Walmart is a private company that should be at liberty to discriminate against whom it wants. This is a moral argument inspired by economics, and it should be a general principle in a free society. Walmart just caved in to pressures from the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) and will start discriminating against some adults who want to purchase tobacco products or e-cigarettes.
The Wall Street Journal reports (“Walmart to Raise Tobacco Age to 21, Drop Fruit-Flavored E-Cigarettes,” May 8, 2019):
Walmart’s action follows similar moves by other retailers in the wake of FDA criticism and bills introduced in the House and Senate that would raise the minimum age to purchase tobacco nationwide to 21 from 18.
The federal government wants to discriminate against individuals between 18 and 21 years of age, who are legally adults in most states, and is bullying private companies to do its bidding. If private discrimination is defensible, government discrimination (which was sometimes called “apartheid” in matters of race) is certainly not consistent with a society governed by the rule of law.
Individuals over the age of 18 are recognized as adults in most American states, they can vote in federal elections as per the 26th Amendment of 1971, they may enlist in the armed forces and can be conscripted, they may choose irreversible surgery to change sex, they may purchase guns, and so forth.
Preventing a group of adults from doing what other adults may do is clearly discrimination, even if the targeted age group is not among the favored and legally protected groups.
We could forgive Walmart to yield before government-imposed discrimination were it not that the large retailer seems to like cozying up to the power that be, even against some of its own customers. Its core clientele has changed, though, as the poorest and most redneck customers have partly switched to other stores (including “dollar stores”) for some products, and as it has gone after Amazon and Whole Foods. Recall that, last year, Walmart enacted the same age restrictions on guns, which suggests that it is becoming a politicized corporation that bows before politically-correct opinion leaders (see my post “The Political Firm”). Government bullying against some adult gun purchases would thankfully have contradicted the 2nd Amendment so, in this case, Walmart was just being a “good corporate citizen,” that is, a good politically-correct firm. Reading Walmart’s May 8 submissive letter to the FDA on the tobacco decision is instructive in this regard.
Governments are now so powerful that, when they don’t like something that is perfectly legal, they can intimidate private parties into refraining from it. It is a matter of incentives: if you don’t obey, the cost will be high in terms of increased regulatory attention and reduced opportunities for cronyism. Note also how age discrimination has much helped the acceptance and spread of government ID papers, which is in government’s interest.
READER COMMENTS
Brandon Berg
May 13 2019 at 6:00am
FYI, “redneck” is generally regarded as a pejorative, and seems out of place here.
Pierre Lemieux
May 13 2019 at 6:59pm
I don’t think this is true, Brandon. It is pejorative only for those for whom it is pejorative. Merriam-Webster says it is “often disparaging” or “sometimes disparaging.” But there has been a rehabilitation, or an attempt at rehabilitation, of rednecks two decades ago–for example, see Jim Goad, The Redneck Manifesto (Simon & Schuster, 1997-1998). Goad also uses the terms “hillbillies” and “white trash.” Rednecks may now be called “deplorables,” and many take the label as a badge of honor. I am among those who take the term “redneck” (or “deplorable”) as non-pejorative, up to the point where those who claim to represent them want to coercively impose their values on the rest of us. If you think I am wrong, I am open to arguments and sources.
Pierre Lemieux
May 13 2019 at 8:44pm
This being said, Brandon, a friend who is both more knowledgeable and modest than I am, tells me that you have a point. I should have been more prudent, at least by explaining how I was using the term. Thanks for your comment.
john hare
May 13 2019 at 9:28pm
I comment as redneck on a few tech sites.
Pierre Lemieux
May 13 2019 at 9:47pm
John: In one of my youth writings, when I was living in Québec, I described myself as a “redneck of the North.”
Craig
May 13 2019 at 10:15pm
“redneck of the North”
Is that the etymology of the word courage? Cou rouge du Nord? 😉
Redneck tends to be one of those terms where rednecks themselves can employ the term but those who aren’t….don’t
john hare
May 14 2019 at 5:02am
Locally, it has become more of a reaction to credentialism. People that claim a lot of education in my field are increasingly viewed as ivory tower incompetents that don’t know how the real world operates. Unfortunately, there is a lot of truth to that, just as there is in the “thirty year rookie” term that describes field people with no understanding of their own work beyond follow orders.
“I’m just a redneck” often means that I’m about to show you why your fancy blueprints don’t work locally. Increasingly it means somebody that will figure it out. A couple of the guys in my company refer to themselves as “Red Nexicans”
Mark Brady
May 14 2019 at 2:24am
“Individuals over the age of 18 are recognized as adults in most American states, they can vote in federal elections as per the 26th Amendment of 1971, they may enlist in the armed forces and can be conscripted, they may choose irreversible surgery to change sex, they may purchase guns, and so forth.”
But those between 18 and 21 cannot purchase alcoholic drinks. There is currently no conscription. Young men are required to register for the draft (but that is now in doubt following a recent court decision). And some states restrict those between 18 and 21 buying guns.
Mark Brady
May 14 2019 at 2:38am
“Walmart is a private company that should be at liberty to discriminate against whom it wants. This is a moral argument inspired by economics, and it should be a general principle in a free society.”
Yes, it is a moral argument (a normative statement) and that it should be a general principle in a free society is another normative statement. But how can economics, which I submit is a positive science, inspire a normative statement, and in particular these two statements?
Pierre Lemieux
May 14 2019 at 7:06am
Mark: Isn’t it clear (after the demonstrations of welfare economics) that economists can make no policy recommendation whatsoever without normative judgments?
Comments are closed.