Hacker News Reader

Comment by philwelch | Hacker News Reader

It's perfectly legal, but it's also legal to post racist attacks against Obama's family on the internet as a protest against health care reform. It doesn't make it "acceptable" or "a good thing" just because it's perfectly within our legal and constitutional rights to do so.

Our legal and constitutional rights are wide-ranging enough to allow people to be immoral jackasses without the law ever laying a hand on them. This doesn't mean "it's fine to be a jackass", it just means "it causes more harm than good for the government to outlaw all forms of jackassery".

View on HN

Well I find it perfectly acceptable to boycott companies with whom I disagree. I think it is a good thing. That you find voting with your walled somehow a bad thing quite frankly confuses me, I do not understand you position.

No buying products is not in any way comparable to posting pictures of Obama's daughters being raped by bears. One is a personal attack, one is just a refusal to financially support.

"It's your legal right, therefore it's acceptable" is a fallacious argument, yet it's the argument you gave. That was the main problem.

That having been said, I would rather not punish people's livelihood for expressing contrary opinions to mine in newspapers.

If the company is actually doing things (putting DRM in music, hiring Latin American death squads to eliminate union bosses, beating employees, racially segregating their customers, donating tons of money to political parties, pulling Google Voice apps from the App Store), then boycotts are fine. If all you're doing is writing an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, where's the rationale? What's so offensive about writing an editorial that it deserves a boycott? What's so offensive about simple disagreement? If I happen to agree with John Mackey will you stop being friends with me? Refuse to let me borrow a couple bucks for lunch even if I have an excellent record for paying you back? Not come to my yard sale? That's a pretty dick move.

I always thought it was reasonable, even healthy to have friends, do business, and even make love with people who have different politics than you do. I don't really care for the alternative.

If those contrary opinions potentially affect me because they persuade people to take the other side and stop progress I'm hoping to see, then hell yes I want to punish their livelihood before they punish mine.

There's a difference between having a different opinion, and actively pushing that agenda. I don't care what he believes personally, but putting an editorial in a major paper is not having an opinion, it's actively advocating one; you are no longer a civilian in a sense, you've become a solder for that agenda and you should expect retribution from those who disagree and will be negatively affected should your agenda succeed.

Do you think it would be okay for an employer to fire his employees for engaging in political activism for causes the employer does not support? For instance, if one of my employees holds a position of authority in a labor union, and in that position, publicly endorses a congressional candidate whom I oppose, should I be able to fire that employee?

Your analogy actually exposes the major problem here: rather than being a fellow member of society acting in good faith who simply endorses a different solution than you do, you cast Mr. Mackey as a "soldier" for an "agenda" who deserves "retribution" because he (implication: intentionally) is trying to "negatively affect" people. You allow absolutely no room for someone to disagree in good faith: the minute someone expresses a criticism of a political position you believe in, that person is "the enemy" and deserves "retribution". I adopt what I consider a more enlightened view: that people who disagree with me may just be right, that they are acting in good faith, that their criticisms deserve an answer, and that they are fellow members of the community.

Your mindset is that of a civil war between pigheaded zealots, mine is that of a peaceful and free society of civil, fair-minded people. You try to destroy people you disagree with without listening to them. I listen to them and carefully consider their views. Most of all, you presume that all of your opinions are right above all criticism, question, or suggestion of alternatives. I carefully consider every criticism of, and alternative to, my views because I have changed my mind in the past and anticipate having cause to change my mind in the future.

People who are incapable of considering the possibility they might be wrong aren't suited for a democracy. They're suited for a religious war. That's what this "boycott" against Mackey is, that's what the "boycott" against the Dixie Chicks was, and that's what politics in this country has degraded to. Please keep that in mind.

You presume far too much from such a short conversation. You don't know me, and you don't know that I haven't considered the other opinion in depth; however, there comes a point when you've heard all the arguments and you've made up your mind about something and it's pointless to listen to the same old tired arguments again and again. Should new information present itself, it'll be noticed, but that doesn't happen so often.

As for your employer argument, it's a straw-man and not at all comparable to the consumer relationship in boycotts. I reject the question because it's absurd.

People can disagree in good faith, and sometimes neither side is clearly right. Other times, this isn't the case and one side or the other is simply wrong.

My mindset is of the real world where zealots exist and they have to be dealt with. You apparently live in a fantasy land where everyone is civil and fair minded; you're wrong, so wrong. Logic doesn't work on everyone, sometimes you have to force people to change, civil rights, womens rights, and soon, gay rights. There are not two valid sides to these issues, one side is clearly wrong and will only change by force of law or force of money.

You suggest I'm a pig-headed zealot, I suggest you're a naive dreamer who hasn't experienced enough of reality to realize how idealistic and impractical your approach is.

You are wrong about boycotts, it is a perfectly fair and moral practice and is quite civil; it is the only power consumers have against companies and voting with the wallet is a core feature of a free market.

"As for your employer argument, it's a straw-man and not at all comparable to the consumer relationship in boycotts. I reject the question because it's absurd."

How is it absurd? If my employee is trying to, in your words, "persuade people to take the other side and stop progress I'm hoping to see", then why would I want to voluntarily support that? Why wouldn't I want to "punish their livelihood before they punish mine"?

"civil rights, womens rights, and soon, gay rights. There are not two valid sides to these issues, one side is clearly wrong and will only change by force of law or force of money"

Not all issues are like this--certainly not health care reform.

I'm not against boycotts and it's a straw man attack to say that I am. I think boycotts are a good way to protest against companies that actually do things to halt progress. But if a public figure, who is the CEO of the company, simply makes a public statement or writes an editorial I disagree with, that's not even remotely the same thing. I don't think everyone is civil and fair minded, but I think writing editorials is a civil and fair-minded practice that should be responded to in kind.

According to OpenSecrets.org, Paul Graham has contributed to certain political candidates--money, not words--whose policies I oppose, and who (in one case) has personally involved in a certain armed conflict that I opposed. And maybe I'm cheesed off about one of his essays (I'm not but maybe you are). Would you join me in a boycott of all YCombinator-funded startups (and all companies that have acquired them)? After all, pg makes more money from a successful YCombinator startup that John Mackey makes from Whole Foods these days, so this is a chance to actually affect the guy we're going after. And Steve Jobs' wife donated to a certain candidate in the Democratic primary who wasn't my favorite. Do you want to boycott Apple with me? I dunno--maybe you're okay with bombing Yugoslavia or whatnot, but if you were consistent about going after every public figure who made $1 a year from a given commercial enterprise, you'd have to do a hell of a lot more boycotting.

(I'm not actually boycotting pg or Apple, but maybe you should.)

> How is it absurd? If my employee is trying to, in your words, "persuade people to take the other side and stop progress I'm hoping to see", then why would I want to voluntarily support that?

Because that's akin to saying if my hot secretary refuses to date me, why shouldn't I fire her. It's an abuse of power and in many states could get you sued. The employer/employee relationship is completely different than the producer/consumer relationship and that should really be totally obvious and require no explanation.

> Not all issues are like this--certainly not health care reform.

Many people would disagree. There's room for debate on how such reform should happen, but there seems to be little room for disagreement that reform is necessary.

> I think boycotts are a good way to protest against companies that actually do things to halt progress.

Writing an Op-ed in a major nationally read paper is doing something to halt progress. I think you underestimate the power of words to affect people. We don't have to agree on when boycotts are appropriate, there's room for reasonable disagreement here, but boycotts themselves are an appropriate action for a consumer to take whenever they feel they should. If you don't support a particular boycott, then don't join it, if you do, then do; that's how it works. But it's petty to stand there and tell someone else that they're not being civil because you don't happen to agree with their boycott.

You can't seriously expect everyone to agree on exactly when a boycott is or isn't necessary. It's necessary anytime any consumer feels he doesn't want to give his money to any company for any reason whatsoever, and if enough people agree with him such a boycott will be successful, if not, then it won't.

"The employer/employee relationship is completely different than the producer/consumer relationship and that should really be totally obvious and require no explanation."

The employer/employee relationship is a special case of the producer/consumer relationship. It's not different at all.

"There's room for debate on how such reform should happen, but there seems to be little room for disagreement that reform is necessary."

Mackey agrees that reform is necessary, he's just engaging in the debate on how such reform should happen.

"I think you underestimate the power of words to affect people."

That's your mistake: to you, words are insufficient to respond to words. If you're dead set against paying this guy's $1 salary that's your call, but in the long run, all you're doing is discouraging rational discussion and encouraging dumb conflict.

Plus--and here's the kicker--there are lots of people who make far more than $1 from Whole Foods whom this boycott personally hurts. Not getting paid because your boss is a libertarian seems a lot less fair than not getting paid because you work for a company that racially segregates its customers or puts rootkits on CD's. It's arguably immoral to work for a company that engages in racism and destruction of property, but working for a company that was founded by some opinionated dude? Do people really need to be punished for that?

> The employer/employee relationship is a special case of the producer/consumer relationship. It's not different at all.

I disagree, but whatever.

> Mackey agrees that reform is necessary, he's just engaging in the debate on how such reform should happen.

I really don't care at all what Mackey actually said, that's not the point. I'd be defending peoples right to boycott even if I agreed with every single word he said; I'm not boycotting anything. Other people have a right to spend their money however they want, it is not uncivil for them to do so. Clearly you think it is, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

"Other people have a right to spend their money however they want"

Except employers?

"I'd be defending peoples right to boycott"

...except you're not doing that, you're trying to argue that they're not being jackasses. I already conceded there's a right to be a jackass.

> Except employers?

Yes expect employers, who are generally bound by laws such as the Equal Opportunity Act which prohibits such types of discrimination.

Consumers are under no such obligations.

> ...except you're not doing that, you're trying to argue that they're not being jackasses.

And I already said, we just aren't going to agree about this, so what's you point this time?

The Equal Opportunity Act covers things like

"...sex, race, age, religion, or ethnic group, or individuals with disabilities..."

which would also be particularly immoral reasons to boycott a business. The main reason there's no equal opportunity law against boycotts is because it would be rather unenforcable--I would certainly consider it reprehensible (though perfectly within one's legal rights) to boycott a business due to the race, sex, religion, etc. of the proprietors.

Other than that, US employers have the right to either continue or terminate employment "at-will". Things that we would normally boycott companies for, like putting rootkits on people's computers or engaging in unethical business practices, are also normally acceptable things to fire employees for.

And considering that the purpose of employment is for the employer to purchase the services of the employee for an indefinite period of time, how is it not a special instance of the producer/consumer relationship? What else could it be?

> The main reason there's no equal opportunity law against boycotts is because it would be rather unenforcable

No, it's because it'd be stupid. For example, it is not the government's business if a consumer chooses to go to Jamba Juice because they like Mormons, but it most certainly is their business if Jamba Juice chooses to hire only Mormans. You can claim it's the same all you like, but the law is on my side, it is different, as it should be.

A consumer is free to discriminate by whatever criteria he wishes when purchasing goods, the employer is not allowed to do so when hiring labor. They are different. Employers are in a much better position to abuse their power and when they do it has a far greater impact on the person being discriminated against; that's why it's different and that's why we regulate them.

> No, it's because it'd be stupid.

Since when has stupidity disqualified legislation from being passed into law?

> A consumer is free to discriminate by whatever criteria he wishes when purchasing goods, the employer is not allowed to do so when hiring labor. They are different.

Congress has been trying to alter the laws of nature with legislation for years. That doesn't mean that the law is a reliable predictor for reality, though.

> Since when has stupidity disqualified legislation from being passed into law?

I must admit, you got me there.

Actual, both bestiality and child pornography are illegal in the US, so your photoshopped image(s) would be illegal, and probably would require you to register as a sex offender for life.

OK, you got me there. Example changed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com