The simple fact of the matter is that Starbucks are sucessful despite the the high prices because they make a fantastic product for which there is demand. They have great controls in place to make sure that their product is the best it can be.

Could you clarify:

1. Whatever your value judgment may be in terms of the quantity of businesses one patronizes;

2. Is verbal/market support for Planned Parenthood more morally problematic than financial support?

Perhaps I’m confused, reading this through the prism of my own quasi-libertarianism, with a sympathy for Rothbard’s notion that “capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism.”

Yeah I don’t go for the libertarian version of “anarchism.” It’s not real anarchism in my opinion. Actually, most anarchism is not true anarchism. Only Christianity is the true anarchism. :)

I probably go to Starbucks once per day. Do I like paying $4+ for a cup of coffee – No. But I find it to be a consistent quality product and it’s generaly a nice place to hang out. Part of the cost of the coffee is due to the fact that they provide all of their employees who work 20+ hours per week with COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH BENEFITS and profit sharing.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_47/b3909098.htm

A lot of you on this board also complain about workers who lack health benefits and the need of the federal government to do something about it, but then prefer to go to your Mom and Pop coffee house down the street where you can get your cup of coffee at half the price and where Mom and Pop run a sweat shop where employees are lucky to make minimum wage much less get any health benefits or bonuses. Put your money where your mouth is.

Now, perhaps this could be considered a further threadjack, but could I ask you to explain your use of the qualifier “as it exists?” Perhaps I’m confused, reading this through the prism of my own quasi-libertarianism, with a sympathy for Rothbard’s notion that “capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism.”

thanks for making me aware.

While I do not want financial harm to the people who work at independant coffehouses, I see no reason to say that the survival of the houses is so paramount that being outcompeted in the market is a bad thing.

The problem is not competition as such, but when our lives become dominated by corporations. It’s all in the name of “choice” but what choice is there, really, when your only options are to shop at Starbucks, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, etc.?

Also, take five minutes and Google “fair trade coffee” and learn something about coffee farmers and how they are exploited. You should know something about it.

If Starbucks can outcompete independant coffeehouses, I think that is a prima facie case to think that they desirve to go out of business. It means that more people like Starbucks, they have better prices, or they run a more efficient operation. While I do not want financial harm to the people who work at independant coffehouses, I see no reason to say that the survival of the houses is so paramount that being outcompeted in the market is a bad thing.

Now a number of stories can be told that may be persuasive evidence that injustice is being done, but those stories usually revolve around unjust practices that may have created Starbuck’s success, not simply that they have outcompeted other people in the market. I see no reason to protect inefficient, unpopular, or costly businesses at society’s expense. In that case, the free market “sink or swim” is a good idea. Its not that as a society we do not have a duty to help the individuals who are sinking, but businesses who are sinking should sink.

As far as coffee farmers go, I don’t really know enough about it.