>I'd never understood this kind of nationalism.
Some people want to support their own community and some are concerned about labor/environment standards, human rights, civil liberties, etc.
Some people want to support their own community and some are concerned about labor/environment standards, human rights, civil liberties, etc.
I don't think that's necessary nor ethically justified (though I understand why some people support it). It's like a some kind abstract form of 'cartel', i.e. "I support you, you support me".
However, it's taking money away from poor countries (in this context). I don't think some 'rich' Westerner who happens to live near me is more deserving of my money than a poor person in a third-world country.
>some are concerned about labor/environment standards, human rights, civil liberties, etc.
Ironically, the only way those poor countries will have labour/environment standards, human rights and civil liberties is throug economic growth. If you're poor, you can't afford workplace safety.
Nothing, but it's impossible to "know well" everyone in a nation, making this sort of blind nationalism simply delusional at best.
There is more to 'closeness to people' than distance, there is also shared culture, civics, values, etc. etc.
As someone who's moved both across the US and across the ocean, stopping to embed myself culturally for several years each time, I think you overestimate this bond.
It's called "families" and "communities" and is the basis for human civilization. My children aren't going to grow up around poor third world people, nor marry them or raise their own families with them. Some poor third world person isn't going to come to my aid if I'm in trouble. They're not going to be my friends, my coworker, or even the guy who might find my phone and return it to me. They won't be voting for the government that governs me. Any rational person has tremendous incentive to make sure the people closest to them, and more broadly the people in their own body politic are cared for before others.
Let's say there was a fictional country that was the exact opposite of your country : Some kind of dictatorship, with censorship everywhere, people enslaved , etc.
Of course you would not buy a laptop from them, you don't want to give more money/power to this awful country.
Now, if you consider 1 country to be the best, with a score of 100, and that worst country to have a score of 0.
Every other country would have a score between 0 and 100.
Depending on people views about where this country fits , some will be more supporting than other : They would be OK to pay 20% more for the same laptop to a country with a score of 95 instead of 80.
The analogy with the coffee shop of JonFish85 would be : you know your brother is kind with his employees and give them good salaries, whereas the other coffee shop's owner harass his employees and pay them badly. But in both coffee shops , the product is the same, with the same price.
>Ironically, the only way those poor countries will have labour/environment standards, human rights and civil liberties is throug economic growth. If you're poor, you can't afford workplace safety.
Not really, if some company has twice more money, they would just hire more low-cost employees. To have a better workplace safety, either the employees must act, or citizens of that country ( including the employees ) assuming the country is a good democracy. If none of them can, other country can help solve the problem by boycotting products or enforcing regulations.
>Of course you would not buy a laptop from them, you don't want to give more money/power to this awful country.
The approach you describe entails rating countries of manufacture based on labour/environmental/civil standards. So, without more detailed knowledge of the factories in question, an American who follows this approach should prefer a product made in (say) Germany or Sweden, rather than one made in the USA, since it could be argued that the former countries treat their workers better, and take better care of their environment.
I think a reasonable proviso to this policy might be to source high-volume/frequency items locally (e.g. produce) when possible to reduce pollution from transportation (or any other wasteful overhead), assuming almost everything else is equal. Which also means that if this hypothetical American resident is close to a land border, s/he might want to buy something from Canada or Mexico rather than a U.S. state at the other end of the country.
Whatever you want. That's the point.
People on HN are talking about boycotting U.S. cloud-based services due to the NSA, which is a logical extension of this principle of supporting people and business who you perceive to be "closer" to you.