Walmart is not evil, in that you cant ascribe moral values to a corporation any more than you can ascribe them to a building or a cup. It may have (in my opinion, does have) some immoral directors and management though - workers rights are routinely minimised and the way staff are treated would be illegal in Europe.
There is no such thing as "workers rights" (not even if correctly spelled with an apostrophe). There are individual negative Rights, including the right to not sign a contract and to seek employment elsewhere if you don't agree with the terms. Governments already interfere far too much in what should be a private agreement between the employer and the employee, and the vast majority of the time it is the corporation's (that is its owners') rights that are being violated.
You've also just made yet another odd and unexplained assertion re: evil, government force etc - no argument just assertions.
You have been brainwashed to ignore the obvious (a cognitive blind-spot), but 2 + 2 remains 4 no matter how boring this fact may be. The fact remains that government is an institution based on violence, and it stifles scientific inquiry into alternative societal possibilities which definitely are at least theoretically superior. Legitimate legal jurisdiction cannot come from force! (Or does the best fist-fighter in the courtroom automatically become the judge?) That fact supersedes all legal trivia that this government has imposed, just like no possible biblical quotations can possible justify the burning of heretics in the middle ages!
I studied Jurisprudence at Oxford university before becoming a corporate lawyer, so I think I probably am sufficiently educated on this particular topic.
You are making an irrelevant "appeal to authority"... You are not applying for a job to get the government off a corporation's back by the least painful way presently available, for which your expertise would probably be very valuable - you are having a philosophical argument that requires justification of the current legal system's existence in the first place!
The very existence of Natural Law is extremely hotly debated, and the content of it if it does exist even more so. Claiming that natural law principals are obvious and self-evident is an arrogance usually reserved for ideologues and cult leaders.
The existence of Natural Law is self-evident if you understand what Natural Law is - not a human construct, but an economic observation of the universal rules that must govern the interactions between "rational economic actors" in order to maximize the society's long-term evolutionary competitiveness. You can debate whether your existence in this reality is desirable, which is your own choice, but you cannot debate whether this reality exists and the universally-consistent attributes of its existence (unless of course you can show them to be inconsistent).
To say that Natural Law does not exist in the context of mathematics is to say that 2 + 2 adding up to 5 is just as true as 4. The universe will not smite you instantly for having such an erroneous idea, but your application of mathematics would be dysfunctional unless you somehow begin to use arithmetic correctly. If you are trying to fly to the moon and your value of Pi is 3.0, then you won't even be able to manufacture a clock, much less an accurate space guidance system. The better your understanding of mathematics and physics, the better are your chances of getting to the moon.
Likewise, to say that Natural Law does not exist in human context is to say that a society where arbitrary theft, rape, and murder are respected instead of punished would perform just as well economically as a society where the adherence to the Non-Aggression Principle is as wide-spread as is humanly possible. Once again, the universe will not smite you for being false, but your applications of societal laws would be dysfunctional relative to societies that have a better understanding and application of Natural Law.
You realise that even most proponents of natural law would not agree that property was among one's rights...
Humanity's first attempts at scientific thought came from astrologers, alchemists, and witchdoctors, whose theories are entirely discredited by science as we know it today. Disagreements between scientists do not prove that science doesn't exist and whoever holds the biggest stick gets to dictate how reality is to be perceived!
Disagreements between scientists should be addressed by reexamining their premises, conducting better experiments, and making better analysis of the results. Given that opportunity, I would be able to prove that people who reject Property Rights are basing their arguments on their biases and not on objective economic laws (or, conversely, I may be proven wrong and have to adjust my opinions accordingly, as has been the case many times in the past).
My conclusions are already based on centuries of historical evidence demonstrating the benefits of free market capitalism, but even clearer proof would require the ability for more defined experiments, including being able to set up voluntary societies based on the various minarchist (including Georgist, Objectivist, etc) and Anarcho-Capitalist societies and seeing how they perform. That is the opportunity that I am fighting for, and "the powers that be" are fighting to deny, because they understand that their power rests on human ignorance and blind faith that cannot stand the light of science!
I will note though that you say that violently defending your personal property rights is a "triumph of rational people over the irrational". This sounds dangerously close to the language of WWII propaganda and is anything but rational.
The WWII propaganda came from governments, even the best of which violated the Property Rights of their victims by stealing their wealth (including 90% tax brackets and gold confiscation), "drafting" them into the military, and putting the undesirable minorities into concentration camps. You will not find many Anarcho-Capitalists who believe America's involvement in WWII was justifiable, especially if you understand that it actually was one big 30-year war that started as the result of
Anglo-American aggression in the beginning of the 20th century against potential competitors like Germany and Japan. Also note that I do believe that the Anglo-American empire was the lesser of the multiple evils in that conflict, but that doesn't make it good.
Don't confuse the philosophical concept of "natural laws" (essentially, the concept of objectively determinable morality) with the scientific concept of "physical laws" - mathematics, physics and so on.
I see that "the mother of all sciences" -- economics -- is entirely off your radar...
Nothing else you wrote is of enough interest of me to write in response to - particularly as you have yet to address a single arguement I've raised and instead just type more and more half-baked right wing ideology.
I should start keeping track of how many times I've been called "left wing" or "right wing" in any given week and try to balance them out. Looks like I'll be spending the next week ignoring economic freedom and going full-hog on gay marriage (or marriage just being a voluntary contract between any number of adults of any possible genders), decriminalization of all victimless crimes (including child porn), open borders, abortion, atheism, multiculturalism, The Pirate Bay, open source software, veganism, 9/11 conspiracy theories (they still count as left-wring, right?), peacemongering, and generally trying to recapture my "Bush derangement syndrome" of just a few years ago...
I'll leave you with yet another criticism of your system - the problem of the 'race to the bottom'. [...]
Your ignorance of basic economics is staggering...
That beneficial natural economic phenomenon should rightfully be called "the race to help the poorest" - why would people agree to work in sweatshops if they had a better alternative? The alternative to child labor and sweatshops is even greater rural poverty, starvation, child prostitution, and violence! As those poor people work their way up they gain a competitive advantage over totally unskilled workers elsewhere, and the most dismal jobs will move there instead, while the original sweatshops are gradually replaced with ever-more desirable and higher-paying industries. Places that had sweatshops and relative economic freedom 1-2 generations ago have skyscrapers and world-leading corporations today!
Thus the "race" is to elevate the "bottom" upward, until all regions of the world are able to raise their productivity levels to the point where they can send their children to school, buy them computers, and make them competitive with children born in the first world on the basis of merit, just like when working through Internet-based brokerage sites I compete for projects bids dollar-by-dollar with people in India, Nigeria, Malaysia, and all other parts of the world!
The only thing government interventionism brings is institutionalized theft, unemployment, dependency, inefficiency, corruption, stagnation, prolonged economic backwardness, and needless human suffering with no end in sight!
