by Richard A. Cheatham

You may or may not like Wal-Mart. I like some things about them and dislike others. There’s recent news from Wal-Mart that is more than slightly revealing.

On 24 October 2005, H. Lee Scott, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., made a speech entitled “Twenty First Century Leadership.” This speech and reactions to parts of it by Wal-Mart critics clarify some important issues if one pays close attention.

Wal-Mart has been justly criticized for some things and unjustly for others. They’ve often used government as a willing accomplice to acquire property from other private owners through “condemnation” or eminent domain procedures, you know...theft. The recent Kelo decision by the Supreme Court legalizes such immoral behavior, striking directly at the heart of private property ownership in this country. This process represents a serious attack upon freedom and requires the coercion of government action.

Wal-Mart, on the other hand, has often been criticized by “progressive” and socially conscious” political advocates for running out of business its smaller competitors, often mom and pop stores, by offering customers lower prices and greater selection. That, by itself, is nothing but a consequence of legitimate competition. It’s natural and is literally the way our lives and choices improve over time. It’s a consequence of freedom and voluntary choices and actions of people freely functioning as consumers. These “progressive social activists” favor government action to limit and restrict such freedom.

One of the things that caught my attention, though, was where Lee Scott called upon Congress to do the right thing and raise the minimum wage, now at $5.15 per hour. There’s social responsibility for you! Right? Well, perhaps you think it is if you are one of the naive souls who believe that government can “help”...you know, socially conscious people many of whom were educated in government indoctrination factories...I mean schools

In fact, Wal-Mart’s wage rates are considerably above the minimum wage. If Wal-Mart and others can get the gunslingers...I mean government, to raise the legal minimum wage, what will be one of the greatest consequences? Perhaps not the “socially responsible” results you might want and expect.

My friends, one of the reasons Wal-mart can often run its smaller competitors out of business is that those competitors can’t afford to pay the higher hourly wages that Wal-Mart pays. If Wal-Mart and its “socially responsible” buddies can press through a higher minimum wage, Wal-Mart will gain a massive additional competitive advantage over its smaller competitors, certainly forcing many of them to go under.

There’s your “corporate social responsibility.” Wal-Mart has fooled its opponents by adopting their own slimy strong-arm tactics. Get the government to restrict, limit and prevent free choices. In this case, Wal-Mart has joined its socialist opponents in the same bed and has fooled them into believing there’s a real romance.

©2005 by Richard A. Cheatham. All rights reserved. Mr.Cheatham is a professional speaker/writer and is syndicated through Press Media Group, LLC. Contact him through, Living History Assoc., Ltd., at www.LHALtd.com or DrawBackVeil@aol.com.