<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Paul Smith Jr has a new home for his blog: www.gazizza.net. Click to go there now!

Wednesday, February 15, 2006


CNN.com - State: Wal-Mart must carry emergency contraception - Feb 15, 2006
Asked why the pharmacy only carries the pill in one state, Fogelman said that it was purely a "business decision" for Wal-Mart, based on its assessment that demand for the product was not very high.
If any store chooses not to carry any product, what business is it of the government? They're choosing on their own to sacrifice potential business and other stores are free to carry the product in question.

No store can carry every product, so they choose what they will stock based on expected sales. If they're wrong, they lose customers.

What's next, a government saying "You must carry Chee-tos?" It's the same logic. Just substitute someone with the munchies for someone seeking to induce a chemical abortion.

Comments:
Just another nail in the coffin of property rights. Once any place of business was deemed a "public accomodation" that was the beginning of the end. Odd how sporting good stores are not required to carry firearms to be sure that our 2nd Amendment rights are not violated.
 

Not true. Pharmacy sales are regulated and licensed by the state for very good reasons. Walmart is perfectly free to give up its pharmacy license if it doesn't want to follow the rules of its license. No violation of property rights here.
 

Sure it is. The government is still telling business what they must sell. And why should someone need permission from the government to open a business to begin with?
 

And why should someone need permission from the government to open a business to begin with?

...umm, because we aren't anarchists? Because a certain due process is required to make sure your right to open a business doesn't interfere with anybody else's rights?

Believe me, you don't want just anybody to be able to open a pharmacy. The US operated under your theory at the turn of the 20th century. Anybody could open a pharmacy and sell whatever they wanted. Usually that was some elixir containing mostly alcohol or opiates. Sometimes it was something toxic, and people died. Public opinion forced the creation of the FDA and other regulations on pharmacies.

The public has every right to make sure a publicly-regulated business is serving the public interest.

If someone is piloting me in an airplane or selling me powerful drugs, I want all the regulations I can get slapped on that sucker.
 

There's a far cry between not requiring business licenses and anarchy. As far as regulations go, there are private opportunities for accreditation. (Sp?) There are many examples of this in America today: colleges, the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, private schools, Underwriters Laboratory, to name just a few.

Things can happen without the government doing it.
 

So anonymous, that means that, by your standard, any store licensed to sell cigarettes must sell every brand available. Every licensed liquor store must stock every brand of single-malt scotch on the market. Every...you get the picture.

It's not about it being regulated. It's about the courts writing new laws to make sure that abortions are available to anyone who wants them.

I've never met a judge who couldn't concoct a lousy argument to justify his own prejudicial judgment.
 

Post a Comment






Archives
This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
Favorite Links | Sample Code | Resume | Pictures | Favorite Quotes | Contact | Blog
Copyright © 2004, PaulSmithJr.com