Thursday, June 18, 2009

Why I Don’t Shop At Wal-Mart

Short and sweet: censorship.

I realize they mistreat their workers, but they aren’t slaves chained to the job. They can go out and sell meth like anyone else if they want.

I also realize they misuse overseas labor, but my jury is still out on how to handle the “sweatshops or prostitution” dilemma many of the women - and children - in third world nations are faced with. This wouldn’t be as much of a problem if our capitalist system didn’t create super-wealthy douchebags who could afford to fly out to third-world nations for sex with underaged children.

Also, I like that they destroy main-street America. I hate small towns and hope they all dry up and die so the slovenly, truck-driving drunks have to close their racism-factories and move to metropolitan areas where their kids will meet (not just be served food by) a black person before the age of 18.

In fact, I like large companies more than mom & pop places. Mom & pop don’t know shit about what I want to buy. They always have the worst selection, and I have to go to a chain store or online to get what I wanted in the first place (cheaper, too). Besides, Wal-Mart is a family run, mom & pop business; family members who run or worked for the company are just billionaire moms and pops. This might actually be another reason I don’t like them...

What’s irritating about Wal-Mart is that, by being a private company, they can circumvent the First Amendment. This is one of the many reasons I support socialism; I think companies have no right to discriminate or censor. Wal-Mart, by virtue of being the largest retailer, has pressured some artists to alter their work to meet decency standards. Others must sell edited versions. Some CD’s and books are not sold at all.

I’m not starting a campaign. I don’t care if you shop at Wal-Mart. I mostly wanted to vent about the stupid reasons most people had for not shopping there.

*Note: from a legal standpoint, I think Wal-Mart should treat its workers better. I just know that if this were the criteria by which one boycotted a company, one would be able to purchase nothing.


  1. Ginx, good post expressing your opinion of the world's largest retailer.

    The question is, why do so many people (I would say the vast majority of ordinary folks who live anywhere near a Wal-Mart location) vote with their dollars by shopping there?

    As far as censorship goes, while I don't agree with what Wal-Mart has done in regard to forcing "clean" versions of certain CDs out of record companies, I think you make a rather weak point here.

    First, the 1st amendment applies to government restrictions on speech, and second, a private company refusing to sell certain books or movies is simply an editorial decision.

    I wouldn't expect a Christian bookstore to offer atheist literature on it's shelves, or consider their refusal to do so "censorship". You know what you're getting when you go inside.

    And third, the market ultimately supplies what the public wants, and you can find just about any music, film or book you want. I think that's because we have something (however distorted it may be, and however much it unfortunately departs from true free markets) in this country called capitalism.

    Still, I like having my views challenged and reading outside an echo chamber. You have a well-written blog and I plan on visiting often.

  2. yeah the first amendment applies to government and not retailers. And no store is required to sell anything it doesn't want to. But, as you point out, people can vote with their dollars- and we can vote not to shop at a place that doesn't allow music with 'bad language' or whatever it is that wallmart censors. :)

  3. I just prefer a socialist system whereby CEOs are answerable to the government, and therefore voters.

    There is nothing magical about the market. It is a wonderful system for promoting new and better products. However, financial success (or rather, the accumulated financial success of long dead entrepreneurs who bequeethed their fortunes and companies to their royalist offspring) does not correlate in any way to proper business practices, representative morality, or even anything remotely resembling a free market. And even when a top position opens up, it's often not the best person who gets the job, but the yes man.

    The government is not the enemy; the ones who are paying them off are. If enough people cared to organize around INCREASED government regulation (not do-nothing Democracts, who would waste more time complaining about being called a pussy than bothering to fix anything), we might be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

    But somehow I doubt it will happen soon. We have to elect government officials who will bitch slap corporations left and right until they correct themselves. The government doesn't have to tell businesses what to do, just what NOT to do. No one should exploit the citizens, even the ones who are too complacent to notice they're being duped.

  4. 'The government is not the enemy; the ones who are paying them off are.'

    One has to ask, if the government is accepting these bribes how are they innocent in the matter?

  5. They are not innocent, they are guilty AND unpatriotic AND deserving of being strung up in public.

    The government is not a static entity, it can change through elections. I cannot say the same for CEOs.

  6. "What’s irritating about Wal-Mart is that, by being a private company, they can circumvent the First Amendment. This is one of the many reasons I support socialism; I think companies have no right to discriminate or censor."

    What an irrational comment! Do YOU discriminate on which store you'd rather buy from? (Of course you do; sometimes based on price, sometimes based on rumor, sometimes based on how you were treated). Do YOU censor your relationships with others? (Do you really need examples here?). If I was a racist should I be free to shop at a my-colored owned store, or should I be forced to shop at a non-my-colored owned store?

    If the consumer (one half of the voluntary exchange of goods and services) should have the freedom to censor and discriminate, then why shouldn't the producer (the other half of the voluntary exchange of goods and services) have the same freedoms?

  7. Companies can't be regulated because they should be able to discriminate? Do they also have the right to deny us health coverage or make sub-standard food? Do they have the right to kill? I don't think we can survive that much freedom.


If your comment is too long, break it into multiple comments and post them all.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...