Kroger – the grocery chain – announced a few days ago that Diapering will be expected at all its stores. It also posted lyin’ signs in front of its stores that claimed “local ordinances” require Diapering.
There are no such “local ordinances.” There is merely the corporate policy of Kroger. Their intent seems to be to add a dose of intimidation by intimating that Diapering is required by law. It isn’t.
Neither did several others inside, I’m happy to report. Which is heartening given the recent, startlingly aggressive push to impose Universal Diapering – because the cases! the cases! Which has been depressingly effective as far as maintaining the terror . . . that We Are All Going to Die.
Unless we all Diaper.
Resistance, however, is not futile. Unless you are physically barred from entrance, which (so far) most of these adjuncts of the government are not doing – you can just walk on in, if you have the guts to call their bluff.
They are relying on shaming – social pressure, chiefly – to get you to shame yourself. A store employee – forced to Diaper by his employer – cannot force you to Diaper.
These store employees may pretend they have power – telling you Diapers are required! But you don’t have to tell them anything. Maybe say “ok!” or “right on, brother!” . . . and keep on walking in, without the Diaper.
This confuses them.
Or just say you can’t Diaper – implicit ADA/HIPPA – and do the same.
I did. So did others. We shopped as normal. Well, as normal as shopping among the Diapered can be. The sight of all these Diapered Dupes is, of course, extremely depressing – which is precisely why Diapering is being demanded. To depress and demoralize the populace. To make them sick, just not physically.
It is clear evidence of the effectiveness of propaganda as well as inclination to submission. The poltroonish tendency of Homo Americanus to not cause trouble and do as he is told.
No matter what he is told.
And it’ll be just a vaccine, too.
Without which you won’t be allowed to shop, either. Which is why Diapering must be defeated, before this sickness secures its beachhead.
Which is why Diapering is being pushed so aggressively at precisely the moment hysteria over WuFlu was waning – because the promised millions of bodies – remember that? – weren’t stacking up and people were beginning to realize 99 percent of the virus’s power was its hype.
To maintain that power, it is essential that everyone appear in thrall to the manufactured fear – hence the cases! the cases! Which means as much as the “cases” of insomnia or acne, absent context.
There is a reason why the Fear Organ has stopped chorusing about deaths – and instead pitches the cases! the cases! There are many cases! – but increasingly few deaths. Both in real numbers as well as percentage numbers. Inarguable. The information is openly admitted – just not mentioned. Much less repeated over and over and over again.
Like the cases! the cases!
This discontinuity ought to raise general suspicions about what is intended and the fact that it doesn’t is hard-tack evidence of just how much you can get a scared person to accept.
Which is why it is so important to not do it.
Especially right now – as major retailers are organizing to impose this policy everywhere.
What if these corporations announced a “whites only” policy? It amounts the same, in principle – which is just the problem as Homo Americanus has been rendered incapable of grasping them and extrapolating from them.
This is a civil rights issue. People are being abused, their rights assaulted. The Diapered retort – you haven’t got a right to get me sick! Certainly. But if I am not sick? Then you haven’t got the right to hoof-trample my rights.
Consider a principled example to make the same point:
A neurotic cringes in fear of witches. He is suspicious of all women, any of which might be a witch. This is certainly true. But does his fear that every woman in general circulation might be a witch endow him with morally-legally enforceable power to command that every woman must wear a vial of gypsy tears to tamp down her witchy powers?
This proposition is, of course, absurd – as well as vicious, if taken seriously.
Why is it less absurd – or less vicious – to impose the same on healthy people because a neurotic (or a corporation) worries they might be sick?
PS: Some Libertarians are reluctant to challenge corporate Diaper decrees because, they say, these are private businesses and thus have the right to decree terms and conditions of admittance/service. But – in the first place – these are corporations, not human beings and legal constructs have no rights in the moral sense. And in the second, property rights don’t trump human rights.
It is very important – per Lenin – to not play nice with not-nice people. Marquess of Queensbury rules will get you stomped in a fight like this.
Don’t play by them.
Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
If you’d like an ear tag – custom made! – just ask and it will be delivered.
My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here. If that fails, email me at EPeters952@yahoo.com and I will send you a copy directly!
Called the nice Wally World in the small town where I prefer to shop (As opposed to the crappy Walmart in the larger town in the opposite direction); Talked to the manager and asked: “I have a disability 😉 which prevents me from wearing a mask, will I be allowed to shop there?” He said “Sure. If they give you any trouble at the door, just tell them”.
We’ll see wha’ hoppins…… I’ll try first without resorting to the “disability” nonsense. Hope it works, or I’ll have to drive all the way to the other town where there are independent supermarkets- and since the two towns are in opposite directions…it’ll be a long ride!
The entry-sentry just said as I was walking by: “Sir, do you have a mask?”. Me: “Nope!” and walked right in.
The most depressing thing, was that there were two young guys (Late teens or early 20’s) walking ahead of me as we passed the entry-sentry, who were wearing bandannas pulled up over their mouths, and when they heard me say “Nope!”, they both simultaneously turned back to look at me, as if I were some radical leper or something!
There were a few other GUYS in the store who were also not wearing a mask- more older guys than younger- but one younger guy, who looked like he was in a rock band or something- kinda unkempt and with long hair- the kind of guy whom if someone asked “Ya have any drugs” you could probably bet would say “Sure”…… I think I would have felt better if he were wearing a mask! 🙂
Stopped at the bank first- which had a sign outside saying “Masks required”. No one said a word to me….. There was a sign at the teller’s counter with a big red arrow, pointing in both directions, which said “Exit to the right or the left”- I read it aloud and said to the teller: “What other way could one go? Have you been having problems with people trying to walk through the counter?”- Which made all of the people behind the counter burst out laughing.
I am asking everyone to sign up with Pam Popper who is organizing a massive amount of people to stop all this bs. There is power in numbers and she needs every person she can get. I ask not only for her, but for myself and for everyone. Please consider listening to this very intelligent doctor who is going political to stop the defeat of the people and this country.
Mexican cartels are organized. I’m not into drugs but GOOD FOR THEM lol. At least the drug cartels don’t steal peoples’ money or wreck their livelihoods or try to stab you with poison needles like govt’s do. This is what EVERY COUNTY in America (and every country) should have — militias… staffed from the peoples’ community groups. America should be ASHAMED, Mexican cartels make us look like the PATHETIC MORONS that we are. America needs to learn from the Mexican cartels!!! Maybe we should invite them in to America and ask them to teach us how to organize a little bit?
krazy, I’d say the way they do it is effective and nobody can avoid it. Take those who everyone knows is guilty, wear a complete head covering and show signs or change your voice with a computer.
Stand the criminal up and cut the head off slowly. Or jam an old tire around the criminal, douse it with gasoline and light it. Be sure and leave their mouth open. Grab a bunch, tie them to a wall and do some carving with a chain saw while others are burning their houses with the kin and kids inside. Seems to work pretty well.
Crooked mayors like Cuomo won’t be easy to find and they’ll make sure everyone knows they’ve resigned. It will do them no good. Do the same with those who squeal.
Yeah, Eight! “Necklacing”- just like that “hero”, thug Nelson Mandela and his goons used to do.
just like THEIR hero….”
Lucky me, I work at one of the stores implementing this mandate and do vendor work at some others, so I can’t make a big show of noncompliance without risking my income. What I can do is patronize local stores which are not on board with the Business Roundtable’s decision, and make sure they know that’s why I’ve chosen them.
Replies to this comment will contain links to studies on the novel coronavirus and its narrative. Read and spread, if you can; I will attempt to acquire plastic flyer holders and rig them up around town in places where bills are frequently posted containing free copies of these articles. Originally I had planned to suction-cup such a holder to my car window whenever parked, but I could feel some anonymous conformer’s pocket knife homing in on my tires just thinking about it, and they’re not cheap tires either, so I decided to put that one back on the shelf. (Originally I wanted to include the articles with this post, but Wordmess autofilters any post with more than one link so eh.)
And Eric approved both of my attempts at commenting so just look at the comment below for the links. Frickin’ spam filters though.
Words cannot describe how angry I am right now. Of course, I work at one of the stores doing this, and do vendor work at others, so I can’t make a big show of noncompliance without risking my income.
What I can do is choose to shop at local stores which do not have this requirement – and make sure they know that’s why I’ve chosen them. Meanwhile…
Decades of studies on viral transmission confirm that masks do nothing: https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/masks-dont-work-covid-a-review-of-science-relevant-to-covide-19-social-policy
And also: https://www.sott.net/article/438352-Conclusive-proof-Masks-do-not-inhibit-viral-spread
Furthermore, it seems studies which claimed C19 antibodies were short-lived were not telling the whole story: https://www.sott.net/article/438207-Covid-19-SARS-immunity-discovered-in-recovered-patients-also-in-over-50-of-subjects-who-were-never-infected
Read and spread any way you can. If possible I will acquire real estate flyer holders and rig them up around town in places where bills are frequently posted, containing copies of these and similar articles. (I originally wanted to suction-cup one to my car window when parked, but I could feel some anonymous coward’s keys homing in on my paint just thinking about that idea).
Well boys, I find myself shaken. I just had to stop in Menards in Fargo for some screws, and walked right in past the diapered girl yelling at me “sir, sir- you have to have a mask!” To which I tossed back, ” I’m exempt !” and continued in. I walked back, grabbed my screws, and headed up to the front, where some twenty something kid wearing a disposable face kotex made a beeline for me to chew me out.
I looked him in the eye and said, “I’m exempt on multiple grounds, medical for one, but I’m standing on principle and telling you I don’t believe in the occult practice of masking, it’s against my religion and I wont.” He tried to get me to take one, and to sell me a mask. I refused again, and he then warned me that he’d have me arrested if I came back in without a mask.
Throughout the whole hostile encounter, I was furious, but controlled and polite. I was mentally cussing myself for having my little bull strapped to my ankle (the knowing will understand), so I handed him my screws and told him to ring me up. I did tell him I could and would sue for religious discrimination, and also noted that by the same reasoning that he couldn’t demand a moslem woman remove her mask, he had absolutely no right to demand that I wear one. And I am most assuredly sincere in my beliefs- I may go to the wife’s Lutheran church, but my belief system is and always has been pure Kyfho.
At that point, he came back with an offer of separate accommodation where I could call in and they would bring my purchase to me (as if this is practical or sensible in a hardware/supply store where it is usually necessary to look around for options).
I was reaching my limit so I went through the checkout line, where the smiling 50 something cashier lady was smiling behind her face kotex and obviously happy that someone was fighting back. She did everything she could to let me know- wink, nod, hand me change with enthusiasm- it was nice.
After leaving, and cooling down a bit, it occurred to me that I may have to go back, and make a scene, and get myself arrested to have standing to sue over religious discrimination. After all, they claim government privileges and are a “public accommodation” and therefore a “separate but equal” separate system of shopping and accommodation has been decided 50 years ago for better or for worse, and it’s long since time we fought back using the sh*t they’ve used against honest, polite, long suffering Americans.
Also, the enemy isn’t stupid and obviously planned this, I wouldn’t get too carried away with the medical thing, at least not at the chain corporations where they have clever legal departments putting out strategy papers, briefings, and strategy points to the employees.
Also it helps that I’m in the hinterlands and there are lots of (slightly more expensive) options for shopping. But this fight HAS to be won and it should have been joined decades ago.
One wonders what they would do if you wore a mask that read “White Lives Matter”. Oh, the humanity!
Went to the local grocery store twice yesterday, and CVS once today, sans mask. I wasn’t alone, but I didn’t exactly have company, if you know what I mean. Still, the staff was courteous and I came and went without incident. I flashed a big, shitlord grin as I was exiting to the compliant customers coming in. Almost feeling sexy being a rebel. Wonder if the dames will catch on?
To those who use “but it is a private company” to excuse whatever a giant corporation is doing in a regulated, licensed, or subsidized business sector I point out that you cannot use free market excuses when there is not a free market.
There are many of these ‘not a free market’ patches. For instance the ability of businesses to refuse customers is very limited. Why? Because it’s not a free market where choices abound in many areas. It’s who has managed to jump through all the government hoops or is a crony or whatever who got to be or stay in business.
Am I excusing more government regulation? No, the solution is remove the offending regulations that limit choice not patch with new ones. But practically nobody wants to do that. Until that is done I won’t accept ‘but it’s a private company’ unless that private company is some niche where the free market is more or less intact. For instance, say a bicycle shop. I can go to a different one. It might be out of my way (well they are all out of my way), but I can go to a different one. I can also shop online. The bicycle business is still pretty free market. The food business in my area is fairly free market so maybe I could accept it for a grocery store but in many areas it’s not the case. I can select from a variety of chains and independents but that’s not the case everywhere.
That said, Pritzker the Hutt has decided that everywhere is masked so the businesses don’t really have any choice.
That”s a very astute observation and one that remains far beyond the comprehension level of the general public. The whole thing is quite devious if you look at it as the corporate-government nexus. Because the government has the corporations doing their bidding, they’ve removed both your choice in the matter as well as your first amendment right to say no.
The one thing you can say about IL is that at least we’re not panicking now like other states because we already got worn down three months ago. The national retailer mandates are essentially a rollback to April as far as our state is concerned. As long as you have the relief valve in the form of small town businesses, you can still function to a large degree without patronizing the huge SJW corporations. IGA instead of Walmart, etc. Also, in my pandemic travels, I’ve found one other constant in Dollar General. If you get past the masking sign on the door, practically none of them enforce it and in many cases even the few employees in a given store don’t bother with the masks either. Out of dozens of locations, I only encountered *one* location where the lack of masking might present an issue, which was a store in Peoria that had an additional handwritten sign on the door. There’s almost always a Dollar General in every town of a certain size and usually several or more in every city.
Dollar general employees get paid very little and are treated like shit by the company. Everybody there does the bare minimum because theres no incentive to do anything else. Pure throw-away job and a trash company with mostly trash products.
I won’t argue with you there, many Dollar General stores probably would benefit from you wearing a mask just by virtue of how filthy they are. But make no mistake that our shopping options became severely curtailed at the onset of the pandemic, and I’ve found them to be perhaps the most notable chain that does not harrass their customers over masking. This is based in my observation of over 60 of their stores both in my area and on my extensive travels. I no longer dismiss them as I used to, as they are sometimes good for when you need certain consumables in a pinch even if the rest of the store tends to be junk.. I also don’t put their employees on any lower rung than those in mainstream big box stores which force their workers to be masked. In fact I suspect that some big box employees take out their frustration on the customer for their having to be masked, which doesn’t make it any better for the customer who’s already uncomfortable.
Corporations at least are indeed NOT private businesses. Corporations are a creation of the State, and so have only the rights and duties the State grants and forces upon them. Regardless the State’s determination that corporations be litigated as persons, they are not persons. Since they were not born, they can’t be born with self evident inalienable rights, as those of us who were born are.
The latest retailer to surrender to the insanity is Walmart, effective today. The friendly Walmart greeter is no longer your first encounter with an employee. They are now funneling the cattle to a single store entrance with a “health ambassador” (I’m not joking) on duty to enforce diapering compliance. And (drum roll), these poor wretches will be wearing black polo shirts. Black. Hello, Walmart, have you read any WWII history? Um, have you ever heard of Mussolini’s fascist thugs, the Blackshirts? Or seen pictures of the black uniforms of Himmler’s SS guards at the Nazi concentration camps? This makes our point perfectly, you stupid clods at Walmart headquarters. Thank you Eric, for continuing to inspire the free thinkers and freedom lovers all over this great land.
Walmarts by me were one of the first to put up crude rat mazes to social distance and other counterproductive measures the technocrats demanded. This was before Lord Pritzker’s masking orders. I haven’t been back to a Walmart since sometime in late March or early April. Sadly I need to get some coolant so it’s either go to walmart or pay through the nose at an auto parts store. Maybe I should see what the home depot has. They didn’t seem too insane back in May but I never went past the outdoor garden center.
home depot and lowe’s are all in on face diapers now, as well
Walked into a HD this morning, big sign on the door saying masks required. No mask, nobody said anything, saw another non-masker, smiled a big smile, paid for my chit, and went on my way.
i haven’t been to HD for a while, i refuse to wear one and have yet to.
out here in hawaii, everyone (except me) is all in on face diapers
Does anyone still ride a surfboard? Sounds pretty dangerous, opening your mouth wide after riding on the bottom of a wave for a while and getting that diaper stuck in your throat when you break the surface.
people pay to jump out of perfectly good airplanes, too.
go the star advertiser, click the daily covid article, read the comments there. nothing less than full lockdown will satisfy the sheep here
every positive test is counted as a case here
I havent been to a w**m**t in over 30 years; they are evil incarnate. No one else should patronise them either, especially now.
I dunno Eric: If a company, to mean a private organization, establishes its own rules or conditions to do business, shouldn’t they be free to do whatever they want? What if, say, they said, “Only people who wear plaid shirts are allowed in?”. As a libertarian thought exercise, I like the aspect of debate on this. Dunno about Libertarians who want to invoke Momma Government to force businesses to accept people who are noncompliant to their conditions of doing business.
I think you touched on it with Human rights vs property rights. I personally would like to see more discussion on this aspect of “No shirt, no shoes, no service” policy.
Tell that to those bakers fined and put out of business for refusal to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding. It appears the private property freedom is also limited by political correctness.
IMO,,, There’s no such animal as Private Property in the US. It’s all leased from the local tax assessor and all businesses must have a business ‘license’ which dictates they operate within the guidelines of whatever jurisdiction they are in.
“There’s no such animal as Private Property in the US. It’s all leased from the local tax assessor and all businesses must have a business ‘license’ which dictates they operate within the guidelines of whatever jurisdiction they are in.”
these are facts, not your opinion
Why are the property rights of the patron subordinate to those of the crony-capitalist merchant such as Walmart?
One’s right to adorn one’s face as one sees fit, including, necessarily, the right to shop undiapered, is a property right. It is a property right that is not surrendered upon entering the merchant’s place of business.
You are spot-on with this! Property rights are the only real rights. To those saying that it’s not a free-market; that businesses “must accommodate”, etc. -aren’t those the very things we Libertarians fight and seek to right? In a Libertarian world, without government, a business would be free to choose whatever policies and conditions they wished to, and our remedy would be to choose whether to accept their terms or to not do business with them- and that is just the case now with this mask issue- but suddenly, when it’s something which we find abhorrent, we now seek to strip businesses of one of the last vestiges of freedom they still possess, and to transgress the very principles of our philosophy, as if WE have some “right” to patronize any business at our pleasure and to maintain our rights while on their premises, and even claim that government– the very thing we despise and claim is illegitimate, mandates such a thing?
I, like yourself, find this extremely hypocritical- and I refuse to rationalize it, even though I am opposed to masking and will never comply. We demand that businesses be free to choose to allow or ban smoking in their premises; that they should be the ones to decide if they will accommodate the handicapped with special facilities; and we find it abhorrent when they are forced to install special bathrooms for the mentally ill who think they are a different gender than what their physiology dictates, or ditto with forcing them (and us!) to allow any gender to use any bathroom, etc.- but when it comes to something that affects us, suddenly it’s different?
It’s much like The Tea Party rightly opposing social;ized medicine…but then wrongly wanting their candidates to maintain Medicare. “But we paid taxes for it!”
It’s like I often say, I support unhindered free-speech…but if I come to your house, am I free to call your mother a whore? You would demand that I leave, and physically remove me if I didn’t, because your rights in your home are superior to mine, and that right trumps my right to free speech. The only right I have on your property is to not be assaulted or killed, unless I initiate violence or refuse to leave at your request. That is property rights vs. human rights. If we concede property rights, we have no “human rights” because then anyone else’s right would be superior to our own, even while we are in their domain- and thus it would truly be impossible for anyone to truly have any human right or property right, because we can not always have an “equal right”- else I could enter your home and do whatever I want, and you could do the same with my home- so we’d in essence be forced to alwaysd accept virtually anything.
This is what the denial of property rights leads to- and why we as Libertarians so strongly uphold property rights, regardless of any government interference. Once we cease doing that, we just become as all the others, seeking to impose our own will by force on others.
tl:dr: I’m with ya!
Of course! Property rights are the only rights since they arise from our ownership of ourselves. But that takes a person, an actual human being. Who owns a corporation? I mean specifically? I cannot get hold of the answer. There are shareholders and these have an ownership stake; a piece of the pie. But most corporations aren’t the property, properly speaking, of anyone.
And then there is the double standard I mentioned earlier about limited liability. The assertion of the same rights as an individual person on the one hand, but then – on the other – the assertion of limited liability for wrongdoing which the individual cannot (legally) assert).
Add to this the inarguable fact that corporations are by definition creatures of government and thus beholden to government (it is not accidental that corporations are in lockstep with the government’s clear goal of imposing Diapering on all) and you have a situation that, I submit, is qualitatively different than the “mom and pop” store owned by . .. mom and pop.
Corporations – like these greasy social media “platforms” – cannot have it both ways. If, as you assert, they have the same property rights as you or I then they must also be open to the same liability as you and I when they cause harm.
But they’re not.
Hi Ya Eric!
I hate to be at odds with you on this, but I do think that the exposition of the underlying principles are important.
Who owns a corporation? If the answer to that question is ambiguous to the point of negating property rights, then why not just help oneself to the merchandise in corporate-owned stores?
While the illegitimate perks offered to corps are…illegitimate, does that mean that any legitimate rights of collective ownership should be voided? If a farmer sells shares in a cow to those who want organic raw milk, in order to avoid onerous FDA regulations, and someone shoots that cow, when the vandal is caught and required to make restitution, can he just say that the ownership of the cow was ambiguous, since it really didn’t belong to the farmer on whose land it grazed because he sold shares in it to others, and that it really didn’t belong to the shareholders because they really didn’t have physical possession or control of the cow?
**” If, as you assert, they have the same property rights as you or I then they must also be open to the same liability as you and I when they cause harm.”**
Agreed. But since we have no inherent right to use their property, if we do so, we are consenting to do so at their pleasure, not ours- and they thus have the right to bar us if we don’t consent. (I will be shopping at Food Lion and or IGA this week and for the foreseeable future! F%#$ Walmart!)
WE can’t have it both ways either. Why would we rely on some government edicts which are destructive to property rights (“Equal access” and “accommodation”) when those very things are among the crux of government illegitimacy, contrary to property rights, and near the top of the list of the very things we oppose? Just because we don’t like what how an entity is exercising it’s property rights?
It’s ok to disagree – here, at least!
To respond: Theft is theft; if it’s not mine, I’m not taking it. But I’m also not taking being told I must violate my person by a corporation in order to engage in commerce.
That’s the point of our disagreement, I think. I do not believe a corporation has any rights, morally speaking. That does not mean I am entitled to steal. And I don’t think the two things are intellectually incompatible.
Ah, but you are “taking it”. If you assert that you have the right to shop at Walmart while being exempt from the conditions they impose on those who want to use their facilities because “they have no property rights” because corporations are fictional illegimate entities, then how do they have property rights over their inventory- if they don’t even have such rights over their real estate?
WE are the ones who have a lesser right here, as we have no inherent right to be in Walmart against their wishes. It’s really no different than when they ban a shoplifter or disruptive customer from the store, and then have them arrested for trespassing if they return- they/we have no right to be there except as they allow us…just as you can not walk into Walmart and sit at a table and proceed to play cards all day….or live in a tent in the sporting goods section.
It’s like my example below to Liberty Mike: You can’t go to a mosh pit and then complain that you were injured, because while such might constitute negligence and or assault elsewhere…it is something one consents to by reason of entering a mosh pit facility (whatever one calls them).
What, exactly, have I taken from a store by refusing to Diaper?
Quick reply, as I’m just in for a quick break [Deafening cheer heard by weary readers].
Oh, nay! You misunderstand- or maybe I dint splain it right.
Not that you or I take anything by refusing to diaper; We take something when we fail to uphold property rights.
If a store has no right to exclude those of us who refuse to abide by their prescribed conduct, because we see it as not having absolute property rights for whatever reason, then it would also stand to reason it’s property rights to it’s inventory are also invalid.
We can see the absurdity of the latter- but the former is really no different.
I’ll respond to Jeremy tonight….ain’t got time now.
The problem is that while these corporations (like any other business) DO have every right to turn you away, they’re bullying us because they know we don’t have much of a choice now other than “living off the land”, and it’s only a matter of time until THAT is outlawed (for us plebs, anyways). And online ordering is not really feasible for certain things. I mean, would you order meat or produce without being able to see it in person first?
Recently, Sam’s club simply changed the contract for Plus members and removed free shipping for many “branded” items, WTF ever that means.
I buy large amounts of cat food, esp. when it’s on sale. Well, it was recently on sale so I put in a big order and they added $4/sack for it to be shipped. Even Baking Soda in 15 lb containers had a delivery fee. There really wasn’t anything (wash detergent, fabric softener and all sort of house hold shopping plug drinks no longer shipped free.
I’m going to contact a lawyer and some people I know who are Plus members and check into suing them. We had that contract in place till it was time to renew it, not just for shits and giggles.
It didn’t work for perishable items and that made sense, but for things that could hand out in a warehouse forever and not be affected it made sense only for them to make more money from you.
Many things that couldn’t be shipped that once were shipped had been affected. Many things that showed not to be in stock the night before were stocked quite well. You can’t ship something you don’t have except they had it in stock and it hadn’t just been stocked the night before.
I’ll have to go to the oncologist on the 11th and will make another run for large items. And I will spend hundreds of dollars we don’t really have in order to have these items, mainly food items, the basic ones, on hand.
Just yesterday I read about beef processors and chicken processors stopping their bidnesses again for the foreseeable future due to the “possibility” of transmission of corona.
Get ready to go hungry.
One other reason I had no money was because I had bought a couple extra steers and have processing dates for them at the end of September.
You can bet the wife who doesn’t hunt and I will both have hunting licenses this year and do a lot of barn processing if/when it gets cold. We have a tank by our house so everything that drinks water comes to our place.
We’ll be shooting and “poking” as my neighbor says for a lot of venison. I’m going to spend money we don’t really have for a bow. That will give us two seasons to hunt. I’m not an ace bowhunter but I can do ok except for my shoulder that is screwed up.
I will use my TENS unit quite a bit, especially at night to enable me to pull a 70lb bow.
My point is, it’s about to get jiggy, very jiggy for those in cities and towns with no land to hunt for free.
I intend to show a video from today about the govt.’s ablity to put sounds in your head.
I’ve experienced it before. For those who were here in 2013 they’ll recall I nearly went batty hearing “some” thing all day starting about 9 am and continuing to about 4 am although the times weren’t set in stone.
Before you think, as I did at the time, that I was losing my mind, I now have evidence of govt. programs to do this to anyone and everyone.. The only thing that made me keep my sanity(broken leg, coudn’t do much so I didn’t do a lot except be in a house without any sound on)was CJ. He jump up, run around and look and act paranoid, just the way I felt when this stuff started up. It went on till into the winter and stopped like it had started.
I don’t know how it was in 2014 when I got a job trucking and was gone all the time. CJ didn’t seem to really be that upset but he’d go with me in the big rig every time I could pull it off and he doesn’t care to ride in a big truck.
We have a big fight coming up for those who are able or ready to defend themselves.
I’d advise everyone to arm up, ammo up, gets as much food stored up and be prepared to defend yourself.
Guns.com had a video today interviewing Texans who wanted to answer why Texans were always armed.
There were many reasons given(we are a hunting family) and (we are a family who shoots together and out family has always done so) to the very last womany interview who said in effect, that an armed society is a polite society. Nobody had hte nads to say the real reason ammo sales are up 92% and guns sales are sky rockeing….we’re liable to have to fight out way out of govt. mandates.
And suddenly today, some of the big stores such as Wally, said they’d no longer require people to mask up.
Things are getting bad and they know it. They don’t want to be the ones on the receiving end of pissed off, hungry people.
You said to Nunzio: “But I’m also not taking being told I must violate my person by a corporation in order to engage in commerce.”
Would this be your response to non-corporate business that required you to wear a mask on its premises “in order to engage in commerce?” If not why?
The properties in question are still owned by individuals. Are you saying that because of this double standard we can ourselves selectively respect only the property rights of businesses who are not protected by this state mandated limited liability? And this is legitimate? If so, where do you draw the line? Will you included Mom and Pop LLCs?, or just LLCs with more than X number of employees, etc, etc.? Are we going to sully private property rights because of the inequalities and privileges the state creates? Do we follow the herd and say yeah, tax the hell out of the rich, and close the god damn loop holes that are expressly created for the rich? No. We say don’t tax anybody! Because taxation is theft!
By the same token maybe we should call for the elimination of a corporation with limited liability and hold all owners in all organizational forms responsible for the harm they do.
The corporation is defined by diffuse ownership; no specific human fully owns – or is fully responsible – for anything. A corporation is a weird entity – an artificial legal construct. It cannot, as I see it, have “rights” in the way that a human being does.
These corporations collude with the government, too. To deprive us of our property (see Jeremy’s points regarding eminent domain as well as preferential tax brakes/subsidies, etc.) as well as our rights, which include not being abused as a condition of transacting business.
Yes, we technically can choose not to enter – but it is technicality when they collude to eliminate choice – as they are in fact doing by concerted and organized Diaper decrees across the board, everywhere.
I agree with Nunz that the owner of a joint has every right to establish terms and conditions – and that we are free to not enter. But corporations aren’t people and thus, while they may have legal rights, cannot be said to have human rights. This does not mean, of course, that we have the right to steal from corporations. I would never suggest such a thing. But it does mean that corporations – adjuncts of the government – lack the rights of human property owners, since they aren’t.
I agree with you, there should be no corporate rights provided by the state that protect the owners, managers and other workers from responsibility for the harm they may do others in the course of their work.
But we should look beyond the phony corporate construct to see that specific people, the shareholders, do own the business, and responsibilities are spelled out for the managers of the business whether the managers are the owners or hired hands.
Therefore don’t people who own and operate the corporation have the same rights as you and I and anyone who runs a non LLC, and so have the right to set rules of behavior within the business they own and/or manage despite its contamination by the state? Even the diapering rules we loathe?
When I’ve had arguments about different things regarding corporations I feel I have to point out, since nobody seems to understand this, that the invent of corporations is to protect illegal behavior not the least of which is tax evasion but that’s certainly not all.
Why are all bidnesses not corporations? Well, most bidnesses aren’t in bidness to break laws and avoid taxes, etc. etc.
The whole point of corporations is avoiding any personal responsibility including tax evasion so that even if they do have tax problems, the people who own major portions of stocks are just sitting back and waiting for their lawyers to put a quell on everything and they go home at night not worrying the least about being charged with anything illegal.
Some laws need to broken, especially when they’re crimes dressed up as laws, such as our infamous legalized theft laws.
Art,I agree to the point that corporations should have to abide by the same laws as individuals. I think that’s what you are saying. And that is a big problem with police.
Eight, the main reason incorporation was invented, was so that businesses could sell shares/people could invest, without every shareholder being dragged into court and being subject to losing their personal assets for something that that business did…or if it were to go bankrupt, etc.
Sounds like a reasonable idea to most people- but of course, it’s not. And it is what allowed these businesses to become so large and wealthy and powerful, so as to alter the course of history and the very structure of the world over the last couple’a hunnert years.
Of course, many perversions and other illegitimate additions were made to the initial idea over the years, which made it even worse.
Nunz how many times have I heard that? And you know what it means, the very thing I said, so bidnesses could have different tax laws and break the laws other companies can’t without people being charged and nobody would go to jail. Semantics.
Eight, I think we can ALL agree that corporations are as illegitimate as the government which fosters them is.
There is another side to it though: Since we live under this system of government, with it’s unjust “justice system”, it can be wise to avail oneself of incorporation- not to cheat anyone, but rather to protect oneself from some of the injustices- such as if someone trips over their own two feet in your store and sues, and wins some ungodly amount which they don’t rightly deserve- at least some of your assets are protected; or, if some he/she or such sues for “discrimination” or “not providing equal accommodations” etc.
It can work both ways
In a Libertarian world, we would not have corporations…and neither would it be possible to sue because we breached some artificial government “right” or because because we tripped over our own two feet.
But in this present world of tyranny, sometimes it’s wise to use their system to protect oneself from that system- just as we may cite HIPPA and ADA decrees to free ourselves from mask compliance, even though those constructs of government are as abhorrent as are their artificial beings created by incorporation.
Like most things, it usually comes down to the character of the players.
And it gets even better (worse). Now that virtually every INDEPENDENT business is shut down, we’re now being FORCED to shop at these “big box” retailers. I, too, believe in private businesses having property rights, but to an extent. When a business DELIBERATELY uses the government to undermine its competition and create a monopoly, that is where I draw the line!
Should your property be confiscated from you so that Walmart can call 911 in order to have Eric forcibly removed and / or arrested because he will not diaper in place?
You continue to dismiss the property rights of the individual consumer when they conflict with the property rights of the multi-national, tax feeding, parasitic, BLM sponsored merchants. In fact, it would appear that you think that a patron forfeits all of his property rights upon entering the merchant’s store because “property rights.”
You did not respond to my specific hypotheticals that I proffered the other day anent the scope of a merchant’s property rights. Let me repeat one of them:
Walmart implements a policy whereby attractive white female patrons are subject to random grabbing and gropings by black men. The policy is memorialized and promulgated. It is posted at the entrances to all Walmarts nationwide. Do attractive white females forfeit their right to defend themselves against black men who decide to cop a feel?
You appear to be premising a merchant’s right to be free from burdens imposed by the state with a merchant’s “right” to coerce patrons to don diapers upon the principle of property rights and that the principle applies with equal force. It is one thing to require a business to build handicapped accessible bathrooms and ramps; it is quite another thing to make patrons wear fear masks. The former necessarily involves confiscation of the business’ property whereas there is no confiscation of the business’ property by enforcing the patron’s right to be free from fascist fear masking.
You continue to analogize to your home as if it is somehow an apt comparison to a market open to the public. That dog won’t hunt. You are not Walmart; you are not soliciting business invitees. Where a merchant is soliciting business invitees, it necessarily means that it cannot conduct itself with the same degree of absolute, dictatorial control over its environs like a private homeowner.
I note that you concede that a guest to your home surrenders all of his rights EXCEPT the right not to bear an assault and things of that nature. Why the exception? If the exception applies to your home, why would not an exception apply to Walmart? If there is an exception regarding the right not to be assaulted, upon what logical, rational principle should the exception not include the right not to be diapered?
Hey L. Mike!
**”Should your property be confiscated from you so that Walmart can call 911 in order to have Eric forcibly removed and / or arrested because he will not diaper in place?”**
Do you have the right to forcibly remove me or have me evicted by the goon squad if I don’t comply with the terms you set when visiting your house or business? Of course you do. My option is to not enter your premises, or to leave when asked to do so.
Why are we arguing AGAINST property rights?
**”You continue to dismiss the property rights of the individual consumer when they conflict with the property rights of the multi-national, tax feeding, parasitic, BLM sponsored merchants. In fact, it would appear that you think that a patron forfeits all of his property rights upon entering the merchant’s store because “property rights.””**
Do I forfeit my right to free speech when I enter a Moozlim’s home, and want to call Moe Hommid a pedophile? Do I forfeit my 2A rights if I enter the home of a liberal nut-job who does not permit guns in their home? Of course I do if I enter their home knowing such, or when such is pointed out to me, because the property owner’s right over his property trumps my rights- else he wouldn’t ultimately have any- nor would any of us.
Is it somehow different if that homeowner or renter is on the dole [a parasite]?
**”Walmart implements a policy whereby attractive white female patrons are subject to random grabbing and gropings by black men. The policy is memorialized and promulgated. It is posted at the entrances to all Walmarts nationwide. Do attractive white females forfeit their right to defend themselves against black men who decide to cop a feel? “**
Yes. If they were to accept such terms by choosing to shop there. Much like a “mosh pit”. I heard of a guy trying to sue for injuries sustained at a mosh pit once; he lost, because he accepted the risk of injury by being there, even though he did not wish to participate in the mosh- he just wanted to hear the band. He shouldn’t have gone if he wasn’t willing to accept the terms and resultant risks- which, in a normal setting would have constituted assault.
**”You appear to be premising a merchant’s right to be free from burdens imposed by the state with a merchant’s “right” to coerce patrons to don diapers upon the principle of property rights and that the principle applies with equal force.”**
Yes, that is what Libertarians are supposed to be about- to uphold natural rights and to resist any burdens to the contrary which are imposed by government. That one “coerces” someone to abide by whatever terms they care to set for the use of their property, is part and parcel with property rights- and without the ability to do so, there would be no property rights- it doesn’t matter if it’s about masks, or about bringing your horse into the store. You are rationalizing, because we find mask-wearing odious, that a property owner should not have the right to exclude us. One could say the same thing about horses: “Why can’t I bring my horse in? What about MY property rights?!”.
**”I note that you concede that a guest to your home surrenders all of his rights EXCEPT the right not to bear an assault and things of that nature. Why the exception?”**
Because no one posts a sign at their door saying “You may be subject to assault if you enter”. Of course, people have the right to be left alone; left in peace….as long as they leave when asked to do so. When they refuse to do so, and thus disregard another’s property rights, then they are fair game. Why is it different with a business?
**”You continue to analogize to your home as if it is somehow an apt comparison to a market open to the public. That dog won’t hunt. You are not Walmart; you are not soliciting business invitees. Where a merchant is soliciting business invitees, it necessarily means that it cannot conduct itself with the same degree of absolute, dictatorial control over its environs like a private homeowner.”**
That is a statist argument. It is the same argument used to justify government usurpation of property rights, like mandating no-smoking, or “non-discriminatory” practices. We as Libertarians are supposed to support property rights- be they of a homeowner or business owner. The state does not own Walmart. WE do not own Walmart. Just because Walmart whores itself out to take advantage of illicit government schemes, is not a reason that they should be deprived of property rights, and that we should somehow be granted superior rights- else we are guilty of the same or worse than we chide Walmart for.
As a Libertarian, I support the right of any business or individual to refuse to do business with ANYONE for ANY REASON- and I am not going to rationalize away that most foundational principle when someone avails themself of the very right which I support, just because I disagree with their choice. It IS their choice- whether we approve of it or not- and to require that they not be allowed to exercise their choice, is the very antithesis of what we stand for.
“Why are we arguing AGAINST property rights?”
It is not clear that we are arguing against property rights which, after all, are conditioned on legitimate ownership. So, imagine this scenario, your neighbor has an old pick up truck that you want, but he refuses to sell to you. He has it up on blocks and it is slowly deteriorating into a pile of junk. It pains you to see this and you claim that, by acquiring his property and restoring it, you are putting it to “best use” and creating a “public good” for the community. Heck, let’s stipulate that, once restored, you will auction it off and donate the proceeds to the local school system. Frustrated that your neighbor is being so “unreasonable”, you approach an ambitious politician and hatch a scheme to condemn the truck and “take” it. As crazy as this sounds, this meets the current criteria for a “legal taking”. So, do you own the truck? Is your neighbor morally entitled to take it back from you, with force?
“As a Libertarian, I support the right of any business or individual to refuse to do business with ANYONE for ANY REASON- and I am not going to rationalize away that most foundational principle when someone avails themself of the very right which I support, just because I disagree with their choice.”
Well, of course! But what if the “owner” does not legitimately own the business, in a libertarian sense?
Aww, C’mon now, Jeremy….
Is there any doubt that the entity doing busy-ness as Walmart owns “the business”? Even if there may be issues with the actual real property, that does not necessarily concern us as customers, unless we know of an actual issue- and still, that does not somehow give us a right to do what we want, but rather to boycott that business.
And in reality, Walmart very rarely goes out and procures the land directly upon which they build- but usually, that land is land which local Uncle has first procured and then lures Walmart to.
I think if the fuzz broke into the apartment of some housing project resident, you would rightly support the resident’s 4th-amendment rights, even though that housing project should not legitimately exist, and may very well have used eminent domain; and the resident is receiving subsidies, etc. etc. right?
So how is Walmart different?
(I’ll let this suffice as a response to your other post on the subject as well, since my response would be pretty much the same.)
Yes, there is doubt that Walmart is a “private” business in a meaningful, libertarian sense. How a business acquires its’ property matters, what it does, matters. Again, I have never argued that we have “a right to do what we want”; recognizing the illegitimacy of a specific title does not confer rights to that property, to me.
Property rights are conditioned on legitimate title, that is the point I am trying to get across. Libertarians should do more than simply accept that a legally recognized title, no matter how illegitimate, confers absolute property rights to an entity in the same way that a legitimate title would. After all, we don’t believe that the legitimacy of property ownership is derived from State “authority”.
Jeremy, there is a group that monitors the subsidy fedguv gives Wally. It’s only up around $20B last I knew.
8, you have to take claims of subsidies purveyed by some groups (primarily “progressives”) with a grain of salt. They’ll claim that WalMart is being “subsidized” because some employees are receiving food stamps, Medicaid, etc. due to never leaving the ranks of the lowest-paid personnel.
Sorry, Marxists, many unskilled jobs are just low-paying by their nature. You can’t pay someone more than their labor produces and stay in business. Individuals are free to better themselves and seek better employment or go into business for themselves if they don’t want to be drones stocking shelves their entire lives.
Oh, the Marxists decry, if only WalMart paid everyone $100/hr they wouldn’t need all those government subsidies!
How would you determine a legitimate title in the libertarian sense in the non-libertarian legal system that we live in where land use is decided by the state rather than the owner?
Speaking for myself: A key question to ask, I think is, whether an owner is acting under duress as an agent of the state. I think this is precisely the case as regards the Diaper “Mandates” asserted by almost every major retail store/business. They didn’t act independently, according to their own judgment – as is obvious given the all-at-once/all-in way this developed about two weeks ago. They effectively (by acting in concert, nationally) tried to impose what the government hasn’t enacted – via the legislative process. Individual stores – which are really just outlets/franchises – were coerced to hew to this policy, including all the poor employees within.
No individual owner wields this kind of arbitrary, unaccountable power to tyrannize an entire population.
Remember also that corporations are by definition the creations of government and thus beholden to government. As well as not beholden to accountability in the same way that an individual owner is.
It is one thing when a given, personally owned store in town says – You must wear a Diaper to Enter. Because there are other stores and their owners – some of them – will almost certainly not demand Diapering. It is another when every store in town is controlled by corporate cartels and can effectively force people to Diaper in order to live.
It is also important to distinguish between an act that is immoral in itself – such as theft – because if it’s not yours, you haven’t got a right to just take it – and an act that is certainly not immoral in itself, such as refusing to put on a Face Diaper because you are told to, by anyone – anywhere.
I’m trying to make a distinction between a legally recognized title in this non-libertarian world and one that libertarians would/should accept accept as legitimate philosophically. In this world, companies can acquire property through the use of force. The title to this property is legally recognized but not legitimate in a libertarian sense. If one colludes with the State to steal property, one cannot acquire legitimate property rights from that theft.
Indeed. As you’ve written, it is one thing to do an immoral thing – an act that is wrong as such, like theft – and I would never advocate stealing property from Wal Mart nor damaging the building, etc. That would be on me. But what of an act that is not immoral as such? The obvious one being not putting on a Face Diaper (because not sick). How is this any different than my ignoring the sign at the bank drive-thru that declares “firearms prohibited”? I carry regardless. No one is harmed – heck, no one even knows – and in any event they have no right to tell me I may not act in a way that is, as such, not immoral.
I do not think anyone is obligated to obey literally any sign/decree issued/erected by a corporation – which, as I’ve argued before and think you have as well, hasn’t even got rights in the sense that a human individual does. This doesn’t mean we have the right to commit acts that aren’t right – in the moral sense – but it also means we’re not under obligation to accept acts that lack moral authority, such as a decree that we put on a piece of preposterous headgear. If this is legitimate – if we are obliged to do that – I see no reason why the corporation could not also order every person to Sieg Heil on the way inside, too.
Eric, while I largely agree with what you’ve stated above, and conduct myself in manner consistent with such, do remember one thing though: What you say there seems to be rpedicated upon the assumption that we have the right to patronize any business. That is the very antithesis to free association; and the opposite of what we advocate.
If we uphold (and I certainly do) that a business has the right to refuse to serve anyone for any reason; to discriminate as they choose, etc. that also includes the right to do such to us. Just because we disagree with their choice, and even try to evade it, does not mean that they don’t hasve the right to enforce it on their premises or to refuse to serve us/ask us to leave.
If their policy is a result of them complying with government edict, that does not decrease the business’s right to enforce it, because they may not only agree with the edict, but the fact that are being compelled to enforce it at gunpoint or on pain of losing their livelihood makes them less culpable, rather than more, IMO.
Much like if you asked a passenger in your car to wear his seatbelt, or to refrain from bring cocaine on the trip, because of the fact that a pig can stop you and even ticket YOU for a non-belted passenger, or that your property would confiscated and your life may be ruined if cocaine were found in your car.
If your passenger refused to comply with wishes because you were being an adjunct of government by asking him to do so, would you not have the right to eject him? (Hope ya have sunroof! :D). Were it not for Uncle, you might never impose such restraints…but because we live in this corrupted world and must deal with it’s realities….we sometimes have to make such choices.
Love discussions like these as they are edifying as well as challenging!
Ok. I agree with you that right to patronize is problematic in principle – and in a Libertarian system, I fully support – and respect – the right of any business owner to deny service, even for bizarre reasons.
It’s his place, after all.
That said, I feel no compunction about ignoring bizarre or vicious (immoral) policies to the extent I can “get away” with it. Not that I would use force against the owner, mind. But I would not feel bad about – as an example – carrying my concealed pistol into his store in “violation” of his policy as I have not harmed him in any way he’s even aware of by doing so and the act itself is morally innocuous.
I wouldn’t force myself into his store, though, if he objected to my presence – over suspicion of my having a gun or just because he doesn’t like my looks.
But with corporations, the situation is much more ambiguous – for all the reasons adduced previously.
I think most if not all of the problems we’ve been discussing as regards corporations exist because they are corporations. They are neither fish – nor fowl. Not the government – but with almost-government power. Not “public” – but also not the same as a private business, either.
It’s not really a debatable point for me. You can understand my logic or take exception to it. I just reply to Comply. That not only goes for masks. I WILL NOT COMPLY!!
Hey Ya Eric!
I agree with everything ya said there…’cept for the last statement.
There’s really nothing ambiguous just because we may be dealing with a corporation. Yes, corporations should not exist, etc. (I’ll bet Patsy’s gym in incorporated…) but the fact that there are ought-not-be’s and various complications in a world perverted by government, really doesn’t effect our relationship with a given business- in fact, iti usually just further deprives the business of rights, and may give us artificial “rights” which we truly should not have.
Take the case of Walmart and the recent mask policy flip-flop. They wanted to impose the policy in their stores, even where there is no mandate (No doubt because they are trying to appease the majority of sheeple who want to feel safe by seeing sickness Kabuki practiced all around them)….but because of fear of being sued, due to government legislation, like ADA and such, they are relenting- which of course is good for us, but ultimately is a case of them having to give up control because of Uncle.
But I agree 100% with ya- I will ignore any dictates which I don’t agree with…but will respect their right to eject me without further consequence if it comes to that.
I think that is about as far as we can go without transgressing our own principles.
It’s so easy to fall into the trap of “public accommodations” and “We have the right to be there”…..but such are in reality leftist ideas, and opposed to the very core of what we believe. In reality, we have no such right…and anyone who says we do, only does so because they believe that government has the right to convey such a right.
And yes, I too love these sorts of discussions- espeically with intelligent people, like yourself and Jeremy- as they force me to test my own ideas and beliefs and expose them to scrutiny….and that is about the best way to learn and grow, and to come to see what doesn’t work.
**” I WILL NOT COMPLY!!”**
Neither will I! [Adds to the rhyme].
While of course, I agree with what you’ve said, the fact ultimately remains that NONE of us truly possesses actual private property in the true Libertarian sense of the word, in that the government is the ultimate possessor- and at some point, that land was likely taken from someone else; may be mortgaged by some Federally-subsidized program; may be controlled by “zoning” and building codes; require permits of occupancy and permissions for various things, etc. etc. -regardless of whether we are talking about our homes, or Mom & Pop’s candy store, or Fred Zucker’s fruit stand or Walmart.
If all such things must be examined and rectified before one can assert a claim to any property right, than none of us truly have any property rights.
I tend to take the opposite approach: That even in the tent of a homeless man- be it a park or on an empty lot owned by someone or a parking lot, that he has a greater right to privacy and to enforce his will in that tent, than do I if I am visiting him in his tent- even though his right is inferior to the actual property owner, who could remove him from the property.
It’s more of a matter of relative rights- or pecking order, as far as we as customers vs. a business- rather than of absolute property rights.
If we get in a cab, and the driver prohibits us from picking our nose, do we ask the driver to prove that he legitimately owns the cab? Maybe he bought that cab at a police auction of vehicles which have been confiscated from individuals, and therefore even though he may have the title to it, his purchase was really not legit in the Libertarian and just sense- so do we then get to pick our nose with impunity, because his title to the property(cab) is not legit in the true sense of the word; or because he may receive Medicaid payments from the state for transporting welfare queens and their sprogs, and that should not be?
It is not so much about absolute property rights in this matter- as that is not really our concern as a customer; not something we can readily determine; and not something we ultimately have any say over. But instead, as relates to a customer/business relation, it is more about relative property rights and order.
I may not know how Walmart acquired their property, but I do know that I have no claim against that property, so I am at the bottom of the pecking order in that situation, as my only “right” in such a matter is to choose whetehr or not I will shop at Walmart.
To look at it any other way, is to assert a right which we do not legitimately have in that situation, while denying a right that someone higher in the pecking order (in that situation) does have.
Hi Mike, Nunz and Eric,
This, “but…private” assertion, common among libertarians, is not as absolute as it seems. In libertarian theory, property rights are predicated on legitimate ownership of justly acquired property, which may or may not coincide with a legally recognized title to property. A title acquired through force, theft or fraud is not legitimate, and the “owner” of said property, whether legally recognized or not, cannot have rights in that property. Corporate status is only tangentially related to this question. It is possible that a corporation has justly acquired their property, but they may not have done so.
For instance, Walmart, and other large retailers, often acquire property through eminent domain, which is merely GovCo speak for theft. Moreover, such companies often collude with politicians, eager to bolster their power by “creating jobs”, eliminating “blight”, advancing technology and a myriad of other excuses for theft. If they do so, they are implicit in the original theft. However, even if the companies benefiting from this “legal” theft had no part in it, they still have not acquired property rights. If you unwittingly buy stolen property, and the original owner proves that he has legitimate title to the property, you must return it and the owner has no obligation to compensate you.
Targeted tax breaks, direct subsidies and special legal protections also cast doubt on the property rights asserted by these “owners”. It matters not if the “owner” is a sole proprietor, a partnership, a collective or a group of shareholders. So, does Walmart legitimately own the property it claims to own? In many cases, it does not. Add to that the special treatment described above and it is impossible to assert that the rights claimed by these “owners” are legitimate.
Another issue that should be of great importance to libertarians is whether the “private” business is acting as a State agent. If so, they lose the absolute right to discriminate. Libertarians need to give much more thought to what defines a “private” business in a meaningful sense.
Here are some ideas:
– The property must be justly acquired, merely legally recognized is not sufficient.
– The business must justly acquire its’ income, no forced wealth transfers allowed.
– The business may not contract with the State, as its’ main source of revenue, which amounts to accepting stolen property as compensation for the “service” provided.
– The business may not act as a State agent, either by enforcing its’ dictates or implementing its’ policies.
Libertarianism is the only political/moral system that has a principled theory of property, and the rights which stem from that. This is a complex issue and I realize that it will often be difficult or impossible to determine clear cut boundaries that define whether a business is “private” in a libertarian sense or merely “private” in a legal sense. Some determinations are easy, “private” prisons or mercenary armies, are obviously not “private”, small businesses that generate incidental income from government employees are still “private” in my opinion.
Walmart, and other such businesses, violate, to some degree, all of the above qualifications, except the third. Social media companies do as well, especially the fourth. As I noted before, Congress held open hearings, making it clear that these companies must censor politically and culturally disfavored speech or face punishment. This is obviously intended as an end run around the first amendment, effectively outsourcing censorship to a “private” institution.
To be clear, I do not favor government regulation to fix this issue. Obviously, the institution carrying out stealth censorship will not guarantee free and open discussion on “their” platforms, the idea is absurd. Still, the unfortunately common, “but…private” claim made by many libertarians is equally absurd. Condemning the actions of these quasi private firms is not inconsistent with libertarianism, nor is it, necessarily, a call for regulation. Many, “but…private” advocates seem to genuinely believe that invoking it shuts down all discussion and absolves the “private” firm completely, they are wrong.
P.S. Invoking what many on the left, who hate libertarians while remaining proudly ignorant of what we believe, consider an irrefutable “zinger”, is probably not a good idea.
I trust that Nunz does not take my posts as support for more regulation or a public sector fix; to the contrary, I support the individual patron’s right to shop without being forcibly diapered by a state agent like Walmart.
Nunz does not appear to appreciate the extent to which Walmart is aiding and abetting the state with its mandatory mask madness. A private actor who enthusiastically assists the state in the deprivation of property, and the right to go into a publicly traded merchant’s place of business without being coerced into wearing a mask is property, is not a private actor.
Moreover, as I noted some weeks ago, the legitimacy of Walmart’s mask policy should not be taken for granted from a corporate governance perspective. To wit:
(1) Does Walmart’s charter unequivocally provide that it can impose a mask mandate upon its shoppers?
(2) Assuming that there is no such provision (and having reviewed dozens and dozens of corporate charters, it is a rational assumption as even the multi-national parasites rarely get that specific), what procedures are set forth to implement a mandatory diapering policy?
(3) Can management implement the policy without a vote of the board of directors?
(4)What about a vote of the stockholders?
(5)What would constitute the necessary quorum for such votes?
(6)What percentages would be needed to carry the proposal?
Thus, are we to just take for granted that Walmart has complied with its charter and all of its by-laws governing the imposition of such an inhumane policy?
Jeremy, in so many words, expresses the proposition that in order for one’s property rights to be accorded props, one must have legitimate title to the same. A tax-feeding, parasite like Walmart does not have a legitimate property right in requiring its patrons to diaper as it does not have good title to the same.
In real estate, a seller must demonstrate that he has good title to the property sufficient to satisfy the buyer, the buyer’s lender, and the title insurance company. Nunz should look at Walmart as the seller and libertarians like Eric, Jeremy, and YT as the title insurers. We do not think Walmart has good title.
Given that Walmart has acquired lots of real estate through eminent domain and other means of taxpayer theft, it cannot turn around and tell taxpayers that they must diaper while shopping as it does not have good title.
Not to mention that Wally has received double digit billions in subsidy from us….or the govt. if you want to use that moniker.
Wally is one of the very reasons I believe the corporation is an illegal construct. The entire reason for the invent of a corporation is to be above the law including tax law.
I can conclude my feelings about Wally by saying I quit Wally when they stopped selling some guns. I wasn’t keen on them before. It costs me more money to some extent to deal with smaller bidnesses. So be it. I can’t undo the laws of corporations but I don’t have to support those corporations for the most part. We had to have a new washing machine. It’s impossible to not support a corporation when replacing one. They have us over a barrel many times when we’d go another route. And that’s another thing I have against “corporations”.
I would like to address your point about “illegitimate property”.
If you (anyone) live in a house in a subdivision which used eminent domain to acquire an old house and land that was in it’s way; and subsequently the land that house had been on had belonged to Native-Americans which were driven from it or slaughtered, does that mean that you are not entitled to your Fourth-Amendment and others protections accorded you as the owner of a house in that subdivision; or that if you claim private property rights, that your claim must be sorted-out by some inquest to determine if in-fact you indeed have a “legitimate” right to that property?
Since we can not go back and undo history and right all previous wrongs committed by those who came before us, it is generally assumed, even by most Libertarians, that unless you fraudulently acquired said property, that it is yours.
And even if one were to acquire property illegitimately, does that mean that others who also have no claim to that property now somehow have a right to use that property as they see fit?
If one believes that A business’s property does not legitimately belong to that business, then for starters, one should not conduct business with that business.
If a thief offers to sell you stolen goods, and you know or even strongly suspect they are stoler, you do not do business with that person, right? You DON’T take his items and refrain from paying him, “because they are stolen”, because the fact that they are stolen does not give you any more right to those items than the thief- In like manner, if Walmart’s real property is “stolen”, that does not give US a right to use that property as we see fit.
If you rent an apartment in a co-op buiilding which is being subleased by it’s owner, am I entitled to come in and do whatever I please in your home, because I feel that the ownership of your home is ambiguous, since you do not own it, but rather it is owned by someone who in-turn really just owns stock in a co-op, which is in-turn owned by fictional adjunct of the government (a corporation), which is in-turn owned by another holding company which is also a corporation?
Your argument, while being an interesting philosophical exercise, is really not a real-world issue as pertains to property rights. If it were, few of us would truly have any true right to property unless we inherited alloidal land passed down from generations- and even then, it could be questionable on similar grounds.
As for the “adjunct of government” and subsidies and “not truly a free market” etc.: One of my neighbors built a large new dairy barn on his farm with procedes from some kind of farm subsidy proffered for that purpose. He is engaged in the dairy industry, which of course is predicated upon subsidies and an price restrictions, et al, which renders that business not a free market either.
Of course not!
I find that a good way to test ideas as they relate to Libertarianism, is to ponder “Who would make this so in a Libertarian world?” and or “How would one deal with this situation in a Libertarian world?”.
In a Libertarian world, if a business- whether owned by one person or a group of investors (The only difference being that in such a world, those investors would not be artificially protected from liabilities which the business they own a share of might incur) were to require patrons to wear a face diaper…or an ass diaper, or to shop in the nude, or in a three-piece suit, what would our remedy be? To merely not patronize that business! Would we have a “right” to demand that they allow us to shop, even if we do not conform to their policies? Of course not!
So if that would be the way things would be in a Libertarian world- a world which we desire- why do we advocate the very opposite when indeed we see a business practicing one of the very tenets we believe in?
Just because we may not like their policy, and will not abide it, is no reason to try and finagle them out of what right they still have. Much like my neighbor with the dairy barn- who is also incorporated, and receives subsidies, and participates in an artificial economy established by the government, which is destructive to a truly free-market, those facts do not negate his property rights nor give us a right to do as we please on his property.
Sorry to say, but I find these arguments to the contrary to be philosophical rationalizing, much like the SCOTUS decreeing that if they stop every nth car, checkpoints are not “random searches”. They completely violate the spirit of the ideals we support, much like the way collectivists/authoritarians violate the clear spirit of the Constitution to establish their tyrannies, when it is desirable to them.
Walmart is reallyu no different than social media. Ultimately, in many places, little remains as far as viable competition to Walmart (such is the case where I am)- this is not entirely Walmart’s fault, but the fault of people not caring, as long as they can save two dollars and have access to easy parking. The fact that Walmart offers a superior alternative which many prefer, IS the free market in action- in the same way that viable social media alternatives are few and small….because the people who use social media largely don’t care- and if they did, and refrained from using FaceCrook and Jewtube and TWIT-turd, they could easily make their competitors as big and prosperous, while driving the others out of business.
(I won’t reply to other similar posts which are redundant, as I think I’ve largely covered the gist of the issues they contain here).
Three’s Company! (When in Rome…. 😀 )
I’ll be shopping at Food Lion and or IGA, and or a little grocer in a small town for the duration. It’ll cost me more; and i won’t be able to get a lot of the things I normally buy (I like a lot of Walmart’s Great Value house-brand stuff)- but as they say, freedom is not free.
I had originally thought of trying to enter Walmart, and seeing how it goes, and shopping if I were successful- but as I find even their new limiting of access to just one doorway almost as egregious as diapering, I’ve decided not to even try!
F&*^ Walmart! They can have their property rights…but I won’t be shopping there.
Nunz, they all have a “house” brand that is normally made by the premium brand. We used to have a Safeway nearby. They had black pekoe orange bulk tea that was their brand and the best I ever had. We were broken-hearted when they left town.
I buy from a small grocery and they have really good beef and always have since I’ve been alive. They have good prices too, in fact, they were beating Sam’s prices to the tune of less than 50%.
I know everyone who works there including the owner. They don’t have exotic food but I’m not in a place financially right now to buy exotic anything. We recently bought briskets there for $1.58/lb. and chubs of ground beef for $1.77. That brisket price was something I haven’t seen in 10 years or more and they had bought enough they were constantly bringing out boxes and stocking while we were there.
They have some cheap house brands that are good and had Van Camps Pork and Beans for $.68/can and really cheap beans of other types. Jalos for $.89/lb and about half again as much for serranos. The only place we get hurt is they don’t carry leaf lettuce and I’m not keen on iceberg.
Had peaches cheap that were absolutely great.
I’m glad to be away from Wally and wish I had done it long before.
One of the shortages that affects me is beer. The local store didn’t get 30 packs of any brand one week and then didn’t get even 12 packs the next.
Eight, there’s an IGA in the bigger town (The one with the crappy Walmart that I avoid) where I’ll pick up a whole eye-round for my mother for $4.29/lb. (Pure meat, all the fat trimmed off and everything)- Meanwhile, at Wally, they want $10/lb. for crappy eye-round!
Don’t see none of that cheap stuff like ya described around here for the last several years now- I used to like to pick up something for the bow-wow. May just get him some eye-round next time I go- it’s the cheapest meat around.
I do usually prefer those house brands, too- they’re often better than the name-brand stuff.
Found me some real Mexican ice cream pops today! From Hadalgo. Just milk, cream, cane sugar (Not HFCS) and real fruit. et one already…what a difference! (I normally don’t buy ice cream anymore, as everything here is so sweet and full of garbage)
Nunz, I was doing ok(beef country, have to run them away from the front door)till you mentioned real Mexican ice cream. Now I’m jealous as hell. Send me some…..overnight, half the night aha ha.
T’s my first time having Mexican ice cream! Man, what I’ve been missing! Got it at Wally! (First time I’ve seen it).
“Found me some real Mexican ice cream pops today! From Hadalgo. Just milk, cream, cane sugar (Not HFCS) and real fruit. et one already…what a difference! (I normally don’t buy ice cream anymore, as everything here is so sweet and full of garbage)”
Same with “Mexican” Coke! It’s too bad that it costs like $5 (in NJ) for a 4-pack of the small glass bottles. Of course, I would still purchase it despite the cost. After all, can’t put a price on health. Not that Coke’s healthy to begin with. lol But at least sugar is digestible, unlike that damned corn sludge!
OHhhhh! BG, I’ve seen those 4-bottle packs of Coke in the store, and wondered why the price was so high- didn’t know it was the Mexican Cole…with sugar instead of HFCS!
I rarely drink a soda….but next time I see one’a them 4-packs, I’ll get it for mother- She laments about how good Coke used to be.
Pretty funny, eh? A near third-world country has better stuff than we do! “But this is the greatest country in the world, ya know” LOL!
Nunz, Dr. Pepper used to make the real deal with sugar in Dublin, Tx. They could only sell it in a specific area. The story goes they sold it beyond the agreed upon range and it was shut down, no doubt to a lawsuit.
It was great and every time we got close to it we’d buy a case at the grocery store near it. It cost more per case than some brands of beer. It was certainly good though.
Awww, tell me about it, Eight! I used to love Dr. Pepper back in 70’s…when you were a pepper and I was a pepper…and everyone could be a pepper too!
And it made ya belch louder than anything else! It was the perfect soda…and then they ruined it!
Even RC cola used to be good- I’d take either of those over Coke or Pepsi any day.
A Dr. Pepper and some Guy’s BBQ pertater chips in the 70’s….now THAT was living! (Kinda glad they all suck now, as I avoid all that stuff…but it would be too tempting if it was still like it used to be!)
When I was a teen and in my 20’s, I could eat all that crap and not gain a pound!
Now I gots to go look up that old Dr. Pepper commercial from the 70’s, with David Naughton dancing around in a vest.
Ow, my eyes; my ears! I shouldn’t’a oughta done that!
Nunz, I used to start Sunday mornings with a DP and a Tom’s Cheese Crisps and generally had some “emergency” Cheese Crisps.
We drank RC’s too and called them ROC Cola’s that we picked up from Brother Dave Gardner. The guy was a riot. I posted a YT of his version of the Motorcycle Story recently.
Establishing legitimate ownership in a contested historical dispute is difficult and requires that a legitimate heir make a claim and establish proof. Absent such, the presumption is that the title belongs to the current owner. But, that’s not what we’re discussing. Walmart, and other companies, actively seek out GovCo’s “help” in stealing property; right now, not in the distant past.
I never claimed that I had a right to “their” property or am entitled to steal from them. Nothing I wrote indicates that or justufues such acts. I also based none of my argument on any particular structure of ownership, bringing it up is irrelevant to my points. I am not trying to finagle my way out of anything, nor did I ever suggest that I have a right to do exactly as I wish at Walmart.
Establishing what is needed for legitimate ownership is not an arcane philosophical exercise, it is essential to the validity of property rights. Sorry, but it is your seemingly blithe acceptance of the “but…private” mantra that “completely violate the spirit of the ideals we support”. Again, I made no claims about what I have a right to do at Walmart, I objected to your insistence that Walmart has absolute property rights in this area, they do not. You simply accept that, no matter how Walmart acquired its’ property, that we must treat them as a private entity with full property rights. Such an argument neuters criticism and negates legitimate civil protest.
To most “normal” people, all that is required for legitimate ownership is a legally established title. This is a utilitarian position that favors logical positivism over natural rights. Libertarians reject this position. Walmart does not have legitimate property rights because they acquired much of their property through force, right now. They are not the innocent beneficiaries of some long forgotten transgression. Of course, recognizing this does not mean that I have a right to their property.
The legitimacy of your argument rests entirely on your assertion that Walmart has legitimate title, and the property rights associated with it. I contend that Walmart does not. You haven’t addressed this point, nor refuted it.
Excellently said, Jeremy!
As always, thank you for posting such thoughtful, well-reasoned … posts!
You also, Nunz!
Jeremy, I’ve read a lot of libertarian theory and your post has two very good insights that I don’t recall seeing before, at least not quite in the way you put it.
1) There is a difference between justly acquired property rights and legally recognized property rights. Maybe I saw something in Rothbard or Kinsella along these lines, but I can’t recall where.
2) What criteria determine whether a business is acting as a state agent?
I like the ideas you proposed.
Do you recall seeing any articles or books where these topics are expounded on more rigorously?
I just had an old college friend ask me what I thought of the threat from the Russians in 1959. I spoke from the heart. I had an old home made radio I’d listen to at nigh. What I heard scared shit out of me. I thought my father who got up at 5 am heard the same thing. We didn’t speak of it. Probably there were a lot of reasons. He didn’t want to freak me out. I didn’t want to put him on the spot and really didn’t know how to do it if I had wanted to.
My father died without both of us really saying what we believed about the assassination of JFK. I think it was just too painful for us. But I would have liked to have discussed it with him. I don’t think we would have agreed on subjects such such as Vietnam but probably would have about JFK. I’ll never know.
Thanks! Rothbard discusses justly acquired property, the proper criteria for resolving contested property claims, both in the past and the present, etc… in The Ethics of Liberty. I don’t know of any serious discussion about the role played by ostensibly “private” firms and how that impacts their claim to property rights, but I think it is important.
It seems obvious that “private” military or prison firms, whose primary purpose is to provide “services” for the State, cannot be considered “private” in a libertarian sense. At the other end, small businesses that receive no special subsidies, nor acquired their property through force, are unambiguously “private” in a libertarian sense. Between the two it’s trickier.
Thanks. I’ve never read that one, but I’ll put it on my list. And I agree with you that it’s an important question about how “private” some companies are, and that the classification can get murky,
Corporations are a creation of the State. They are not born with inalienable rights as you and I are. They cannot exist without the State, and so are a part of it. There is no parallel between corporations and persons except what the State declares.
So then, you’d be O-K with a business exercising it’s property rights a-la Walmart style if they weren’t incorporated, but were just collectively owned by a group of investors, right? And you’re saying that because they have instead availed themselves of some illegitimate legal and financial protections [Those protections really don’t apply to the corporation per se, but rather to the investors/stockholders] that it is O-K for us to negate their property rights; that they should have fewer rights than us, and that we should in-turn demand and avail ourselves of just as onerous “rights” created by…government?
Corporations are government adjuncts; they can’t have it both ways.
I’ve been mulling the “No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service” analogy. That’s usually also the result of some government diktat. Yeah, I personally wouldn’t necessarily enjoy shopping at the Hy-Vee with people walking around in their disgusting bare feet. But the question is “Are you being harmed?” Not your sense of decorum, but actually being harmed.
In terms of health the floor isn’t any cleaner with or without shoes. In fact if everyone had to walk around in bare feet I reckon the world would have less dog shit disease trafficking simply due to increased care to avoid it and people actually picking up after their K9s. Not to mention someone wearing worn out flip flops may meet the strict minimal definition of “shoes” but arguably not achieve whatever is the intended public health goal. Flip flops are the fashion equivalent of poor fitting, half-ass sewn cloth face diapers worn incorrectly and constantly touched – there just for show of compliance.
So it’s up to the individual to take preventative step to protect himself or herself from the floor by donning shoes. The front door sign is redundant from a practical standpoint since it restates something that required no king’s fiat in the first place. But having a law, regulation or corporate policy limiting service does formalize conformity and provides an artificial relevance to the health department minions and constantly outraged social nannies.
I’d love to have the option of having a store available which required shoppers to maintain a certain minimum dress standard, but which allowed dogs.
Once we start rationalizing “Who is being harmed?” we are on dangerous ground, because that question is always the basis to justify the implementation of tyranny. Instead of that, it should rather be: “Are property owners able to exercise their own choices and autonomy, and to court the customers they desire to?”.
Would that we lived in a world where we had such freedom- and as customers, could have the choice of non-smoking vs. smoking businesses; businesses with no dress code vs. ones with; ones that allow pets vs. ones that don’t. etc.
When we presume to reduce everything to a matter of safety (“harm”) and force all to conform to a certain standard….we get the tyranny we now see all around us.
Nunz, I don’t know if they have any human food in PetSmart. I do know CJ doesn’t get to go in since people are always letting their little turd dog get loose. CJ doesn’t really care about dogs but he’s not keen on one attacking him.
Nice report. Ratios are much higher here in Southern California
this is not spam. We need to combine thoughts and activities of like minded individuals.
Please see Dr. Poppers website – Make Americans Free Again dot com She is on our team.
It’s time to unite – the tens of millions of Americans who are fed up with this insanity can gather together and we can declare our independence from tyranny
Another thought: though I get your point, I’m leery of saying “human rights” trump property rights. I think there are too many illegitimate things labeled as human rights which may confuse the issue. Especially since most (all?) legitimate human rights are basically property rights in yourself.
The property rights of the customer tend to be ignored by most libertarians. One does not forfeit all of one’s rights to the merchant just because one enters the merchant’s bazaar.
Thus, in my view, the matter should be framed as a conflict of property rights with the conflict in this case being resolved in the patron who elects to shop undiapered.
It makes me wonder what hey would do if you wore a mask in the store with something considered “hate speech,” like a swastika or racial slur. Would they then force you to remove it?
Which idiotic contradictory goal trumps the other?
The multi-national tax feeder does not have a legitimate property interest in forcing its patrons to diaper.
The Psychopaths In Charge have always been reluctant to publish the mortality rate. Now you will never see it, not on any statistical chart or graph. Because they know the jig would be up if you did. Which means that they can’t even get the number they want using their just plain stupid, or insidious, protocol for assigning cause of death. Somehow, we are expected to believe Governors who forced infected folks into nursing homes where about half the deaths have occurred, are concerned about our health. Somehow, we are expected to abide by the dictates of corporations, which are a creation of the state and therefore beholden to it, and have no ethics, morals, or souls.
They had to keep the death count up or at least high in order to keep the narrative alive. I wondered how they would do it. The poor folks that were caged up for months became even more ill than they were before. Now they are seeking medical care. Considering that every test taken is a positive, whenever anyone who goes to the hospital and dies (for whatever reason of course) they will be added to the list of C19 deaths.