3 ms·
The only "Randian attitude" towards the poor is that no one should be forced to help them. This case is mandating that shops help poor people regardless of whet
by _Adam 10y ago
The only "Randian attitude" towards the poor is that no one should be forced to help them. This case is mandating that shops help poor people regardless of whether or not they want. It's a clear violation of property rights.
Helping hungry people is a fine thing to do, as long as it's optional.
- ctrlalt_g 10y agoThe state isn't mandating anything. Store owners can physically prevent people from stealing their wares if they wanted to.