Rate the following in order of Evil Culpability:

[Orrex]

Wal*Mart
The communities that allow Wal*Mart to strangle their economies
The impoverished Wal*Mart shoppers who can't afford to shop elsewhere
The many entities of government that permit Wal*Mart to act as it does

And give a brief explanation, if you please.

[TheFarseer]

1. here you go

1 Government
2 Walmart
3 Communities
4 shoppers

The government is the ones who can stop this and they don't. I blame them the most. Walmart is going to do anything it can to make as much profit as they can and that's just the way it is. I find most of their practices extremely underhanded and greedy but not everyone is going to be a "good citizen" and that is why you have a government. The communities are trying to pull in shoppers form other communities to boost their economy. I'm sure it works to an extent but also helps destroy their downtowns etc. To alot of Walmart shoppers it is probably critical to save as much as they can when shopping. Also, many of them probably can't put 2 and 2 together on this one.

[Orrex]

2. Wow!

Not only did you exactly peg my view on the subject, you're just about the first person to do so, in my experience! Pretty much everyone who addressed the subject starts and ends by condemning the shopper, as if the shlub who makes $13,000 a year is personally to blame for the hellish working conditions in China and the decline of Western Civilization.

The fact that shoppers still patronize Wal*Mart is a problem, but it seems to me foolish and futile to blame the people least able to effect change at the international level.

Thanks for your input.

[TahitiNut]

5. Yep. A business LICENSE has become business LICENTIOUSNESS.

:shrug: It's past damned time that PUBLIC PREDATORS had their PUBLIC LICENSES revoked. The public doesn't exist to serve them; they exist to serve the public. When they don't, they should CEASE EXISTING. That government continues to license such behavior is complicity, not justice. It's the ethical equivalent of organized crime.

[Cats Against Frist]

3. IMHO

All have equal culpability, except for Wal-Mart, itself, who has the most. You also forgot the companies that sell through Wal-Mart, as they, too, have their little toe in the hokey-pokey. Some of them even have HUGE moral dilemmas about it -- organic producers, etc., but, still, money is the bottom line. You also forgot people who could afford to shop somewhere else, but go to Wal-Mart for the cheap prices and convenience -- they might be a little more responsible than the other groups, but not terribly much.

The truth is, IMHO, that there are two entities that could effectively stop this: Wal-Mart, itself, and the people who buy there. I only elevate Wal-Mart to the top, because they are the perps. The consumer is the enabler.

[Orrex]

4. Here's where I'm unclear

Is it reasonable to hope that millions of shoppers will unite in sudden awareness of the hideousness of Wal*Mart, or is it more likely that some higher echelon remedy might be sought?

It's great to suggest that the shopper should go to Costco or to the Mom-n-Pop hardware store, but when there's no Costco for a hundred miles and Mom-n-Pop charge 80% more for the same hammer, how can the low-income shopper be charged with correcting the lapses of multibillion dollar corporate empire?

By extension, how does this assignment-of-responsibility (i.e., requiring the shopper to spend more of his low-income paycheck) differ fundamentally from shifting the federal tax burden away from the wealthy?

Thanks for your reply in any case.