That old free enterprise chestnut

Consider this old post from 2006:

https://nourishingobscurity.blogspot.com/2006/08/economy-walmart-meets-opposition-in.html

The main article on Walmart from long ago I can't find.  It stated and quoted various people that wherever WM went in those days, it was a scorched earth policy, i.e. no business within the town could survive against their sourcing, stocking and selling.  Further, they infiltrated local politics and made various agreements about the local opposition businesses.

That's a logical position, a logical conundrum and parallels that of the late 1800s anti-trust laws. To expect Walmart to come into a local community and play fair, play nice, is quite ludicrous, theirs was an openly ravening policy, laying waste anywhere they went.  That was underscored by footage of a Walmart team meeting which was almost religious in fervour. So there's the dilemma of capitalism, which can be anti-free enterprise just as much as any nationalising communist.

It also raises the question of globalisation and outsourcing, plus the ethics concerning workers in other countries.  I for one have never resolved that in my head.  My fave detractor was at it again yesterday with the old chestnut of Blgr being a free platform so I should be grateful, just as Walmart offered people in towns impossible to match deals.  They never said they played fair, they have a specific view and no other view is tolerated. Just as with Ardern downunder, there is a single source of truth, and it is theirs.

The argument though that because of this, any who freely use the platform must not have any view independent of the conglomerate on any point whatever, makes a mockery of the various constitutional provisions and amendments, of all the human rights bollox - bollox in the sense that it only defends one view again, never ours.