NEXT PAGE

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, November 20, 2005 12:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Valdron:
In my time, I convicted quite a few criminals and a handful of deadbeat dads.

If you want to redefine your terms such that state subsidized business is not a form of socialism, that's your lookout. I'm really not going to engage in these semantic games.

Now, you'll excuse me, but I'm bored.

Your bored again? What does that mean? Are you gone, or will you come back with a thousand word response that says nothing. And you’re not going to engage in these semantic games, are you? But of course, someone of your caliber is above such things.

Come! Let us retire to sitting room away from this low society, where we will partake in tea and crumpets.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, November 20, 2005 12:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Valdron:
You still here?

Did you think you scared me away?

That's hilarious.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

VALDRON

Sunday, November 20, 2005 2:26 AM

Check this out, the sound of one hand clapping.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, November 20, 2005 4:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by liminalosity:
I think that's exactly the point at which it tips over into evil, no matter what the law says about what is allowed. I see our laws as being especially flawed where business is concerned.

I’m not so sure that evil is the word I would use. I don’t view economic corruption as evil, anymore then I view boys playing hooky evil. Human beings are always breaking rules. It’s not evil. It’s natural human activity. It should be controlled, but it’s not evil.

I also don’t view the corruption that exists in corporation isolated to Wal-Mart. In fact, I don’t even think that anyone can make a convincing argument that Wal-Mart has more then its share. Wal-Mart happens to be the whipping boy, right now. Before Wal-Mart it was Exxon and before that it was General Motors. There has always been one corporation sacrificed by the American psyche to sooth its concerns over corporate America. For some reason Americans seem to believe that if they slay the Wal-Mart dragon all will be well, but corruption will always be inherent in a system run by human beings.

I think that labeling Wal-Mart or corporate America as evil or even “bad” is a vast oversimplification that hides the root causes. For example, many people claim that Wal-Mart puts small businesses under and stifles competition. There may be some truth to that. However, Wal-Mart did not appear in a vacuum and there are many reasons why small businesses go under that have nothing to do with Wal-Mart. When politicians scream to have the minimum wage raised many anti-capitalists who call Wal-Mart ‘evil’ are enthused without even realizing that this is a vote for Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart pays its employees well; in fact they generally pay well above minimum wage, so raising the minimum wage need have no effect at all on Wal-Mart, but even if Wal-Mart must raise its employees wages in response, the worst that might happen is that they will cut back on opening new stores for a while. On the other hand, many small businesses might discover that they can no longer afford to pay all their employees, so some will have to be let go, and that could drastically impact operation and sales. Effectively raising the minimum wage will reduce the number of small businesses while possibly increasing Wal-Mart’s costumer base.

When politicians say they are going to raise taxes on the rich, this is a vote for Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is certainly “the rich,” but it is wealthy enough that it can weather an increase in taxes. Those who will have a harder time will be people who are “rich” simply because they own assets of $250,000-$1,000,000 tied up in a small shop.

If Wal-Mart is evil then what does that say of the politicians who through their desire to raise taxes “on the rich” or increase the minimum wage facilitate Wal-Mart’s “evilness?”

These are just two examples; there are many more, but my point is that the word “evil” has a very one-sided connotation to it, and there are generally many sides to corporate America.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, November 20, 2005 5:24 AM

Limi,

14th amendment debate aside, I think it's okay. I don't even have a serious problem with it. The whole citizenship thing. The punishments smaller than the reward for the the crime, aka the Nader factor, is a problem. But still and all, it's a decent system. The US, Japan, Korea, hardcore capitalism is working pretty hard towards progress, and holding together pretty well. I'm pragmatic and I look at the results. Even if I just look at the US post 14th amendment vs. pre, we definitely moved forwards. Corporate America was doing pretty well up until quite recently. It has it's political opponents, but I have one thing to say:

Show me a corporate evil and I can show you where a govt. is doing evil, quite possibly the same evil, in spades.

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, November 20, 2005 5:27 AM

I don't want in on your argument, seriously, if I get targeted I won't respond because I just have so much else to do.

But I just wanted to make an observation.

Finn, when I saw you're first post I thought you were abrasive. I was wrong. Abrasive has clearly been redefined by your opposition. Valdron that is, not lim. But no offense, do carry on.

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, November 20, 2005 5:28 AM

Quote:
When politicians say they are going to raise taxes on the rich, this is a vote for Wal-Mart.

I basically just think you're right here. Thought it was worth echoing, so: echo.

LIMINALOSITY

Sunday, November 20, 2005 9:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t view economic corruption as evil, anymore then I view boys playing hooky evil. Human beings are always breaking rules. It’s not evil. It’s natural human activity. It should be controlled, but it’s not evil.

corruption will always be inherent in a system run by human beings.

I think that labeling Wal-Mart or corporate America as evil or even “bad” is a vast oversimplification that hides the root causes.

Effectively raising the minimum wage will reduce the number of small businesses while possibly increasing Wal-Mart’s costumer base.

When politicians say they are going to raise taxes on the rich, this is a vote for Wal-Mart.

If Wal-Mart is evil then what does that say of the politicians who through their desire to raise taxes “on the rich” or increase the minimum wage facilitate Wal-Mart’s “evilness?”

I don't see the corporation itself as evil; the corporation is only a concept. I agree with you on many points...

I don't think it's only economic corruption though, I see the current focus on Walmart as only a reflection of a systemic corruption. As you write, Walmart is only the current whipping boy, a couple of years ago, it was indeed Enron, and many others have been, however briefly, in the same spotlight. In 6 months we will have some new whipping boy. Always looking for the magic bullet solution to our problems avoids making hard daily choices. Especially in the current economic and political climate, I think those in power (red and blue) will use just about any device they can muster to distract us from from other things being done to line the pockets of the most economically secure 10% of the population, and to keep the powerful in control. I consider adults in power as more responsible for their choices than boys playing hookey, and I see the stakes in this as much higher than an afternoon off for fishing. Sorry about the coyness of the Tom Sawyer reference, I wonder if you're baiting me with this picture of seeming harmlessness, hmmm? As I said above, I only make my own choices where my view of evil is concerned, and I try to live within those boundaries. I don't plan to force anyone else to get on my bus (or coerce them to paint my fence). I don't claim to be perfect at it either, my only claim is that I try to keep using finer filters on my own choices to try not to have a negative effect on others' experience.

Breaking rules, or looking for new definitions of the world, is, as I see it, largely what keeps us moving forward in our understanding. Without the heretic, we wouldn't make many advances. Where I see the problem in this, is in taking choice from someone else; in making choices that negatively affect someone else's quality of life. That is a difficult thing to define and to control. I think we will always have trouble finding the balance where control isn't too rigid, doesn't infringe too much on the highly motivated, yet protects the powerless and the innocent from those who would scoop everything they can get their hands on into their own bank account, regardless of the affect it has on others.

I recognise that there are many factors at work in this, and that WalMart is only wallowing in the paradigm. One of the reasons it works so well is the very reason that WalMart is so successful. Americans especially have been pretty thoroughly conditioned to seek happiness in things. That will be a hard addiction to cure, and I'm not sure there are many who see the value in the cure.

I found it pretty amusing (in a horrifying way) a couple weeks ago to hear that WalMart has the pieces in place to lobby to raise the minimum wage, and part of what I found humorous (gallows humor, mind) was that they were using this news to placate and sooth in the middle of the latest imbroglio over the dread memos. I recognise that isn't something that would essentially hurt them much, but it would be a fatal stroke for many small businesses they compete against.

Often, when the government waves the banner of raising taxes

CHRISISALL

Sunday, November 20, 2005 3:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
There has always been one corporation sacrificed by the American psyche to sooth its concerns over corporate America. For some reason Americans seem to believe that if they slay the Wal-Mart dragon all will be well, but corruption will always be inherent in a system run by human beings.

Effectively raising the minimum wage will reduce the number of small businesses while possibly increasing Wal-Mart’s costumer base.

When politicians say they are going to raise taxes on the rich, this is a vote for Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is certainly “the rich,” but it is wealthy enough that it can weather an increase in taxes. Those who will have a harder time will be people who are “rich” simply because they own assets of $250,000-$1,000,000 tied up in a small shop.

Finn, the voice of reason. Your job on this thread has been done, and done well. While some of us are screaming 'Evil!', you slow us down long enough to think. Thank you.

If I were to do this thread again now, I would title it 'Do you think Wal-Mart's questionable business practices lower it a few feet closer to Hell than other corperations?'

Yeah, human nature is to always take an opportunity for personal gain, so why should corporations be different?

I find nothing to oppose in any of your posts, and many offered a POV that throws light on important matters.
If I may, my only criticism is that your neutrality on this issue can seem to some to be condoning all that Wal-Mart and Corporate America does in the name of profit, since that's just what they do (I don't think that's your feeling here,BTW).

It is not my hope that Wal-Mart come crashing down, that would be terrible. I would like, however, to see them forced to make business decisions that benefit them, the employees, the communities, and the workers of other countries.

We gotta fight corporate giants, not to kill them, just to keep 'em from stepping on our kids and dogs and such from time to time.

Anyway, keep it up!

Fie fi fo fum Chrisisall

VALDRON

Sunday, November 20, 2005 3:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t view economic corruption as evil, anymore then I view boys playing hooky evil. Human beings are always breaking rules. It’s not evil. It’s natural human activity. It should be controlled, but it’s not evil.

I suppose that raises the question of whether you view any corruption as evil. Or whether you accept the notion of evil in any meaningful sense.

Take a middle aged man having sex with a five year old girl. Is this evil? Sex is a natural human activity. Our hypothetical pedophile would argue that he's just following his natural drives, as corporations follow a natural drive to economic corruption. Are both evil, neither, or do you make some arbitrary distinction between the two of them.

Your argument on economic corruption rings hollow. I would presume from your threads that economic corruption is not inherently evil because its just following the dictates of human nature. A corporation that engages in economic corruption is just following its natural instincts, much as a tiger follows its natural instincts to kill game.

There are two problems with this, of course. One is that a corporation, being strictly an artificial entity, has no natural instincts. To the extent that it does, these 'instincts' defined by statute and regulation, a corporation which engages in corruption is violating its 'natural' instincts. Hence, it can't be justified on those grounds.

On the other hand, you run up against your other example - children playing hooky. You're equating corporate corruption and malfeasance with children being naughty? Children have no natural instinct to play hooky. It's a volitional act. They choose to break the rules. Ergo, your supporting example suggests that corporate corruption is a volitional act.

Of course, arguably, children playing hooky mean no harm. You might be arguing that a corporation in engaging in corruption, intends no harm to others and is merely pursuing its best interests, and is therefore not evil in this regard. But a pedophile or a crack dealer could make the same claim.

It strikes me that your benign attitude towards corporate corruption is indifferent to the consequences and outcomes of that corruption.

Let's take an example: Thalidomide. The general impression is that the company that made and distributed Thalidomide had no idea that it was a teratogen that would produce a generation of deformed babies. Well, that doesn't really hold up, the clinical trials were showing peculiarities, particularly in pregnant rats from the beginning. Despite this, Thalidomide was prescribed specifically for pregnant mothers. The anomalies in clinical trials were ignored, specifically because there was so much money to be made. This was a form of corporate corruption. A lot of people suffered horrificaly from this. A lot of people suffer to this day.

What about the corporation that sold poison gas to the Nazi's? Were they evil? The folk from the Nuremberg trials seemed to be of the opinion that this conduct was evil.

So, assuming corporate malfeasance results in thousands of people dying or injured from defective products, or in a degradation of the environment, such as the destruction and development of 'barrier' islands that protected New Orleans from hurricanes, or the extinction of species... these are arguably serious social harms. The situation is far closer to pedophiles preying on little girls, rather than children playing hooky.

You might argue that if its legal, or at least, if the corporation is not sanctioned by law, then its okay. But would that really hold up? If a Pedophile gets away with it, is that moral? If the Pedophile claims that the five year old was consenting? That he wasn't the first to have the five year old, but that it's a child prostitute? What if he goes to some place like the Phillipines or Thailand where it is at least tolerated?

The corporation, as a legal construct, has been accorded a legal status equivalent to a human being, notwithstanding

PREV PAGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NEXT PAGE