[The Great Yazoo]

Wal-Mart, without intending to operate a charity, has done far more for the poor than all of America's self-satisfied, effete, liberal do-gooders combined. By offering consistently good products at low prices, Wal-Mart does well by doing good.

To Wal-Mart's critics, however, it is intentions, not results, that matter. So Wal-Mart continues to be trashed, not for what it actually accomplishes, but for its intention of making a profit.

Free enterprise and capitalism are what is under attack here.

[Haro_546]

I agree, wallmart being a success of capitalism now has more enemys than the czar of russia.

[Fishing-guy]

Lots of mom-and-pop stores were closed because of Walmart.

However, that's capitalism. Adapt or perish.

[Uncle Vlad]

Wal-Mart may do all of the things that you say they do, but I believe it ultimately is bad for America. Not because of the way they treat their employees. Don't like the working conditions? Leave! Don't like what they do as a customer? Don't shop there!

Believe me, I'm no bleeding heart in those areas. But Wal-Mart strikes at the very heart of our freedom, which is the right to own property. Neal Boortz puts forth the argument better than I. Here's an excerpt from Neil's Nuze, dated August 21, 2003:

DRAW THE LINE IN ALABASTER

Freedom means little without property rights. What good is your freedom to use your talents and your willingness to work hard to acquire wealth if your rights to that wealth can be denied at the whim of a few politicians?

After the fall of Soviet Union much was made of their attempt to create economic liberty for the victims of communism. All attempts to create a free, market-based economy in Russia met with only limited success, however, until laws were instituted to insure the property rights of ordinary citizens.

Our law recognizes that that there are times when government must use its police power to seize the property of private citizens. Although the right to eminent domain is not specifically recognized in the U.S. Constitution. In 1879 the Supreme Court, in the case of Boom Co. v. Patterson, (98 U.S. 403) said that eminent domain "appertains to every independent government. It requires no constitutional recognition; it is an attribute of sovereignty." The Fifth Amendment contains the words "'nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This is a recognition of the government's right to take private property, and a stipulation that it must be taken for "public use."

OK .. sorry for the legal lesson, now let me tell you what is going on in Alabaster, Alabama. I've been talking about this for two days on my show. Many of you, however, don't hear my show ... so I've decided to donate a good part of today's Nealz Nuze to this situation. What you read should horrify you. You just need to know that this sort of government assault on property rights is not confined to Alabaster, Alabama. It is going on virtually everywhere in this country.

Alabaster is a community of about 24,000 people. Interstate 65 runs through Alabaster. A private developer named Colonial Properties Trust wants to build a shopping center anchored by a Wal-Mart on one of the corners of the I-65 intersection. The trouble is that Colonial doesn't own all of the land they need. A few private land owners have refused to sell their property to Colonial. That, my friends, should be the end of the story. If one private individual wants to own a certain piece of property, but the legal owner of that piece of property doesn't want to sell it, the private property rights of the owner of the real estate should be recognized, and the person trying to buy the property should back off.

Well, that's not the way it's working in Alabaster. Colonial, you see, has some friends in powerful places ... politicians on the Alabaster city council. Colonial has decided to use that one unique government asset, the right to use force, to accomplish something that it cannot accomplish on its own. Colonial is asking the City of Alabaster to use force to seize the property under eminent domain and then sell that property to them, to Colonial, so that plans for the shopping center can proceed.

The politicians of Alabaster, Alabama are only too eager to cooperate.

Next week the City of Alabaster will file the condemnation proceedings in the Shelby County, Alabama courts. The City of Alabaster will try to seize the land under the principle of eminent domain. But wait! Aren't governments supposed to use eminent domain to seize private property only when that property is needed for a public use? How can these politicians take that property away from its owners and then sell it to a private company to build a privately owned shopping center?

Here's what the Alabaster politicians are saying. They claim that they simply cannot collect enough property taxes in their town of 24,000 to pay for all of the government they believe the citizens of Alabaster need. They need some sales taxes. Trouble is, there aren't enough businesses around town to generate the amount of sales taxes these politicians want. The answer? Hey! Let's get a shopping center in town. A shopping center will generate thousands of dollars in sales taxes, and we'll have all that money to spend! What a concept!

So, Alabaster's "public use" excuse is that the current owners of the land simply don't pay enough taxes. The land needs to be seized and turned over to someone who will generate some more tax payments. Those additional taxes can then be spent on the public. There's your "public use."

You do realize, don't you, that this very same excuse can be used by any government entity anywhere in the United States that wants to increase its tax revenues? Let's say that you're sitting fat and happy in a home that has been in your family for generations. You're sitting on about five acres in a prime location near a major city. A local developer wants your property to build a subdivision of cluster-mansions. You don't want to sell. The developer goes to the county commission and tells them that if he had that property he could build at least 15 homes there worth about $600,000 each. The developer correctly points out to the politician that the county could collect thousands of dollars in additional property taxes if he could just get his hands on that land and build those homes. A few weeks passes and one day you get a letter from the county attorney telling you that your property is going to be seized by the county. Their only excuse is that they can get more tax dollars if your five acres had 15 homes than they can with your 60 year-old farmhouse. The "public use?" More tax revenues.

If governments can abuse the concept of eminent domain in this manner then your private property rights are virtually non-existent. You own your home only so long as the local politicians tolerate that ownership. Let some developer come along with a better idea, and you can kiss your dirt goodbye.

What are the citizens of Alabaster saying about the rights of the property owners? Let's check in with Councilman Tommy Ryals. Ryals, who works in the environmental compliance department of Alabama Power, thinks that these property owners are just being greedy. He says "Sometimes the good of the many has to outweigh the greed of the few." Sound familiar? Wasn't it Hillary Clinton who said "We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." Private property rights? The rights of the individual? Hey, these are all to be set aside for the good of the collective. I wonder if Tommy Ryals and Hillary Clinton have ever met. I wonder if Mr. Ryals would tell us that the individual has the obligation to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man. If so, he wouldn't be the first person to express that belief. Adolf Hitler said the same thing back in 1933.

Yes, I'm invoking some pretty ugly names here in the defense of the property rights of these Alabaster landowners. That's because I'm passionate about the right to property and to the idea that one of the prime directives to government is to protect those property rights, not to destroy them for the economic gain of another. Property rights are the absolute foundation of economic liberty, and property rights are under assault by Colonial and the politicians of Alabaster, Alabama.

[jazzlite]

Wal-Mart, in addition to providing wonderful things for our economy, is a huge icon for what economic freedom and enterpreneurship can do for society. Sam Walton began as a small businessman with an idea. If the oppressive left had been in total control, Sam Walton's dream would never have materialized. All of us who have a Wal-Mart superstore around get the benefit. People have cut their grocery bill by as much as 25% at Wal-Mart, not to mention the cost of everything else. My husband often says that Wal-Mart has everything he needs. I understand, though, that Wal-Mart stores are not allowed into many of the blue state areas in the country..Imagine that! I could not live where the local shop keepers nixed a Wal-Mart store. PBS hates freedom..It means they cannot rule. Go figure why anyone listens to their distorted view of life.

[oh8eleven]

In short, "Frontline" presented a one-sided hit piece disguised as objective
No way you can use "Frontline" and "objective" in the same sentence.

[mgpilot]

When Bill Clinton allowed the Chinese unregulated trade, he promised grreat export opportunities for American companies. This never happened, but billions of dollars each month are transferred from here to China, via Wal-mart. The long term outcome remains to be seen.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

Wal-Mart is successfully dominating retailing but nobody can argue a single monster retailer, without realistic competition, is good for America.

The announcement K-Mart and Sears are combining to go head to head with Wal-Mart is good news.

No monopoly is good for America. That has been proven over and over again.

The argument Wal-Mart is helping the poor misses the point that Wal-Mart is also responsible for making more American people poor by only buying products made in the poorest of poor countries instead of made by American workers.

American consumers must have jobs and income to shop at Wal-Mart.

Another threat is selection. If Wal-Mart becomes the only choice in America, consumers are inherently limited as to choice of products. Wal-Mart can never have large enough stores to offer every choice to consumers.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I get the impression that Frontline shied away from directly focusing on China. China by government policy is deliberately undercutting American production, a policy that it probably won't be able to keep up forever, but currently is pretty successful in keeping its workers' wages from rising in response to demand. Yet economists gush over the fruits of China. Go figure.

[Nephi]

The liberal policy of globalist free trade is alive and well at free republic. Sad.

In the 60's, GM was the nations largest employer. Today, besides the government, WalMart is the nations biggest employer.

If you think exchanging factory jobs for clerk jobs is good for America then you're part of the problem.

[LibertyRocks]

Anyone interested in this might want to read the discussion earlier tonight about this topic...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1283416/posts

Did you all know that Mrs. Kerry owns $1 million of Wal-mart stock? That's enough reason for me not to shop there... besides the labor disputes, etc...

[sawmill trash]

bump for later

[the invisib1e hand]

Wal Mart sucks. But PBS sucks a whole lot more.

[buffyt]

Well, I go where ever I find the cheapest prices. Their fresh meat isn't so great. But they have a decent seafood department. And canned goods, staples, paper products, batteries... why pay more? If the other stores want my business all they have to do is lower their prices or do comp. ads. Some stores will let you bring in your WalMart ad and they will give you the WalMart lower price. But it is a pain, you have to show the cashier each item/price and she has to key it in. I have a mortgage, five cars, and three kids in college. I go for bargains. My favorite brands are Bargain and Clearance....

[unspun]

Wal-Mart destroys small businesses and local markets. It moves retailing toward an oligopoly. The centralization of a market is hardly conducive to free enterprise and free capitalism.

[Lazamataz]

Is Wal-Mart good for America?

(In my best Martin Luther King voice) Isn't it time that we asked ourselves, is AMERICA good for WAL-MART?

[NittanyLion]

I patiently explained to Hedrick Smith, the chief correspondent and producer of the program, that the main beneficiaries of Wal-Mart's low-price policy are the poor

One could make a case that small businesses are the second largest beneficiary, since they're now able to purchase supplies and food at a lower cost than ever before.

[CriticalJ]

I am not of big fan of the way Wal-mart operates but it's difficult to argue that Wal-mart is bad for America. Like many of you have posted, their discount pricing has made it a lot easier for the economically disadvantaged to buy things. Wal-mart still has lay-a-way too.

Now, if they would just stop building huge stores that are abandoned 5 years later for an even bigger one. I have driven through many small towns where i have seen an empty Wal-mart (along with the deserted shopping center) on one end of town and a new one on the other side.

[Drango]

I have a choice of going to Wall-Mart. However, I have no choice when it comes to taking my tax dollars to fund PBS.

[thirst4truth]

My beef with Wal Mart is they target rural towns, in rural America and yet do not become part of the community.
My town is 20,000 population here in Oregon. An annual event, a big event here is the Fair. Hundreds of children join 4H and FFA (Future Farmers of America) and raise for the fair, pigs, cows, sheep, etc. Fair day is a very vital part of our rural community and "mom and pop" businesses show up for the auctioning of the childrens animals. Of course they pay a little too much but it is such a great learning experience for the young entrepreuners that everyone participates, except Wal Mart!
No where to be seen at thousands of fairs throughout rural America, their target market, is Wal Mart bidding up the childrens animals to participate in the community.
They are hypocrites, so I don't participate with them!

[devane617]

WMT is the worse thing to happen to the American Economy, EVER! I have watched the CNBC special, and Frontline, and both showed the bullying tactics and devastation to our communities cause by WMT.

I worked in the corporate retail sector for 25 years and can say from an inside perspective WMT is killing our way of life, buy shuting down local businesses and replacing those jobs with minimum wage, no benifit jobs.

WMT SUCKS!