May I see your papers, citizen?

@Thomas,

Quote:

ebrown p wrote:
Thomas, did you make a similar argument against the divestment movement to end Apartheid in South Africa?

Yes. I think the boycott against South Africa was counterproductive and immoral. The same goes for America's 45-year boycott against Cuba.

Thomas, that is an interesting stance. Arguing that the boycott against South Africa was counterproductive is a very hard position to defend. The South African GDP was severely impacted by an international boycott in the years directly following the fall of Apartheid.

There are two different issues here. Whether this boycott is immoral, and whether this boycott is effective. These two issues need to be dealt with separately.

I fail to see why the boycott is immoral.

Political pressure, by it's very nature, involves causing discomfort, usually this means either causing either economic pain or public embarrassment. Are you arguing that political pressure is immoral? Of course, political pressure (with economic pain and social embarrassment) was responsible for every social movement from womens suffrage, to civil rights.

I see no reason that the boycott any less moral then any other form of political pressure. After all, I have the freedom to choose with whom I do business.

The question to me is whether it is effective (which of course implies that we agree on the basic goal of getting rid of this law and stopping other states from enacting similar laws).

The biggest positive effect of the general boycott is the press. I don't think that companies like UHaul and GoDaddy are going to feel any real pain from this. Having the story of American citizens who feel so strongly against this bill that they will oppose it in any way they can playing on CNN is a very good thing (and a counter to the anti-immigrant side's over-representation in the press).

So, I am happy to see the story of the boycott; which is more important right now then the actual boycott. (This is not to say I think any economic consequences that Arizona might feel would be immoral).

There are two exceptions where it looks like real economic pain might be felt: Sports, and Conventions.

Conventions are big public events put on by organizations or corporations. These corporations often have Latino clientèle or employees who feel directly threatened. The loss of conventions is especially appropriate (given that many Americans of Hispanic descent simply don't want to be in the state of Arizona, period). This is already having a real economic impact.

Sports may very well be the thing that topples the Arizona immigration law. Nearly a third of professional baseball players are Hispanic and several (as is their right) have already said they will not go into Arizona voluntarily. This is already playing out in the All Star Game which is scheduled to be in Arizona next year.

Again outside of their contracts (i.e. regular season games), it is fully in the rights of baseball players to refuse to go to Arizona-- particularly in context of a law not only find offensive, but that targets them. I fail to see how this is immoral-- how could you prevent it without severely violating free speech?

And... I suspect it will be effective.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
As they control their government they are responsible for the decisions it makes.

No, "they" don't. Each of the individuals whose business you are boycotting has a negligible amount of control over their government. Chances are almost half of them have voted against it. And yet you punish these dissenters just the same, simply because of the group they belong to. By your own definition, that's bigotry.

No, it's not, because those individuals can change their situation. Bigotry has to do with intrinsic characteristics. Those people could move to another state or pressure their government to change the rules. People normally subject to bigotry (blacks, gays etc) have no ability to change their intrinsic characteristics. It simply isn't the same thing.

Quote:

Quote:
Besides, since when is choosing whether or not to engage in voluntary spending of my private dollars considered intolerance?

Since Americans have outlawed motel owners who chose not to engage in voluntary renting of rooms to Blacks. The analogy between the two cases is exact.

How sloppy of you! You have the situation backward. Motel owners who choose not to rent to groups they are bigoted against are not making personal decisions about where to spend their money, they are refusing other people's money. We outlawed this behavior because it doesn't represent a personal financial decision to purchase services, but instead a refusal of someone else's decision based on bigotry.

The only way the situation would be exact is if I were to disallow people from AZ from buying things from MY business. I'm more then happy to allow them to do that! I simply will not support theirs, which is the converse of the situation you outlined above.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate, I'll respond to your posts as soon as you show evidence of actually reading the posts you're criticizing.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

According to the Wikipedia article you cite, Susan B Anthony is a "commemorative holiday". It is not a federal holiday. In other words, it's on the same level as "Mother's day", or "Earth day", or "Valentine's day", etc..

Yes, that's correct. But the level of a holiday is not really determined by whether or not I get the day off work Laughing

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Thomas, that is an interesting stance. Arguing that the boycott against South Africa was counterproductive is a very hard position to defend. The South African GDP was severely impacted by an international boycott in the years directly following the fall of Apartheid.

That's true. I quite agree that the boycotts hurt South Africans. But making South Africans suffer, by itself, is a bad thing, not a good thing. I find this immoral unless it's effective in ending Apartheid. By the same token, I consider it immoral to make Cubans suffer, unless doing so is effective in ending Communism. Or, more precisely, effective enough to outweigh the suffering.

In the case of South Africa, I very much doubt the boycott was effective, let alone effective enough to outweigh the economic suffering imposed on South Africans. In the case of Cuba, I know it isn't effective at all. These precedents don't bode well for the prospects of any future boycott against Arizona.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

How sloppy of you! You have the situation backward. Motel owners who choose not to rent to groups they are bigoted against are not making personal decisions about where to spend their money, they are refusing other people's money.

That's true, but irrelevant to the ethics of it. What's relevant is that in both cases, you have a voluntary transaction where one of the parties declines to transact. It doesn't matter, from an ethical point of view, which side refuses the payment, and which side refuses the good or the service.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

I disagree with you about South Africa. I agree with you about Cuba. The general idea; the ends justifying the means, actually makes me a little uncomfortable.

But in Arizona the battle lines are just being drawn. I haven't canceled my GoDaddy account. I am very happy to see so much coverage of "boycotts" in the press. I will reserve judgment on how this plays out-- although I think it will be quite appropriate and effective if Arizona loses the All-Star game.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
How sloppy of you! You have the situation backward. Motel owners who choose not to rent to groups they are bigoted against are not making personal decisions about where to spend their money, they are refusing other people's money.

That's true, but irrelevant to the ethics of it.

Well, that is a subject of some disagreement; but legally it certainly is different.

Quote:

What's relevant is that in both cases, you have a voluntary transaction where one of the parties declines to transact. It doesn't matter, from an ethical point of view, which side refuses the payment, and which side refuses the good or the service.

Yes, it does matter. All situations are not inherently equal just because someone declares them so.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

I disagree with you about South Africa. I agree with you about Cuba. The general idea; the ends justifying the means, actually makes me a little uncomfortable.

And that's your general idea you're uncomfortable with, not mine. My general idea is that these particular means are by default unjustified. Prospective boycotters must carry the burden of proving that the ends are sufficiently important, and sufficiently likely to be achieved, to justify the means. And by this line or reasoning, in the cases we are discussing here, I conclude that the ends don't end up justifying the means.

0 Replies

California Profiles Students Wearing U.S. Flags on Cinco de Mayo

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yes, it does matter.

How?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

All situations are not inherently equal just because someone declares them so.

Oh, who's being sloppy now? I didn't just declare it to be inherently equal. Unlike you, I gave you a reason why the situations are ethically analogous. They are ethically analogous because both cases deal with a voluntary transaction, and in both cases one side declines to volunteer. You disagree, and that's fine. But if you don't mind returning the favor, I'd like you to give me a reason. Why does it make an ethical difference whether the boycotter declines to deliver the money, or whether she declines to deliver the good or service?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Why does it make an ethical difference which side declines to deliver the money, and which side declines to deliver the good or service?

For several reasons:

1, because business are not equivalent to private entities, no matter what the SC says. Businesses follow different rules than private individuals do. For example, I could refuse to sell my car to a Black fellow and there is very little that the law could do about it. But an auto dealership could not.

2, you cannot actively force someone to purchase something.

For example, GoDaddy web hosting is ran out of AZ IIRC. If I choose not to purchase from them, nobody's ox is gored at all - they won't even know about it. There is no business transaction. It is an internal decision that I have made and they likely aren't even aware of it.

On the other hand, the anti-discrimination laws were put in place to stop business owners from actively and purposefully discriminating against Blacks and other minorities who were initiating transactions.

When someone is attempting to conduct business, it is simply not the same situation as someone attempting NOT to conduct business. When I decide to purchase something, I'm making an affirmative internal decision to do that. It doesn't involve anyone else at all; a one-party transaction. On the other hand, refusing business based on inherent characteristics of the attempted buyer is interrupting an existing attempt at a transaction - it is by definition a 2-party attempt.

I would add that this is clearly defined in our legal system, so it's not as if this is just my opinion. Boycotts are perfectly legal because they don't really represent unfair discrimination or interrupt pre-existing desires for transactions.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

1, because business are not equivalent to private entities, no matter what the SC says. Businesses follow different rules than private individuals do. For example, I could refuse to sell my car to a Black fellow and there is very little that the law could do about it. But an auto dealership could not.

Since we are disagreeing about the ethics of it, not the legalities of it: What do you think about the ethics of people who refuse to sell their cars to black buyers because they are black?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

2, you cannot actively force someone to purchase something.

How is that a difference? You can't actively force someone to sell something, either.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
1, because business are not equivalent to private entities, no matter what the SC says. Businesses follow different rules than private individuals do. For example, I could refuse to sell my car to a Black fellow and there is very little that the law could do about it. But an auto dealership could not.

Since we are disagreeing about the ethics of it, not the legalities of it: What do you think about the ethics of people who refuse to sell their cars to black buyers because they are black?

I would think that is morally wrong. But that's not a good equivalent to our current situation.

Let us say that I had a pickup truck for sale, and the guy who comes to pick it up is a Minuteman Militia dude who wants to drive down to the border and harass illegal aliens. Based on this information I could choose not to sell it to him and be perfectly fine morally and legally: I don't want to profit off of helping him, and I don't want anything I am involved with helping his organization or their beliefs.

But that's a changeable factor. I'm not discriminating based upon the dude's inherent characteristics. There is a difference between the two cases.

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
2, you cannot actively force someone to purchase something.

How is that a difference? You can't actively force someone to sell something, either.

[/quote]

Yes, you can. The government forces businesses to sell to people they disdain all the time. You pointed out the relevant case earlier.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Well, maybe I should stop worrying about the ethics of boycotting Arizona. Maybe I should just be thankful to you guys for reducing the prices Arizona businesses can demand of me, and for the wonderful discounts Arizona hotels will offer to me when I visit the Grand Canyon.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

Well, maybe I should stop worrying about the ethics of boycotting Arizona. Maybe I should just be thankful to you guys for reducing the prices Arizona businesses can demand of me, and for the wonderful discounts Arizona hotels will offer to me when I visit the Grand Canyon.

a good illustration of the usefulness of markets.

0 Replies

Thomas, There are many things I personally boycott. Walmart because the don't pay a living wage, blood diamonds - I buy Canadian stones. I don't buy crap chocolate because many of the ingredients come from slave farms in Africa. I buy ethical stocks too. I won't support certain business because they are an affront to my personal beliefs. Are you saying I should?
I don't see a problem fighting bigotry with so called bigotry. If a Mexican baseball player chooses not to play in Arizona so be it. As a consumer I can spend my coin wherever I like. I choose not to spend it in a state that sanctions bigotry, it's my prerogative. There is a difference between state sanctioned boycotts and personal choice or morals/ethics - call it what you will.
I agreed with the sanctions against Apartheid, I believe it forced the issue and changed a terrible racist mindset. I think the boycott of Cuba is stupid. The USA has done plenty of business with Commies and I think it's silly to expect a country to change it's politics because you/me/whoever doesn't like them.
That being said, personal bigotry and politics of bigotry are not the same thing either.

3 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Well, maybe I should stop worrying about the ethics of boycotting Arizona. Maybe I should just be thankful to you guys for reducing the prices Arizona businesses can demand of me, and for the wonderful discounts Arizona hotels will offer to me when I visit the Grand Canyon.

Perhaps you should do that. But I will continue my boycott and so will others. Recent history has shown us that pressure like this is an effective way for a society to influence the behavior of other sectors that they disagree with.

My guess is that the hotel owners would rather see the problem go away then offer you discounts; wouldn't you agree? That you would receive any sort of discount at all is proof positive of the boycott working.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I guess I 'll try to buy more Arizona products, to subvert the boycott.

David

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

But that's a changeable factor. I'm not discriminating based upon the dude's inherent characteristics. There is a difference between the two cases.

I think you are seriously underestimating the practical difficulties of closing down a business in one state and starting it up from scratch in another. (In most cases, this means, new employees, new customer base, new everything.) Not all businesses are internet providers.

1 Reply

May I see your papers, citizen?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know