>Doug Henwood wrote:
>>
>> The point is this: payment for services involves mutually agreeable
>> exchanges. They are not manifestations of power, as some would say.
>> No one is forced to work at Wal-Mart; people who choose to work there
>> do so because they prefer employment there to other circumstances.
>>
>
>Really, there must be a defense of Wal-Mart someplace that doesn't
>contain anything this obscene.
>
>Rhetorically, it's interesting that the author has knocked over several
>clay pigeons (such as the professor's bumper sticker or the whine about
>greeters) before he puts in this classical defense of capitalism.
>Careless readers won't notice that the subject has changed from
>defending Wal-Mart to defending capitalism as such.
It sometimes amazes me how limited the repertoire of these guys is - it's free! It's voluntary! The perfect paradise of liberty, equality, and Bentham. You'd think that with a couple of centuries worth of advances in the technologies of apologetics they could do better than this.
Doug