On looting WalMart as moral under the RRR

Suppose Congress has passed and the President signed the Retail Redistribution Ruling (RRR).

The RRR’s terms are that all WalMart stores are now nationalized, and for one day every WalMart store will be open to the public for citizens to take something they want. You receive in the mail a ticket entitling you to enter your nearest WalMart on July 10 to take any one item you like.

Probably your first reaction, as a decent human being, is: Never! I disapprove of such corrupt legislations. I’m proud of making my own way in the world. I only trade voluntarily with other self-responsible, productive individuals.

Sure, you’re tempted by the big-screen televisions and the patio sets and really could use a new set of pots and pans. Yet … no, it would be looting.

You are about to tear up your RRR ticket and throw it away in disgust.

But then a thought creeps into your mind: Maybe it’s not looting. Maybe I’m entitled to take something. Maybe I should as a matter of … justice.

After all, you think, don’t we live in a corrupted retail environment? We’re over-regulated by federal and state governments, and many of those regulations have been captured by connected business interests. That’s made everything more expensive for me as a consumer — and more difficult to compete as an honest business person. I should be entitled to get some of that back.

True, my business has barely broken even for the last several years and so I haven’t paid any taxes. But my two employees have taxes deducted every month. I know — I sign their paychecks. So I could use my RRR to take a big-screen television from WalMart, sell it on eBay, and give the proceeds to my employees. Sweet.

Further: My personal enemies and business competitors will not doubt participate in the RRR. Many of them are bad people. Why should only they get new patio sets? No way I’m going to feel like a martyr sitting in my yard on a sagging chair.

Even further: For three whole months, my local government shut down the street on which my business is located. They said it was unsafe and needed repairs. Of course, it was their negligence over the years that contributed to the streets’ being unsafe. And they didn’t have to shut down the whole street and for so long. My customers stayed away and I lost a lot of business. Clearly I deserve some restitution. A brand-new lawnmower from WalMart would be a good start.

And there’s WalMart itself, which has engaged in eminent domain and other sharp business practices over the years. Some of those affected my own business negatively. So it’s only just that I get something back.

Ha ha, I just remembered: I actually own a few shares of WalMart stock myself. Almost forgot about those tucked into my old-age portfolio. But with this nationalization of WalMart and the direction the economy is going, there might not be a WalMart by the time I retire. Shouldn’t I use my RRR ticket to salvage something? My shares are worth at least a new pressure-cooker.

So now the objectively right thing to do about RRR is perfectly clear to me:

It’s legal, it’s in my rational self-interest, and it’s just.

See you at WalMart on July 10.

[Update: My follow-up Open College podcast on the morality of accepting taxpayer/government support.]

5 thoughts on “On looting WalMart as moral under the RRR”

  1. Wow. I’m surprised at such poor reasoning, Dr. Hicks. I suggest you rethink your position.

  2. Thanks. I haven’t seen Don’s video yet, but I think of him as a smart guy. What’s fascinating are the three *reactions* my post and follow-up WalMart analogy generated—all from people I think of as smart:
    1. Great analysis, and I’ve changed my position.
    2. Very subtle, but it’s a complex issue and I need to think more.
    3. The analogy is dumb and Hicks is an idiot.

  3. I think that the analysis is reasonable. Although this is hypothetical, it does have some analogies that are not. Suppose that most or all people are selfish to a lesser or greater. Suppose that there are a few leaders and many followers. I think that most people are going to look out for themselves and their “clan”. The other, as you noted is: “everyone else is going to benefit so why shouldn’t I am and my clan?”

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *