Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Shunning and boycotts

Rate this topic


softwareNerd

Recommended Posts

A few days ago, the CEO of Mozilla resigned after objections the stemmed from a $1,000 donation he'd made in support of anti-gay Proposition-8.The resignation has been controversial, with gay blogger Andrew Sullivan calling it a "hounding", and others responding that the CEO's sins go beyond support for an anti-gay measure to include support for Pat Buchanan.

 

It raises the question: when is appropriate to boycott a commercial relationship with someone or some company. The site OKCupid was asking their users to boycott Firefox browser. Was such a boycott appropriate: why or why not?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny, I've been engaged in a running debate on another blog regarding this very story ( wmbriggs.com ) .

 

In answer to your specific question "when is [it] appropriate to boycott a commercial relationship with someone or some company."  I would say that it is up to each individual to decide.  Each individual must choose for himself those he wishes to associate with.

 

Was such a boycott appropriate or not?  That's for you to decide.

 

But somehow I feel you know that.  Is that really your question....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was such a boycott appropriate or not?  That's for you to decide.

Yes, but the question is: how does one go about deciding? What factors play a role?

 

The underlying assumption: the target of the boycott did something wrong. If the person's action was correct, then the question of a boycott is moot. So, the judgement seems to be about the particular nature and scale of the wrongdoing.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really depends on what your values are (i.e. what is important to you).

 

For example, you are a veterinarian, rescue dogs, have a bunch of dog posters in your room, and you [clearly] love dogs.

 

If it is determined that a CEO of a store that you shop at is mistreating a dog, then it may be appropriate to start a petition calling for his resignation and boycott until he is let go. 

 

For someone else, however, dogs may not be of interest to them so it may not be as important of an issue to them.

 

But you are right, first you need to determine the nature of the action (i.e. why is it wrong?) and the scale or degree (i.e. is it so severe an act that it calls for a boycott?).

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'd say if the CEO of Mozilla was supporting the use of force to discriminate against people because of their sexuality, then he was acting immorally, and, depending on how one weighs all values involved, it may be in their rational self-interest to disassociate from someone who supports a law of this nature. For me personally, I like Mozilla's products, and I don't think that the actions of the CEO are sufficiently immoral to make it worth taking part in the boycott, especially since he has resigned. So I will personally continue using Firefox, and other Mozilla products which I currently use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And on the other side of it I, as a businessman, should have the legal right to discriminate against customers I don't wanna deal with.

Yes, as Objectivists we would say that a restaurant owner should be allowed to put up signs saying "No Coloreds" or whatever. We would also say that such an owner would lose business of just from "coloreds" but also from all other decent folk who would refuse to give him business. Such boycotts are important to Objectivists -- along with some other libertarians -- because this it is a private "solution" where government ought to stay out.

Yet, if I were to stop dealing with everyone who has irrational biases or who wishes to use government force, I would have to wind up my life and go live in the wilderness. Almost everyone I deal with, every day, wants to use government force on other people is some illegitimate way. I happen to know the views of a few, but am ignorant of the others. 

 

For instance, I work closely with one guy who is solidly in the anti-immigration/anti-Gay-marriage/Santorum/Hannity camp. He not hugely politically active, but he has attended some tea-party type meeting, and I would not be surprised if he has donated some money to the GOP. Yet, I only arrive at this judgement because of long interaction. If one sticks to work, one would never know -- so, for instance, while being anti-immigration/anti-Gay-marriage, I have never noticed biases in the way he deals professionally with other colleagues. It makes no sense to me to boycott this one person, just because I know a little more about him. It makes no sense to quit a company or department where he is present to go to another where it is likely I will find someone just like him, in principle.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few days ago, the CEO of Mozilla resigned after objections the stemmed from a $1,000 donation he'd made in support of anti-gay Proposition-8.The resignation has been controversial, with gay blogger Andrew Sullivan calling it a "hounding", and others responding that the CEO's sins go beyond support for an anti-gay measure to include support for Pat Buchanan.

 

It raises the question: when is appropriate to boycott a commercial relationship with someone or some company. The site OKCupid was asking their users to boycott Firefox browser. Was such a boycott appropriate: why or why not?

Well, for one, I don't think it's ever OK to target someone over an isolated incident or small issue, like the gotcha attacks going on in American public life today.

Shunning people (and informing others of people's misdeeds, to cause them to join in) is an important tool for setting moral standards in a free society, but the first thing one must do, when considering boycotting someone (or an organization), is gather the necessary information to judge that person or organization fairly. Judge the person, not the cheap headline.

In this case, Brendan Eich is a brilliant, visionary mind with vast amounts of value to offer the world. Whatever slight he committed by giving $1000 to an immoral political campaign pales in comparison. But of course, the small minded idiots attacking him either have no idea, or don't care, about whatever else he is doing and has to offer, besides that small gesture that happened to irk them.

As a result, Mozilla and all its users (including myself) will now suffer, because the product they'll be putting out will, no doubt, be far inferior to what Brendan Eich would've lead them to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In some ways it seems similar to voting for political candidates. In casting a ballot for a presidential candidate you influencing the outcome as an individual in a very small way, but the reasons for your vote should reflect your own moral choices as best they can in the given context.

 

Boycotting a local restaurant for advertising that they will not serve non whites , would mostly likely have a bigger impact especially if you share your views with others in the community. Joining or starting an organized boycott that is targeting a corporation based on actions of one of its employees is a different context. And the degree the individual is responsible for the success of the enterprise should be weighed against your own value of the product or service.

 

In the OP , my first reaction was negative against the company for bending to public pressure. Not knowing the motivations of the principal actors makes it hard to judge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were him, I'd be writing firey public letters to the media telling them I can do whatever the hell I want to with my own money and time, and that I can hold whatever beliefs I want. I'd note that there are laws preventing me from discriminating at Mozilla based on sexuality, and what more do they want? In this case, a CEO is just one guy, not necessarily reflecting the company culture as a whole. If there were no explicit policies (or even rumors of defacto policies) slanting business decisions with sexuality in mind, what was the problem?

As an aside, on one hand, it's "nice" that the culture has shifted so drastically that people are outraged at homophobia. On the other hand, sexuality is just another excuse to mindlessly yell, "MY views. I BELIEVE." I suppose in net it's a good thing, for gays anyway.

I agree that a boycott starts with personal values, and is decided based on tradeoffs. Also, you can't always know all the crucial information, and research takes a lot of time/life. Add to that the sensationalizing behind reporting, fogging the truth, and it's difficult to ever know how complete is your picture. Also, I personally don't want to nitpick every tiny little stupid thing people decide to do (why waste my time) and for the big stuff, I figure it will destroy the person or organization for me all by itself anyway, eventually.

If I'm going to spend my time doing anything, it's focusing on the better organizations, by buying products, sending encouragement, or offering polite, constructive criticism.

That said, I don't shop at Hobby Lobby or Chic-fil-A, even though I might occasionally, because of their public statements supporting Christianity. Their merchandise can all be found elsewhere, though. I also keep an active list in my head of crap companies with crap products and business policies, and avoid them -- although that's not exactly the same thing as an ideological boycott.

Edited by JASKN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another recent case was Paula Deen. She was accused of racial discrimination but the judge dismissed the suit. Meanwhile, during the questioning, lawyers asked her if she had referred to black people as "niggers" and she said she had, in the past. Nobody actually said they heard her or anything like that. The suit against her was dismissed "with prejudice". However, the result of the suit was moot to many. What became news was that she'd admitted to referring to people as "niggers". A whole lot of companies cancelled deals with her, and she lost her TV show.

 

Companies will react to the strong feelings customers and employees. So, I don't think Mozilla / Food-Network are the prime movers here. I think it is fine for people to be upset or annoyed, but the level of annoyance is irrational in cases like this. I also think it is hypocritical. For instance, I bet that an overwhelming proportion of those who wanted to boycott Firefox also want government to use force in all sorts of ways. And, an overwhelming proportion of those who were miffed at Deen's bias are equally biased themselves.

 

I'm really fine with boycotts, but I think there ought to be a high threshold.

 

This is highly speculative, but .... ... I suspect this lowering starts in elementary school. Years ago, teasing and bullying (the latter used to mean physical force was used, or at least a threat thereof) were accepted as things that just happened in schools. This was wrong. Over the years, there's been an increased sensitivity to this and many schools have reduced this. However, as part of that process, teasing has been conflated with bullying. And, even things that would not have been defined as teasing before -- e.g. exclusion from some group -- are now pulled into the concept. So, even a small slight is "bullying", which is now the conceptual sibling of a bloody nose. So, as adults, people react to a small wrong as if it were a big wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another one is Alec Baldwin. Supposedly, he was caught on camera calling a harassing paparazzi "faggot." By his account, he did not. After decades in show business, he has never been accused of homophobia, and has a history of donating his own money to gay charities. But, media personalities such as Anderson Cooper made a huge ordeal. Based on this unclear evidence and with no fact checking, Baldwin lost his Capital One deal and was suddenly out of public favor in a major way.

His personal account turns whiny, but the whole ordeal exemplifies this overreaction behavior. Even if he'd actually said "faggot," any one of the other pieces -- the photographer who'd previously knocked Baldwin's baby in the head with his camera, his charity donations, his history of not-thinking anger outbursts, or even the sound byte which was not clear -- should have thrown this "story" out of the news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GR8 Topic - Thanks for posting :thumbsup:

 

...

It raises the question: when is appropriate to boycott a commercial relationship with someone or some company... ?

 

Individually, the choice to shun/boycott is a moral action, however socially, the choice to shun/boycott is a political action.  I draw this distinction because it's fairly obvious that free association among individuals includes the freedom not to associate for any reason, whereas organized efforts to publicly chastise a particular individual/company involves coercion according to some form of social justice and therefore requires legal justification.

 

Would a free market society promote actions that are essentially political?  It seems to me that organized efforts to shun/boycott sanction the use of force, and therefore contradict the practice of a FMS where one expects an individual/company to succeed or fail non-coercively.  In my mind, the appropriate venue for achieving the goal of a social shun/boycott is in the courts; the threshold for action being primarily a legal one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GR8 Topic - Thanks for posting :thumbsup:

 

 

Individually, the choice to shun/boycott is a moral action, however socially, the choice to shun/boycott is a political action.  I draw this distinction because it's fairly obvious that free association among individuals includes the freedom not to associate for any reason, whereas organized efforts to publicly chastise a particular individual/company involves coercion according to some form of social justice and therefore requires legal justification.

 

Would a free market society promote actions that are essentially political?  It seems to me that organized efforts to shun/boycott sanction the use of force, and therefore contradict the practice of a FMS where one expects an individual/company to succeed or fail non-coercively.  In my mind, the appropriate venue for achieving the goal of a social shun/boycott is in the courts; the threshold for action being primarily a legal one.

How does individuals' or even groups of individuals' right to free association amount to coercion , do they owe their current or future economic trade to anyone , other than those they have agreed to trade with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does individuals' or even groups of individuals' right to free association amount to coercion , do they owe their current or future economic trade to anyone , other than those they have agreed to trade with?

 

The difference is that the shun/boycott of an individual isn't coercive, because choosing whether or not to buy someones product is a free market choice, the goal being to promote free trade.  Success or failure is determined by a marketers ability to attract a customers, given that they don't have to buy.  By contrast, organizing consumers not to buy someones product is coercive because the goal is to force the marketer to perform other than he freely chooses to do.  Are potential customers who are offended by a particular marketers practice, entitled to run him out of business?

 

Vigilantes "freely associate" to coerce, and their actions contradict law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the following could form a rational basis/analysis for the question of "shunning" another party in an economic context for a non-related (not to the service or goods of the economic context) behavior or policy of the other party:

 

1.  What is the disvalue to me of the other party engaging in the behavior or policy, i.e. similarly what would the value of the other party ceasing the behavior or ending the policy be to me

 

2. What are the closest alternatives to the economic context I am boycotting and what is the difference i.e. this is the economic cost incurred by choosing to boycott versus not boycotting.  eg. higher prices, worse service, slightly inferior goods, etc.

 

3. What are the anticipated concrete effects of my shunning, i.e. will it affect the other party and how, also will third parties seeing my act of shunning react in any way or possibly in a similar way.  essentially will my shunning actually affect the non-related behavior or policy of the other party.

 

4. Does the act of continuing to deal with the other party actually contribute to, enable, or cause the non-related behavior or policy which I wish to be ended?

 

 

I am sure there are more, but these are some rational concrete examples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we talking about Mozilla's firing Eich or about the boycott of Mozilla that OKCupid, perhaps among others, proposed?

 

In the latter case I'd say that the offending act has to be a corporate move by the organization.  This is a necessary and not sufficient condition, and Eich's political stand, like Maria Alonso's, does not meet this standard.

 

None of us would deny that Mozilla was within its rights, but we still might wonder if this was a commendable move.  Since Eich's donation was so clearly his own and not his employers', my answer is no.  All they had to do was state publicly that this was his opinion and not theirs.

 

Sixty-some years ago the movie studios declared that they would no longer hire communist writers.  (They didn't keep their promise, hiring them instead under fake names, but that's another story, for which see Billingsley's Hollywood Party.)  One could justify this on the grounds that the movies a studio releases, and thus their scripts, speak publicly for the studio.

 

The big story, though, is not the firing itself but the hypocrisy of the people who demanded it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference is that the shun/boycott of an individual isn't coercive, because choosing whether or not to buy someones product is a free market choice, the goal being to promote free trade.  Success or failure is determined by a marketers ability to attract a customers, given that they don't have to buy.  By contrast, organizing consumers not to buy someones product is coercive because the goal is to force the marketer to perform other than he freely chooses to do.  Are potential customers who are offended by a particular marketers practice, entitled to run him out of business?

 

Vigilantes "freely associate" to coerce, and their actions contradict law.

There is no 'goal' of a free market, other than that individual traders receive what they consider value in an exchange, voluntarily. The promotion of a free market is the realm of politics, the principles by which a societyshould be organized to facilitate free trade ie recognition of individual rights and the removal of force from personal interactions.

 

Is the coercive aspect to be found in the action of acquiescing and participating in a boycott, or in the organization and suggestion of participation in a boycott?

 

If it is in the former, how is participation in a boycott a use of force, the literal not taking action (not trading)? Or if it is the latter, how is suggestion to others that they refrain from taking action a use of force? It seems they could only be force if the withholding of trade violated someone's property rights, which I assume you would agree can only be violated by an act of force. Is withholding of action, an action  ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This just in: Huffington Post reports that the co-founder of OKCupid donated money to a candidate who opposed same-sex marriage.  WSJ points out that Yagen's excuse (marriage was only one of hundreds of positions the candidate held) fails because marriage is only one of hundreds of positions Eich holds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no 'goal' of a free market, other than that individual traders receive what they consider value in an exchange, voluntarily. The promotion of a free market is the realm of politics, the principles by which a societyshould be organized to facilitate free trade ie recognition of individual rights and the removal of force from personal interactions.

...

 

To clarify, the goal I referred to is that of customers and marketers to participate in a free market.  That I enter Vons, as opposed to Albertsons, doesn't imply anything other than a momentary preference for shopping at Vons.  If Albertsons wants my business, they remain free to act accordingly.

 

 

...

Is the coercive aspect to be found in the action of acquiescing and participating in a boycott, or in the organization and suggestion of participation in a boycott?

 

If it is in the former, how is participation in a boycott a use of force, the literal not taking action (not trading)? Or if it is the latter, how is suggestion to others that they refrain from taking action a use of force? It seems they could only be force if the withholding of trade violated someone's property rights, which I assume you would agree can only be violated by an act of force. Is withholding of action, an action  ?

 

The goal of organizing and participating in a boycott is to impede (by force) free trade between customer and marketer, e.g.,

1) by harassing customers away from the target business,

2) by making demands of the target business to perform other than the manner freely chosen by the marketer.

 

As the only appropriate user of force is government according to law, any other group using coercion to effect business is acting contrary to methods that promote a free market.  Withholding ones own action to purchase a particular product isn't coercive; impeding the action of others to purchase or market a particular product is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This just in: Huffington Post reports that the co-founder of OKCupid donated money to a candidate who opposed same-sex marriage.

What an idiot!

As it is, OKCupid acted stupidly when it suggested that its customer abandon Firefox. Imagine if Jeff Bezos was pro gay-marriage, and everyone using Firefox to hit Amazon got a message telling them to stop using Firefox. If OKCupid was a site that had a focus on gay customers, or if it was a site like our (i.e. about morality, philosophy and politics) one could understand it doing something like that.

And, now this news that the OKCupid guy actually supported an anti-gay Republican makes his action toward Firefox even more idiotic.

Back to the original (general) question then: is it appropriate to boycott OKCupid over this ;) ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlawful assembly is unlawful, that I agree. Though  everything else is intent, and the participants' moral choices (even taken collectively) can not be judged separate from or in conjunction with assembly lawful or not.

 

A law that forbids trade with x, y, or z group is an inappropriate use of force . Organizing a demonstration that unreasonably impedes the free movement of nonparticipants(physically blocking a store front) is a use of force against private property and free association and legal action should be taken against the organizers and participants. Simply disseminating the idea that one should not purchse the products of x,y, or z should not be considered a restraint of trade punishable by law. It is a restraint or an effort to bring restraint, targeted even, i fail to see it as an immoral(action) use of force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another one is Alec Baldwin. Supposedly, he was caught on camera calling a harassing paparazzi "faggot." By his account, he did not. ... ...

His personal account turns whiny, but the whole ordeal exemplifies this overreaction behavior.

His account (long but readable) is here. Yes, the fallout from the encounter with paparazzi was a huge over-reaction. Sometimes people will say things in anger that do not reflect the actions they do on a day-to-day basis. The media like to jump in with a "gotcha": "you screamed 'fuck off you fat bastard', so you are biased against fat people and against out-of-wedlock births. 

 

There's an additional element in this story, in that it is manufactured news. The reporter was not reporting on something that Baldwin did, as such. The "news" would not exist if the reporter had not been the catalyst. Social commentator Daniel Boorstin calls this a "pseudo-event" or a "media-event". With 24-hour news channels, catering to an audience that does not have a broad perspective in the first place, the media often reports on a host of pseudo events. e.g. Not just about an event, not just about a comment made about the law, but a detailed analysis of an elicited comment about someone else's elicited comment, about the event. CNN's recent reporting on the Malaysian airline is classic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything that smacks of collective action - including public moralizing - is anathema. The 'power' of the media is such that it's become a news-influencer as much as a newsreporter, simply by appealing to the sanctimonious majority under the guise of 'freedom of speech'.

Fire, shun, picket or boycott whomever you want, but as an individual, not as an organisation or whatever - and preferably from information independently found, not broadcast by media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...