That's odd. Your post shows that? As in, your post is a study about the matter, complete with empirically-gathered evidence to support your conclusion? It seems to me that your post expresses an opinion about the matter, and one that is subtly at odds with how conservatives usually like to portray themselves. You cannot on the one hand claim to support market economics, and on the other think there's some ethical imperative that Whole Foods should fire these employees.Originally Posted by Gipper
Perhaps so. I'm not sure why that's relevant to the point at hand.Originally Posted by Gipper
Again, I'm not sure why this is remotely relevant. I'm calling out the fact that you call yourself libertarian, which rather strongly suggests you support market economics. But on the other hand, you seem to believe there is some prior ought here--an ought based on some principle or other. One point behind market economics is that it's procedurally determined. Whatever the outcome of the procedure is, that's what should happen.Originally Posted by Gipper
Of course, we don't have that. I also don't believe that's correct. But if you're a libertarian, you should believe that--that seems to be one way to state a definition of libertarianism.