Back when Sergio use to work here we would have arguments all the time about Wal-Mart. One argument I remember was whether or not the government had the right to say a Wal-Mart could not open a store in the community. I, being the good libretarian that I am, believe government should have little to no say when it comes to what is done with Private Property. The other argument is that a community as a righ to decide what it does and does not want and make laws accordingly.
The problem is that if you declare it is OK for government to determine what can be done with private property the opposite of outlawing Wal-Mart must also be true. There was an article in the WSJ yesterday of how many local governments are using the power of Emminent Domain to force small business owners out to allow big-box companies like Costco and Wal-Mart to take over. They do this because these large retailers bring in more tax revenues which is vital for these cash-strapped communities.
So where is the line? How do you solve this problem? For me its simple. You do not allow government to determine winners and losers in a business enviroment. If the community doesn't like Wal-Mart than don't shop there. With no customers Wal-Mart has to eventually close its doors. Want a Wal-Mart, OK, but don't take someone's private property just so you can do it. If nobody comes to the stores on that piece of land soon enough the doors will have to be closed. Free Markets!