This gallery is meant to illustrate the issues raised in my discussion with Michael Young over Wal Mart in the post on the Great Barrington Declaration. See the combox of that post for further details. Click the thumbnails of each photo for important empirical findings.
-
- Ambiguity: is this a pure external imposition on Wal Mart, or is it one that Wal-Mart might well have imposed on itself?
-
- Wal Mart’s PR interest in having a store that offers customers a safe shopping environment.
-
- A purely institutional rule. Rights ARE violated if you put your dog in a cart.
-
- More evidence that Wal Mart has a unilateral interest in public health and safety that gives it an incentive to adopt institutional rules that government “imposes” by mandate. So there’s rule-based over-determination here.
-
- Do you violate rights if you flout this sign? YES
-
- Is this a rights violation? YES.
-
- Do I disapprove of the rights violation involved? FUCK YES
-
- Note the ambiguity in Wal Mart’s posture. Is the mask mandate really an external mandate? Or is it something that Wal Mart has conveniently treated, in part, as an external mandate, but which it would have imposed as a purely private rule in the absence of a mandate?
Policy of Truth 