On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 09:00:48 -0800, you wrote: > > -- > On 8 Mar 2003 at 2:44, Anonymous wrote: > > But let's cut to the chase. Assume that all private grocery > > store owners want to exclude people from their stores. Now > > assume that 100% of them agree that effective Tuesday, only > > those people who have a receipt for a $100 or more donation > > to George W Bush (or Hillary Clinton, whatever) may enter > > their property to shop for groceries. > > The difference between private property owners doing this, and > the governemnt doing this is that 100% of private property > owners are NOT going to agree on anything. > > The "100%" assumption presupposes that "the capitalists" are > like the state, a single entity with a single will, in which > case it is obvious that simply replacing the will of "the > capitalists" with the will of "the people" would be a vast > improvement, rather than slavery terror and mass murder.
You are exactly right! Now comes the question: If the mall has the right, but can't join with all malls to solidify the uniformity of the prohibition, then a property right will be interfered with, either the right of one mall to prohibit, or the right of malls to agree to prohibit. Else the power of monopoly (all malls unified) has part of the effect of the government's monopoly.
