With all due respect, Robert, it is you who has failed to listen to me.  And, honestly, as I mentioned in Agnes's (or Izzy's?) diary on fashion-obsessed consumers, I've never been too concerned with having my views agreed with by others.  (That's why they're my views and not those of someone else.  It would be a tad boring if we all agreed on everything.)  Agree or disagree where you like.  Whether people take me seriously is their own business.  I take it that you do not, and that's perfectly fine with me.

As I said above, Wal-Mart will only get away with what the government allows it to get away with.  You've failed to recognize the obvious point -- that Wal-Mart has gone to court and lost in these cases (with the exception of the pending sexual discrimination case).  That's how the system is supposed to work.  If you allow the company -- any company -- to break the rules, without prosecution, you can't be surprised when it breaks the rules.  When you allow people to smoke dope, you can't be surprised when they become less hung-up about smoking dope.  I haven't ignored this, in any way.  If the company breaks the rules, it should be taken to court to have the plaintiff's claims addressed.

Yes, Wal-Mart can spend more on lawyers.  But, at the end of the day, voters and consumers have the power, because the government sets the rules, and Wal-Mart can only sell what consumers will buy.

You can call it "libertarian" or "liberal" or "conservative" or "communist" or "fascist" -- whatever you like -- but the views I'm expressing are none of the above.  They're my views related to economic theory and how I think that theory relates to the real world.  It has nothing to do with politics, and to cast what I've said aside as ideologically-based is to avoid the real discussion.  But that is your right.  We can debate ideology, if you'd like, but I'm not going to bring ideological arguments into a discussion of economics.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.