On Guns, Golf and Contraception
Our Vice President mistakenly shot his friend while quail hunting and has received a lot of attention for it. A colleague of mine from Texas tells me that hunting is a big social event there – “it’s like playing golf where I come from,” she said. Last month I went skeet shooting with a friend here. It was a first for me (at least on land – I tried it on a cruise ship once before), and as I think of it, it actually did feel a little like golf (there were 18 ‘stations’ on the course). In keeping with the analogy, some might think of Cheney’s incident in the same spirit as if he swung his club with his friend ahead on the fairway, didn’t call “four” and hit him with his ball. But that probably wouldn’t have made the news.
All this talk about guns reminds me of an early commentary on my book that I came across in this blog. The blog was posted on, of all places, a second amendment website. The blogger argued that if eBay will be a big part of our future of shopping (as I predict in my book), then it could ultimately affect our right to bear arms. Why? Because eBay doesn’t allow the sale of guns on its site. As eBay gets bigger and becomes mainstream, the blogger argues it could eventually control what we buy and sell.
Perhaps his argument has some merit.
This week, a government agency forced Wal-Mart to carry emergency contraception in response to a complaint filed by three women who were refused the ‘morning after’ pill. Why? Wal-Mart’s decision not to carry the product (except in Illinois where it is required to by law) had the potential to affect a large amount of the population. “Wal-Mart is not only the world’s largest company; it is also the largest company in the history of the world,” according to Charles Fishman, author of The Wal-Mart Effect.
Ebay facilitated the sale of $44 billion last year. Over 180 million people have registered to transact on their site. As it grows and becomes mainstream, its influence on consumers will match, or perhaps exceed, that of Wal-Mart’s.
Like Wal-Mart, we may soon see the day where, for better or worse, our government limits eBay from restricting the sale of certain goods because of their massive influence as well.
February 15th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
Thanks for the link.
I’m gratified that a professional writer thinks my little scribblings might have some merit. Not being facetious, I do appreciate your thoughts.
My concern comes from such things as Google and Cisco and MSN actively aiding hostile regimes such as China. I’m disturbed by the fact that one company could change what we’re able to buy and sell. Although as I stated, it’s the laws in California which are loathsome, not necessarily e-Bay itself.
I did see where Massachusetts demanded Wal-Mart sell a product. I think that’s tyrannical. I believe that states should have the right to ban the sale of some items that are fraudulent or misleading. I’m thinking miracle diet pills and herbal remedies. However, this is a different story. Forcing a company to sell something against its will backed up by the ultimate threat of force is a road we must not go down. Some people have accused me of being over the top, but what’s to stop a state from demanding a religious group or a political group promote things they are opposed to, or silence their advocacy of their viewpoint? Massachusetts has shown they are willing to do things like this, what’s next? I support the free exchange of ideas and products, even ones I don’t like. It’s the idea of government intrusion that frightens me.
Regards,
Scott G
February 21st, 2006 at 12:12 am
Considering that both Wal-Mart and eBay are publicly held entities they have a responsibility to the public to provide goods and services that are in demand as well as needed. Possessing the power to restrict what goods are available on the whim or personal beliefs of the majority stock holder is dangerous grounds indeed. Given Wahl-Mart’s ability to influence markets they have a responsibility to conduct themselves in a socially acceptable/responsible manner. Having to be told by the government to make needed pharmaceuticals available is commentary not on the sad shape of government rather the sad shape of Wal-Mart management. If you doubt it, you might want to take a look at the various law suits against Wal-Mart currently and over the last several years.
As for eBay, they are rapidly gaining the same type of power as Wal-Mart. eBay controls access to a huge world market that only promises to get larger. eBay too has demonstrated that it does not posses the management acumen to assemble tinker toys much less act in a responsible manner to wards the public as well as their membership. Given eBay’s structure as a global market place many of the restrictions on the sale of some items are controlled by various laws all over the world. Still, many items are not allowed on eBay simply because Pierre or some other high executive doesn’t like them. Funny, on eBay you can find any an unending supply of questionable pornography and *marital aids* yet you can not sell a gun, a ghettopoly game or a live animal.
David
February 21st, 2006 at 3:47 am
David,
I think we’ll have to disagree about Wal-Mart. I don’t see where it’s the right of the government to mandate that they carry this or any other item. Companies aren’t in the business of being “socially responsible,” that’s good PR, but…. Just because the “public” “wants” an item doesn’t justify the threat of force from the government to demand they make it available. That’s my concern. If that item is “necessary” which I doubt, then there are other places to get it. This supposed tyranny of Wal-Mart is easy to beat - go elsewhere.
Considering all the Wal-Mart hatred out there, I doubt all the lawsuits have real merit.
I believe guns are in demand for personal safety and I would like the confiscatory states like California, Massachusetts and New York to allow the open sale of all types of guns. They won’t though will they? The rulers there don’t believe they are needed. In those locations they use the threat of force to stop the sale of an item.
Anyway, thanks for the reply.
Regards.
February 21st, 2006 at 3:44 pm
You may want to research the outcome of some of the suits brought against Wal-Mart before you determine they lack merit. You will find that the facts disagree with your assumption.
If Wal-Mart was a privately held company then I would agree with you that they have an unquestionable right to sell what they choose. However, since Wal-Mart is publicly held they do indeed have a responsibility to the public. Like eBay, they control a vast market and in many locations Wal-Mart has limited or eliminated their competition so your suggestion to go elsewhere, at times, may not be an option given the urgency of the need. Wal-Mart should not have to be told to carry and offer these certain types of pharmaceuticals. Wal-Mart should not have to be reminded of the reason Anti-Trust legislation was created and how broad those laws really are.
Guns are in demand for a variety of reasons. Let’s not fool ourselves into believing that the only or even major reason for the demand is personal safety. The restrictive laws concerning guns do exists, in part, for the personal safety of society at large. I think most people would agree that there is a segment of society that should not be allowed easy access to guns.
David
February 28th, 2006 at 10:04 pm
David,
Guess we’ll have to disagree. Wal-Mart, or any other company, should never be forced by any government or agency to provide something. Publicly held or not. The solution to the Wal-Mart “tyranny” is stop buying there. Our government should only use force against criminals and foreign enemies. Refusing to sell “morning after pills” is not criminal.
It might be interesting to find out what the majority of gun buyers motivations are. Do you know of any studies or polls that show why someone buys a gun? I don’t know. I bought mine for home protection (shotguns)and target shooting (22s and milsurps). Do criminals buy guns? Of course, but they generally don’t go to the local gun store and fill out the paperwork. Restrictive gun laws don’t hinder illegal purchases, they make it harder for legal buyers to obtain protection that governments have ruled they are not obligated to provide individually, just as a sense of public safety; ie your “personal safety of society at large.”
Interesting subjects and I’m sure we could go on forever about it.
Regards.
March 3rd, 2006 at 3:50 pm
It is often interesting to listen to people expound on a the topic of government involvement with business. On one hand you don’t feel the government had the right to force Wal-Mart to sell a product after Wal-Mart eliminated their competition in a particular area. Yet, you have no problem allowing business person or persons controlling what society can and can not have access to. Given that these people have mainly the responsibility of maximizing shareholder equity I think your trust is sorely misplaced. In areas where Wal-Mart is the only reasonable option for consumers they don’t have the luxury to simply “stop buying” there. I assume that what you meant by saying that “Refusing to sell “morning after pills” is not criminal” you meant that it is not illegal. As I suggested before, you may want to review the broad powers of anti-trust legislation before making such a claim.
Your overview as to why gun registration laws exist is parochial at best. Registration laws serve more deeper purposes than to hinder the legal purchase of a gun. Perhaps you could give it a little more thought. I am not aware of any specific studies as to why people buy guns, though I am sure such studies do exist. By and large the people that I have encountered in real life and on the internet seem to by guns for bragging rights. Inevitable, at some point in the discussion they can not resist the temptation to mention types, calibers, and quantity as if there is some unseen transfer of power or nobility in owning a gun. Perhaps it is just an ego issue and that may explain, in part, why guns laws are such a hot topic.
March 10th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
Actually I understand there is tension between the government and business. I deny the government the right to order any business to sell any product, but I deny Wal-Mart, or any other business, the right to manipulate prices and engage in criminal behavior. This is the job I want government to have: ensure companies obey the laws, but don’t concern itself with stocking the shelves.
It’s become a cliche, but the market will take care of Wal-Mart if it gains too much marketshare and chokes off items that the public wants. They’re not stupid, but remember no company lasts forever. Been to your local Montgomery Wards lately? Arrogance and abuse of marketshare will lead to losses, and no one - with any intelligence - will let the lack of a product’s availability destroy the company.
As for guns: all gun laws everywhere are patently unconstitutional. Registration is infringing on my guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. It’s not the government’s business to know whether I have guns and what guns I have. That is the essence of all registrations schemes. Knowing who has guns and what they have. Why? Does the government fear us? They shouldn’t, unless they aren’t doing their job. That’s the whole reason the Founders wrote the second amendment. We can’t trust the government not to oppress us unless we have a way to make them behave. The three branches of government act as a check and balance to each other and an armed citizenry is the check to all three.
I don’t see anything wrong about admiring a well made gun or bragging about your latest acquisition. We brag about our cars, why not guns? I generally do not, as I said my purchases are for self defense. People may have started a collection for reasons like mine and just have had the werewithal to purchase more than one. There are many gun boards devoted to certain types of gun. These people love how they look, how they shoot and the history.
In fact there is power and nobility in owning a gun. Free men own guns, slaves do not.
Regards
March 13th, 2006 at 12:39 am
It seems you want companies to obey the laws but you don’t seem to understand what the laws are that allow the government to influence Wal Mart in order to offer the previously mentioned pharmaceuticals. You’re against Wal Mart manipulating prices and engaging in criminal behavior but you are all for Wal Mart executives being able to control what is and is not available to consumers. Why should consumers be subject to the morals of “for profit” operations?
Market forces do drive retail business to a great deal. However, in areas where those forces have been neutralized there is no market to “take care of” Wal Mart. The costs to enter and compete with Wal Mart in those areas will be too great. Corporations are inherently designed to last forever, the Royal Mint was formed in the year 886. Simply because Montgomery Wards, a company that failed to respond to a changing marketplace, goes out of business is no indication that Wal Mart or any other corporation will go out of business. Even so, how many lifetimes will it take before that happens. Should Wal Mart be granted a free license to subject “their” morals on consumers? If unchecked where would it end? As I already suggested, take a long, hard look at Anti-Trust legislation and see it the governments actions were legal or not.
When it comes to gun laws, most left wing nut cases that wear their gun types on their sleeve, believe that those laws are unconstitutional. Funny, yet those laws have not been struck down. They serve a purpose far beyond knowing what guns you have. It’s not even close to the essence of gun registration, as you suggest. The only fear any government or member of government should be concerned with is the fear of the constituency voting power. To suggest that they should fear you because you have a gun is highly contrary of your argument and provides a strong reasoning as to why gun legislation is necessary. You attempt to hide behind the second amendment declaring your rights yet have you even read beyond the second amendment? May I suggest Article 3, Section 3 of the same constitution? An armed citizenry doesn’t exist to check the three branches of government, rather, an armed citizenry was designed to protect the security of that government. Perhaps a remedial history course is in order.
If you truly believe there is power and nobility in owning a gun and that free men own guns, slaves do not - then I must ask you if you have written a manifesto as yet? Have you built your one room cabin in Idaho? Nobility isn’t gained by simply owning a gun or we wouldn’t have so many people in jails. Power is fleeting - particularly power gained through a gun. If you believe that you must own a gun to be free then you are indeed a slave and your own argument fails you.
March 27th, 2006 at 7:20 am
First of all, David is mischaractarizing a “publicly held company”.
His inferrence is that a “publicly held company” belongs to the public in general and has some sort of obligation to satisfy every member of the public.
That is simply not true. All the term “publicly held company” means is that shares of the company are open for sale to the public. The company is still “privately” owned by the individual shareholders; it is not “owned” by “the public”. Therefore, the shareholders DO have the “right” to determine what products and services the company will provide. The shareholders privately own the company, it is not owned by the public regardless of the terminology used to describe it.
Companies have no moral or legal obligation to provide products or services that the public demands. If the demand is there, a supplier will emerge. That is what the free market is all about.
“The costs to enter and compete with Wal Mart in those areas will be too great.”
You are right if you are contemplating entering direct competition with Wal-mart. But if you enter into business to provide a product or service not available at Wal-mart (or Walgreens or any other big chain) the only way they can force you out of business is to start carrying the product or service and underbid you. Either way, your ultimate goal of having a product or service available to the “public” is achieved.
March 31st, 2006 at 3:51 pm
“First of all, David is mischaractarizing a “publicly held company”. ”
No, you’re mischaracterizing what I said.
“His inferrence is that a “publicly held company” belongs to the public in general and has some sort of obligation to satisfy every member of the public.”
No, again. (Sigh) My inference suggested nothing of the sort that a publicly held company belongs to the “public”. Publicly held corporations do not have the same legal obligations as a private (Personal or restricted) company.
“All the term “publicly held company” means is that shares of the company are open for sale to the public. The company is still “privately” owned by the individual shareholders; it is not “owned” by “the public”.”
A publicly held company, by definition, is not privately owned.
“Therefore, the shareholders DO have the “right” to determine what products and services the company will provide.”
That is what Boeing once thought when they began operating United Airlines. Then of course there is the “MA BELL” break-up as well. Not to mention antirtust violations by Microsoft that believed they had the right to decide what services and products were offered.
“The shareholders privately own the company, it is not owned by the public regardless of the terminology used to describe it.”
Once again, I never said that it was owned by the pupblic in general. That was your take on the matter.
“Companies have no moral or legal obligation to provide products or services that the public demands. If the demand is there, a supplier will emerge. That is what the free market is all about.”
It could be argued that the legal obligation is there since corporate managers are required to maximize shareholder equity (profit). Further, since Wal-Mart was indeed forced to sell the product your argument simply doesn’t work.