From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Boycotts, Boycotts, Boycotts....
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:14:33 GMT

In article <1ha5ioINNdgs@spim.mti.sgi.com>
mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:

>David Veal) writes:
>|> BOB HOOKER) writes:
>|>
>|> >cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>|> >>
>|> >> It's the "really stupid (boycotts)" of which you write that conservatives
>|> >> dislike.  I classify the Cramer boycott as being a stupid one.  Even
>|> >> though my political bias is conservative, I enjoy reading posts on
>|> >> talk.politics.misc and alt.rush-limbaugh that span the entire political
>|> >> spectrum.  Some people actually feel that some opposing viewpoints
>|> >
>|> >As far as determining the stupid ones from the smart ones,  I would ask
>|> >conservatives to live by what they are always preaching;
>|> >
>|> >LET THE MARKET DECIDE.
>|> >
>|> >What I think is most illuminating about all of this anti-boycott talk from
>|> >some on the right is that it shows how shallow their commitment to
>|> >Capatalism really is.  Sure when it come to cutting taxes and regulation
>|> >they are all pro-bussiness,  but when it comes to letting all groups in
>|> >America exercise the power they have via the market,  to let the value of a
>|> >boycott be decidedin the same way that the value of Snapple is decided--via
>|> >the market, to allow people to decide what they are going to buy for any
>|> >reason that they like,  then it is another story altogether.
>|>
>|>        I believe you're not quite understanding the situation.  When
>|> you've got one group in our "market" arguing that thus and such should
>|> be boycotted, how is it "anti-capitalistic" to argue that the boycott is
>|> stupid?  Is not the person arguing against the boycott *part* of the market
>|> in every way that the boycotting group is?
>|>        Supporting capitalism is not the same as supporting every single
>|> crack-pot idea that can be exercised in a capitalisitc environment.
>|>

>There is no such thing as a stupid boycott, nor is there any suggestion
>that you should support every idea that you decide is "crack-pot."

       How do you figure there's no such thing as a stupid boycott.  There
are plenty of boycotts for stupid reasons and they run the whole political
spectrum, from the luntic back-to-nature fringe to the fascist ring-wing.
        How, Bob Hooker seems to figure that if you don't support a
particular boycott, you are not supporting the capitalistic market
environment that makes it possible.

>After
>all, Edison and Alexander Graham Bell were considered crack-pots.  You have
>every right to encourage others to join or not to join a boycott, but
>arguing against the boycott itself demonstrates the lack of faith that
>BOB HOOKER refers to.

       You mean, I can say "You shouldn't join this boycott," but not
"This boycott is a stupid idea?"

>One man's crack-pot is the next billion dollar business or the next decades
>religious morality.

       Stupid today may not be stupid tomorrow.  It is still, however, stupid
today.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66010 alt.privacy:2802 alt.sex:40729 alt.censorship:9779