From: hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (BOB HOOKER)
Subject: Re: Boycotts, Boycotts, Boycotts....
Organization: ILS
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:14:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.093547.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>,
cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> 

> 
>      It's the "really stupid ones" 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
> are threatening in that they may persuade Net neophytes.  They forget
> to recognize both the cross-examinatory nature of the Net and the fact
> that a name is associated with each post.  I had one person who would
> reply to about half of my posts in alt.politics.clinton with the line
> "King George has no principle, no character and no clue" along with some
> insult towards me.  After about a month of this, I just ignored the
> guy.  There was not need for a boycott.
>      Another "really stupid one" is Rev. Jackson's proposed boycott of 
> the 1993 opening day of Major League Baseball (*all* opening day games) 
> because of Marge Schott's alleged use of ethnic slurs.  A reasonable
> person would have started by asking her to publicly apologize to those 
> people she allegedly offended.  But Rev. Jackson's first step is to
> threaten to punish all of Major League Baseball.  After a few years
> of seeing Jackson's problem solving tactics, I no longer take any of
> his positions very seriously.  However, I would never want to try to 
> silence the guy -- his knee-jerk overreactions only help to consolidate 
> his opposition.  Similarly, if Cramer's posts are dangerously radical, 
> then the "anti-homophobes" (for lack of a better term) should embrace
> him; they have an enemy about which they can organize their effort.
> 


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.  

The US NEWS AND REPORT article made some of the weakest assertions against
boycotts I have ever read.  The author could not turn his eyes from the
economic logic of boycotts,  so he talked about an "implicit negativism" a
"politicization of economic activity",  that somehow boycotts will trouble
people with political considerations they are better off not worrying
about.  This is all very very weak.  

I personally have come to the conclusion that the Right in this country
does not want to give us Capitialism,  but a form of Capitialism where the
winners are decided before hand. They wanted market forces to decide what
is produced and sold,  but they reserve the power to decide which things
are fit for the market and which things are not.  Cigarettes and guns are
fit for the market,  pot and pornography are not.  It is fair if a car
maker becomes rich by making somthing that people want,  but not for a rap
singer.  

Ttherfore we are give a free market already decided for us decided for us. 
If I want to buy a copy of Cop Killer,  or a pound of pot or LSD or a Porno
movie,  then I am not allowed to decide for myself how to spend my money. 
I am only allowed entry into the market as long as I accept the values of
those in power.

These are not markets, they are not free, and they not pro-individual
choice.
  And neither is modern right wing conservativism given to us in the  the
two Pats destroying Bush's chances at the NRC.  This type of conservatism
is simply an effort by one group with one set of values to impose its
religion, values, economic interests and political anxities on the entire
nation.  

If you are pro-capitalism,  if you believe that the market is the only
answer for mankind, then let market forces go in the direction that they
will.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65472 soc.motss:53913 alt.sex:40338