From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Boycotts, Boycotts, Boycotts....
Date: 23 Dec 92 19:40:00 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

David Veal) writes:
|> 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?"
|> 
Absolutely.  You can characterize the reasons for a boycott as being stupid,
as that is a value judgement.  But boycotts are all stupid or all a good
idea, as boycott is a methodology, not an issue.  By calling the boycott
stupid, you place a value judgement on boycotting, not on the reasons 
behind a specific instance.  It would be like calling the car stupid,
not the driver.

|> >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

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:66023 misc.legal:21944