WWYD - organization advertising regarding something you oppose

That depends on the issue, and on the organization. I can think of three different responses that I might choose depending on how strongly I felt about the issue, how much I cared about the organization and how much I thought my opinion matters.

1. I might ignore it (if I cared about the organization and didn't think my opinion was common enough in the organization to make a difference).

2. I might write a letter, or a blog or a letter and a blog, or otherwise express my disapproval publicly or privately.

3. Or I might quit my membership if I felt strongly enough. And, I might do this as publicly as possible, explaining why I am quitting, if I felt this would make a difference.

But really, it all depends.

There are several progressive organizations that I support that promote at least one issue I disagree with. I generally ignore it because it goes with territory and I feel like overall the organization does good.

That is why I stated - "completely against this view and if passed would cause great hardship or problems. "

To point out that it would be an issue you would really be upset about - rather than just something you disagree with that has little impact.

Sure... but isn't that balanced by the good done by the organization? Another question is whetherthere is another organization that does the same work.

I have faced this, where an organization I feel deserves my support disagrees with me on one issue that is important to me. In my case, my opinion on the one issue is an outlier... I am unlikely to change any minds in this progressive organization. Sometimes, you just need to swallow hard and go along on one issue for greater progress with another. Of course, there may be another case where I make a grand exit on principle.

There are always two sides to a tradeoff.

Ah in this case - it is a for profit company not an non-profit that is doing good for the world or a small part of the world.

So easy to take my business elsewhere or use a different organization to be a member of. Simply finding another organization that can provide the same services.

The thing is also - if enough members complain - then they can make them change.

I remember a family member being angry about something the AARP did - and wrote a note and stopped paying membership fees as a result of this sort of thing.

There is no way for us to control anything, not even our own reactions, not in this cause and effect world. Your post, for example, caused me to respond (effect).

Tv advert?
Do you mean, like 'greenpeace' supporting fracking?
I would quit my membership (hypothetical).

Kinda like that -

AAA had run an ad for the upcoming election. We have a question on the ballot in regard to automatic tax hikes on gas. Basically (being in MA we love to tax the heck outta everything thus taxachusetts) - the representatives voted on having an automatic tax hike on gas every year if the CPI increases. However, if it decreases the tax stays where it is.

The question on the ballot is revoke this automatic tax increase each year (not to revoke an increase in tax in the current - simply not to make it automatic without a vote from the representatives first) -
I am against it in the sense - 1) why increase taxes if it is not necessary; 2) this is pretty taxation without representation seeing it simply increases without a vote to determine if an increase in tax is necessary; 3) not quite right that it can increase, but yet never decresase --- among other reasons too numberous to list.

AAA is running an ad in support of this automatic tax hike. So I am paying a membership fee to run an ad I do not support - much less a tax hike will hurt members of this organization as the whole idea of AAA is pretty much driving.

So I am looking for a new organization similar to this or to simply suck it up and pay for my own towing if needed.

I also had a family memeber that had a membership to AARP. Several years ago AARP had advertised regarding some political action - to be honest I don't remember what it was. This family member was very angry as in his opinion it actually would hurt retired persons.

He wrote to them and revoked his membership.

That is the sort of thing I am talking about - although it doesn't have to pertain to an upcoming election - it could be simply like you said fracking.

From a purely pragmatic point of view, you won't find a better deal on roadside assistance than AAA. So, i'd say suck it up. If the principle matters that much to you, then drop your triple A membership, and to get anything out of that, make sure you let them know you're dropping your membership because you are offended by them taking a political stance. Then accept that you'll have to pay more in order to follow your principle in this matter.

I did let them know my thoughts - I think if enough people respond negatively to them, then they would have to change their opinion.

Hmmmm... I agree with AAA on this. I want to keep the automatic gas tax hikes. That being said, I don't think I would cancel my AAA membership if they were on the other side of this question.

AAA is not commercial organization. It is a non-profit with a history of political advocacy.

My credit card offers towing services. If towing services is all you want there are plenty of ways to get that.

so you think it is ok to have taxation without representation? Isn't that what our founding fathers fought against? Supposedly you are supposed to have a reason (representation) for taxes not just to get more funds. Do you realize that raising tax on gas not only increases the cost for you personally, but every business - thus your cost of goods will also increase.

Do you not think it more financially responsible to determine that the government need these extra funds rather simply get more money and take from you without first determining it is really necessary?

I am not necessarily against raises taxes if needed. However, automatically raising taxes each year - why does that makes sense - you should not raise taxes unless there is a reason or need. Should they lower taxes then when the CPI falls? They are not doing that.

AAA is a not for profit organization. My thought should have been non-charity type.

Ok, so we are arguing the question now...



Taxation without representation? I don't think you have a point here.

This is taxation with representation since the tax (including the index in question) was passed by a democratically elected legislature with the support of many Massachusetts citizens (if not most as we will see next week) . Our founding fathers were fighting against a Monarchy with a parliament they had no part in electing (but I assume you already knew that).



This is a more reasonable argument. I still disagree. These funds are needed for infrastructure improvement and for public transportation.

I am far more outraged by the fact we keep raising fares for public transportation. I have both a car and a T-pass. That fact it costs me far less to drive my car (including parking) than to take public transportation is ridiculous. Not only does my driving add one more car to the already clogged roads, it is bad for the environment.

Our public policy is penalizing me for doing the right thing.

In my opinion, given the harm caused by driving and the environmental and social benefits of the alternatives, I think the gas tax is far too low. And, I haven't even started with the fact that we aren't raising enough to pay for roads and bridges.

Of course, this will go to the voters next week. I will be voting "No" on Question 1, and I might just send off a thank you note to AAA for their courageous advocacy on this issue.

No it is not - continually increasing taxes automatically for years to come is taxation without representation. Increasing the tax rate once is representaion. What is the representation for year 2, 3, 4....etc. It is not voted on that the tax is needed. There is no representation for later increases - they would need to vote on each tax increase separately in order for it to have a representation for each increase.



Which there was an increase - why is there is a need to increase it again next year and the year after and so forth. It is much more responsible to determine - ok we need x number of dollars for infrastructure so we need to increase our revenue - vote agree on it - make improvements. Then next year comes up - ok look at the budget - oh no we already increased last year so the current increase with cover our expenses - no need to increase again. Or oops infrastructure is going to be even more this year so unfortunately an increase is needed.

This is about lazy legistrator not responsible ones - ones that do not want to have to vote or decide each year on whether an increase is necessary or not - simply just keep increasing each year automatically - that is the part that kills me.

So if the T decides to automatically increase its fares each year based on the CPI you would get upset, but not on the automatic gas tax? I would have much more respect for your opinion if you said yes as there is no difference. It is still an automatic increase -- and you make no mention of the fact that when CPI decreases nothing changes - it does not go down. Where is even the fairness in that?

Which is more responsible? Taking more money for future years upon future years (unless you have a crystal ball to determine that 20 years from now you are going to increasing higher percentages of the citizns'money) without knowing whether you will need it or not? Or determining a budget and then determing whether the citizens can keep more in their pocket or have to pay more to keep the infrastructure up and running.

I also take the T and drive and park - you must take the commuter rail because parking and driving is much more expensive than a subway pass. I also telecommute which helps on gas and environment but until you can find a better way to transport food and other items people consume on a day to day basis raising the gas tax isn't gonna help the environment a whole lot just gonna cause prices the consumer uses daily to increase.

I honestly do not have much hope on this simply because the average MA voter is ill informed and really doesn't think through the issues and realize the downstream impacts. - not to mention how the question is worded I am sure the low info voter could likely vote the opposite way they intend on this question.

I think this is a silly argument.

The law was voted on by duly elected representatives. Onn Tuesday, it may well be approved by the majority of Massachusetts voters. You may disagree with the result of this democratic process... but to claim that it isn't democratic is nonsense.

There are many high information voters who, along with me, will be voting an emphatic NO!

This is not taxation without representation. Taxes are enacted for years on a single vote all the time. As Max pointed out, the representatives were duly elected.

To your original question, people of good will can disagree. AAA advocates on behalf of drivers, so since this tax will drive up gas prices, they must have a counter argument (likely infrastructure needs) that balances it. I could see one group saying low gas prices, poor infrastructure is better than high gas prices, good infrastructure or saying we should fund infrastructure from other revenues, but I wouldn't make this a make or break issue. I could see other issues that would be make or break though. I guess what constitutes a critical decision is in the eye of the beholder.

Did you change your opinion then?

Explain how in 30 years an unborn child is being represented by an automatic tax increase?

The individuals who originally came from England and then lived in the American colonies or even those unborn but were descendants from England did not feel they were being represented - how is this different from some one not born yet that will not have the opportunity to be represented 30 years from now and the taxes are being automatically increased? I bet England thought the colonists were silly too.