From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Boycotts, Boycotts, Boycotts....
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 00:20:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.201459.11968@ils.nwu.edu>
hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (BOB HOOKER) writes:

>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.

       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.

>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.

        I think your conclusion is over-generalized and founded on
considerably flimsy evidence.

>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.

        "They" are a considerably more diverse group than you give them
credit for.  It is always easier to dislike a group when you can lump
them all together and villainize them.

>Cigarettes and guns are
>fit for the market,  pot and pornography are not.

        Reverse this and you've got examples of many (though by no means
all) on the left who manage in the same breath to demand government
restrictions and cry for freedom from government control.
        My, I'd say all points on the political spectrum has it's
little problems with consistancy, don't they?

>It is fair if a car
>maker becomes rich by making somthing that people want,  but not for a rap
>singer.

       I'm not at all sure what your point is.  "Fair," however, is a
word far more overused by the liberal part of the spectrum than the
conservative.

>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.

       Each end of the spectrum has its own ideas about how you should
or should not be allowed to spend your money.  For many conservatives,
we have the situation above.  In that case of many liberals, I'm not
supposed to be allowed to spend my money on a firearm, or I must accept
restrictions on what I can and what I can't consider "qualifications" for
who I hire.
        Sounds like having to accept the values of the people in power to
me.  Let's get off our high horse and quit pretending one side is the
paragon of virtue and the other the slime of the earth, shall we?

>These are not markets, they are not free, and they not pro-individual
>choice.

        *Cough*  *Cough*   As far as individual choice goes, the
left has as many problems as the right, just in different areas.

>  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.

       A voice arguing against a boycott *is* a market force as much as a
voice arguing for a boycott, and both have perfectly legitimate places,
neither being incompatible with capitalism or conservatism  (whatever
that ends up being).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc