Agreed.  Since when is Bachmann's recitation of a political opponent's words and deeds with which she disagrees an "attack"?

Except in those towns where WM is outlawed.

I can relate to this.  The same goes for me Re: Telescopes and accessories.  The best place in Wichita to buy telescopes is a small one man business, with much higher quality telescopes than WM has, and commensurate expertise (but no snobbery).

double post error

WM offers professional services such as a pharmacy, an optometrist, banking, etc.  Not all goods and services at WM are "shoddy."

I do not universally condemn Wal-Mart (WM), but it has become a somewhat cronyist company.  

When WM moves into a given area, related businesses that are already marginal usually go out of business, but the ones that remain often see an increase in business, due mainly to increased auto and foot traffic--the so-called "Wal-Mart effect."

Perhaps I'm less cynical about business than you, Aaron. I think that government intrusion into the free market fosters unethical business behavior, especially businesses big enough to make cronyism pay off, like WM.  Asking if WM has a financial interest in preserving Target is not the right question--that's not the purpose of a business, big or small.  Making a profit is.  You don't exactly "bail out" or "preserve" a competing business by occasionally cooperating with it.

Were the people who worked for companies operating company towns and sweatshops forced to work there?  No.  So, it's the worker that chooses to work in the sweatshop that sacrifices his dignity for his own profit, namely wages, resulting in a better (he determines) quality of life than he previously had.

No, not because of government interference, but in the case of Standard Oil, over 100 other oil companies existed at the same time as Standard Oil--Standard just outperformed all the others, and, as a result of its increased business, began to look too much like a monopoly for the government's taste.  But its market position was challenged by Southwestern US oil production and by increased use popularity of fuel oil, then gasoline.  This, coupled with Standard's inability to control the crude oil market (it produced only 9% of the nation's supply in 1907), caused its share of the petroleum refining market to shrink from 85% in 1890 to 64% in 1911, and this was before the federal antitrust case was brought against it.  So, yes, I think that Standard Oil would have eventually lost even more of its pseudo-monopoly status, without the government's "help."

Aaron, you've given me a lot to chew on.  

The financial incentives are: 1)  By checking with a competing business for whatever reason, the customer sees that you are helping him and thus may view you in a favorable enough light to give you repeat business, and 2) You help your competitor in a given situation, and he may help you in kind later.

I agree with everything in your post, K.C., except your implicit assumption that increasing tax rates results in extra revenue.  Not necessarily so.

In addition, the reportage that virtually all other mass murderers in the recent past adhered to either radical Islam or leftist causes was either completely suppressed or in some way minimized.

Juan Williams was just on Chris Wallace's panel discussion on Fox parroting the (of late) tired canard that, by their stubbornness, the Republicans are imperiling the country's future.  Someone needed to ask Williams, "What makes Harry Reid's refusal to even allow the Senate to vote on an actual piece of legislation (Cut, Cap, and Balance) any less a threat to the solvency of the republic than the resolute refusal of the Republicans to entertain raising taxes as part of the debt ceiling talks?"

Aaron Miller says, "…It's in the financial best interests of most companies to impede and eliminate competition. Monopolies are a natural conclusion of free markets. With or without big government, businesses conspire for profit and control."

I disagree.  Monopolies cannot exist without big government interfering in and distorting the (previously freer) market.  I've seen many examples of large and small business cooperation (not collusion, such as price fixing, but true cooperation), such as checking with competitors on out of stocks, or (esp. small business) sending potential customers to competitors if it's not their specialty or if they are too busy to do the work in a timely manner, etc.

David Williamson says, "…if we could remove the cronies we should be OK."

In civil society, only the government is legally sanctioned to use force.  The only way to make it harder for monopolies or cronyism to exist is to drastically shrink its size and scope.  But, the endless promotion of class envy by the ruling class and much of the media, swallowed whole by the unthinkingly envious (one of those human frailties), makes this unlikely.  So, revolution (I advocate peaceful means), is the only alternative.

Two things--conservatives are not automatically "crazy people," Mr. Kaus.  And people from Iowa know what a metaphor is, Ms. Rubin. 

If it's going to <expletive> Christians off and help Muslims in any way whatever, Obama will lead the charge.  

A simple question:

Does there exist a point at which we have enough money from tax revenues???

Greed is a powerful emotion.  A politician's greed seems to be insatiable.