Good luck with this site. They love corporate abuse of power and they say they are the party of Small government. LOL NOT!

But you love welfare for corporations. So you contradict yourself. Socialism for corporations and the top is used way more then the bottom. So you must be against this, if not your the Hypocrate that contradicts himself, aren't you?

So you think that companies should pay  and build every road they use, the water that is delivered to their plant should all be paid by them, All the stop lights, the protection from cops and our military should also be paid for and if not, you are a socialist. So much for the socialist slayer, you don't even understand the word or go by what you preach.

Seems you love the military, thats a socialism program we all pay for, So why don't pay for your own army, Why do you need our money? Your posts are full of contradictions. So much for your comment, SOCIALIST>

Also all the polution that effects everyone else will have to be paid for. I can go on and on, yet you most likely don't like taxes but want to use all these things, Who's the welfare queen now?

There are many different types of socialism, Ok I'm done again, just had to laugh really hard.

However this is not a person going into wal-mart, this would be like them standing accross the street, which is completely legal.

The problem is not if it is legal or not, which is it. It's that 1. You suddenly find yourself banned from half of the city which contains required foods and services. 2. You're not given any indication where you're banned from. 3. You have very little power in debating against why you are banned until further legal action which takes a while.

That is a major problem especially considering how powerful private property is and how much power the owner has. Theorectically speaking Microsoft and Sony could ban you for any legal reason from any form of their property, which they won't unless you do something crazy but what if you so happen to be a not so lucky unpopular corporation?

And you can't support protecting property rights and freedom of speech, go figure.

huh? could you point me to where i support the restriction of free speech?

"Protecting peoples, rights (to include property), is one of the few legitimate functions of the federal government"

Supporting private property and freedom of speech is a contradiction. You either have one, the other or you violate both.

how does property rights infringe on peoples free speech?

Free speech under the First Amendment, you do not have any right to go inside a resturant for example and to defame the place and to insult the staff as such, they can kick you out. But they are entitled to kick you out for pretty much any reason if they want you because it is their property and in return you can do the same. On the other hand if you want maximum freedom of speech then you have to curtail and restrict property rights so bascially people can say whatever they want where ever they want and no one can do anything about it, except of course enforce your own right to freedom of speech. Or you could violate both of them and say people can say mostly what they want with exceptions and people have all the rights to their property with exceptions.

In the 1976 case of Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Board, the US Supreme Court did rule that the First Amendment does not apply to private property. Some state constitutions do give free speech a priority over private property but most do not.