>SNIP
>>>>Fair enough. Of course, Wal-Mart, like any business, will simply pass on any incurred expense to its customers so your joy will be misplaced if they are "knocked down". In reality you'll be joyfull that the poor who shop at Wal-Mart are having it stuck to them.
>
>SNIP
>
>>>The same argument was made before child labor laws and other labor laws were created.
>>
>
>I was replying to your statement above. The history of labor laws is a good example of this. One of the arguments against improving working conditions, minimum wages or increased wages, limiting work hours, providing a safe working environment, and restricting or banning child labor was that the increased costs to the employer would be passed on to consumers or businesses could not afford the new expenses and would go out of business. That did not make it alright to not create and enforce those labor laws.

I'm still not seeing the equation. On the one hand I'm mocking Kevin's "stick it to Wal-Mart" attitude by pointing out the obvious, that there will be no "sticking" except to their customers. On the other you're equating that to arguments against regulation. Other than the use of similar phrasing, I do not understand the relevance.

Or perhaps your just sharpening those horns of yours. ;)