The Morality of the Arizona Economic Boycott

[rodomonte]

Many cities have enacted resolutions saying they will boycott Arizona and obviously are calling on their citizens to do the same.

Since I live in Arizona I have particular interest in this issue. Many people will be hurt here do to the widespread nature of this boycott, even those with no connection to the passage of SB1070, not to mention illegal aliens themselves. This is analogous to the collateral damage to innocent civilians that occurs during war. Maybe we should just apply the Principles of a Just War to the boycott, since it is economic warfare.

I don’t know what principles should apply or how they should be applied to determine the morality of this boycott, but I know this is a moral issue. Funny how no one in the MSM sees this as a moral issue.

I would think that even if SB1070 is assumed unconstitutional in some part, a large scale economic boycott of Arizona could still be held as immoral. I have a feeling the Bishops won’t touch the issue of the morality of the boycott with a ten-foot pole.

If this boycott is adjudged as moral, that would imply that calling for a reciprocal boycott of the boycotters is immoral.

What sayest thou?

 

[flyingfish]

Many cities have enacted resolutions saying they will boycott Arizona and obviously are calling on their citizens to do the same.

Since I live in Arizona I have particular interest in this issue. Many people will be hurt here do to the widespread nature of this boycott, even those with no connection to the passage of SB1070, not to mention illegal aliens themselves. This is analogous to the collateral damage to innocent civilians that occurs during war. Maybe we should just apply the Principles of a Just War to the boycott, since it is economic warfare.

I don’t know what principles should apply or how they should be applied to determine the morality of this boycott, but I know this is a moral issue. Funny how no one in the MSM sees this as a moral issue.

I would think that even if SB1070 is assumed unconstitutional in some part, a large scale economic boycott of Arizona could still be held as immoral. I have a feeling the Bishops won’t touch the issue of the morality of the boycott with a ten-foot pole.

If this boycott is adjudged as moral, that would imply that calling for a reciprocal boycott of the boycotters is immoral.

What sayest thou?

Since no one is obligated to do business with Arizona, I would not say that refusing to do this would be immoral.

It is unfortunate and unfair for those people who opposed the legislation and didn’t vote for the legislators to suffer because of it, but I would not say that the boycott is immoral.

 

[Dale_M]

I don’t know what principles should apply or how they should be applied to determine the morality of this boycott, but I know this is a moral issue. Funny how no one in the MSM sees this as a moral issue.

Rodomonte, would you be willing to explain your reasoning more fully? I don’t understand why you consider this boycott to be a moral issue. Are all boycotts immoral? Does this boycott have a unique aspect which makes it a moral issue, while other boycotts are okay?

I think you have an interesting perspective. I just don’t understand where you are coming from.

 

[markomalley]

Many cities have enacted resolutions saying they will boycott Arizona and obviously are calling on their citizens to do the same.

Since I live in Arizona I have particular interest in this issue. Many people will be hurt here do to the widespread nature of this boycott, even those with no connection to the passage of SB1070, not to mention illegal aliens themselves. This is analogous to the collateral damage to innocent civilians that occurs during war. Maybe we should just apply the Principles of a Just War to the boycott, since it is economic warfare.

I don’t know what principles should apply or how they should be applied to determine the morality of this boycott, but I know this is a moral issue. Funny how no one in the MSM sees this as a moral issue.

I would think that even if SB1070 is assumed unconstitutional in some part, a large scale economic boycott of Arizona could still be held as immoral. I have a feeling the Bishops won’t touch the issue of the morality of the boycott with a ten-foot pole.

If this boycott is adjudged as moral, that would imply that calling for a reciprocal boycott of the boycotters is immoral.

What sayest thou?

Well, if you keep in mind that the ones who are hurt by a boycott will be the workers, not the elites, that may help you answer your question.

Sure, the AZ government may lose some tax revenue. But is that going to cause the governor or any of the legislators to become homeless?

Sure, AZ-based businesses may lose some business revenue. But are the major shareholders (or owners of sole proprietorships) going to not be able to pay their house payments? Is it going to cause them to put their families on the streets?

Who will be laid off if hotels go empty because of this? The hoteliers? Or the cleaning staff?

(As an example, when we had a 12 year quarantine on Iraq, who was hurt: Saddam, Husay, and Qudday? – no, the poor were hurt)

That’s the trouble with boycotts. They might eventually be successful. But there is a whole bunch of collateral damage.

 

[ChangeWorkPeace]

Well, if you keep in mind that the ones who are hurt by a boycott will be the workers, not the elites, that may help you answer your question.

That’s the trouble with boycotts. They might eventually be successful. But there is a whole bunch of collateral damage.

This is an interesting line of argument. Unfortunately, this is true. The rich and powerful guard themselves from true influence. But does this mean that strikes/boycotts/protests of any kind are useless?

What about the Montgomery Bus Boycott? Did this affect any of the politicians in power? No. Did this affect the white people riding the bus? No. In fact, they got to ride with no black people. Did the blacks not riding suffer? Absolutely. Some suffered by the inconvenience of not having transportation. Some were sent to jail and fined during protests. Some were beaten. The boycott ended only after the Supreme Court ruled that the segregation laws were illegal. Those actually in power in the city did not suffer at all, nor were they lead to act. I wonder what would have happened had people said, “Well it’s only us black folks who are going to suffer.”

I wonder what our labor laws would be like had our forefathers not unionized and struck against their employers. Did Andrew Carnegie ever suffer for a moment? No. Did the working people of that time suffer? Yes. Did some give their lives? Yes. Did any strikes ever lead to direct legislative action in favor of the workers? Very few. Nevertheless, the accomplishments of these working men and women helped build the comfort we have today.

The AZ boycott may not stand at the same level as these protests, but you could quite easily extend your reasoning to encompass even causes as necessary as those above. I’m not sure I would like to live in a world where this is the general consensus. Why would anyone challenge anything? The challenger always has more to lose than the champion.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

What Arizona could do would be to offer, no questions asked, to every illegal alien, a free one-way bus ticket with box lunch to San Francisco, California. And give to each illegal alien a map and list of all the places in San Francisco that have free stuff.

 

[markomalley]

This is an interesting line of argument. Unfortunately, this is true. The rich and powerful guard themselves from true influence. But does this mean that strikes/boycotts/protests of any kind are useless?

What about the Montgomery Bus Boycott? Did this affect any of the politicians in power? No. Did this affect the white people riding the bus? No. In fact, they got to ride with no black people. Did the blacks not riding suffer? Absolutely. Some suffered by the inconvenience of not having transportation. Some were sent to jail and fined during protests. Some were beaten. The boycott ended only after the Supreme Court ruled that the segregation laws were illegal. Those actually in power in the city did not suffer at all, nor were they lead to act. I wonder what would have happened had people said, “Well it’s only us black folks who are going to suffer.”

I wonder what our labor laws would be like had our forefathers not unionized and struck against their employers. Did Andrew Carnegie ever suffer for a moment? No. Did the working people of that time suffer? Yes. Did some give their lives? Yes. Did any strikes ever lead to direct legislative action in favor of the workers? Very few. Nevertheless, the accomplishments of these working men and women helped build the comfort we have today.

The AZ boycott may not stand at the same level as these protests, but you could quite easily extend your reasoning to encompass even causes as necessary as those above. I’m not sure I would like to live in a world where this is the general consensus. Why would anyone challenge anything? The challenger always has more to lose than the champion.

I think you present a number of false analogies here.

The reason why is because the people who did the Mongomery Bus Boycott were those who were impacted. They said, I am going to voluntarily endure sacrifice in order to make my point. The participants in the early labor movement said, I am going to voluntarily put myself out of work for a while in order to achieve better conditions.

Participants in this kind of boycott say, I am not going to suffer. I am going to go elsewhere to spend my money. They are not personally affected. The analogy would be if external customers were to say, I am not going to buy my steel from Bethlehem Steel, but from another smelter. Sure, Carnegie might eventually suffer, but with the loss of business, his workers would be laid off long before it had a personal impact on Carnegie.

If you take a look at S. Africa, apartheid did not end as a result of boycotts and divestments. It ended when the people inside the country decided that they had enough.

 

[ChangeWorkPeace]

I think you present a number of false analogies here.

Perhaps, but your statement was “the trouble with boycotts…” It was not “the trouble with these kinds of boycotts” nor “the trouble with this boycott.” Preceding this, you laid out an argument that could, by extension, be used to encompass other boycotts or acts of civil disobedience.

I admitted that the AZ boycott is not at the same level as the two I mentioned. However, the idea that it only hurts the little guy has been used to justify collaboration. It is an invalid argument, even for this boycott. There is truth to the argument primarily because those in power are rarely affected even by the extremes of the protests in Alabama, South Africa or Pennsylvania. Nevertheless, it should not be used to squelch the solidarity that was necessary to support the civil rights, labor, and anti-apartheid movements.

The correct argument is that the boycott of AZ is ineffective because it consists of a bunch of do-gooders making themselves feel better by buying Snapple instead of Arizona iced tea. They do this without thought for the consequences nor the solidarity that their action should provide. This is true, and I think this is mainly your point.

For those truly looking to oppose this law, more direct action needs to be taken. Those appalled by this law on the grounds that it violates human rights should be on the ground or working in concert with those who are. They should be taking money that might have been spent on AZ products, along with other funds, and be using it to support legal defense funds or other organizations promoting solidarity with those affected by the law. Actions like these would help place them in the fight as well.

These moves would have a stronger effect. These actions would be steeped in a moral solidarity that has meaning. An argument for this type of action, and against the passive, makes-me-feel-better idea of simply redirecting consumerism is much more valid.

Writing off any action of solidarity because it will only hurt the little guy and because one is not directly involved concerns me. People should act if they desire, but they should act thoughtfully, prayerfully, and with the willingness to sacrifice themselves.

 

[markomalley]

Perhaps, but your statement was “the trouble with boycotts…” It was not “the trouble with these kinds of boycotts” nor “the trouble with this boycott.” Preceding this, you laid out an argument that could, by extension, be used to encompass other boycotts or acts of civil disobedience.

Well, the trouble is with boycotts as an action in of itself. The people who will be hurt initially are those on the lower end of the organizational and/or economic spectrum. But I will take your point as I should have said “this type of boycott”

I admitted that the AZ boycott is not at the same level as the two I mentioned. However, the idea that it only hurts the little guy has been used to justify collaboration. It is an invalid argument, even for this boycott. There is truth to the argument primarily because those in power are rarely affected even by the extremes of the protests in Alabama, South Africa or Pennsylvania. Nevertheless, it should not be used to squelch the solidarity that was necessary to support the civil rights, labor, and anti-apartheid movements.

In my mind, what mind there is, I do believe that it is a valid consideration. The purpose behind a boycott is typically to hurt that which is being boycotted, no? One must be aware that, unless such a boycott can totally choke the object of what is needed to survive, the vast bulk of the damage is going to be to the little guy rather than the big manager.

The correct argument is that the boycott of AZ is ineffective because it consists of a bunch of do-gooders making themselves feel better by buying Snapple instead of Arizona iced tea. They do this without thought for the consequences nor the solidarity that their action should provide. This is true, and I think this is mainly your point. [/quot]
Agreed and your skillful rendering of it bears repeating.

For those truly looking to oppose this law, more direct action needs to be taken. Those appalled by this law on the grounds that it violates human rights should be on the ground or working in concert with those who are. They should be taking money that might have been spent on AZ products, along with other funds, and be using it to support legal defense funds or other organizations promoting solidarity with those affected by the law. Actions like these would help place them in the fight as well.

The goal is the reversal of the law. That goal may be achieved through the courts or through the election process when candidates that have a more acceptable view of Arizona’s role in the immigration process can be elected to repeal that law. Does that require damage to Arizona’s businesses (which are, by all accounts, giving work to those illegal aliens…thus providing them a motivation to come to Arizona in the first place?)

These moves would have a stronger effect. These actions would be steeped in a moral solidarity that has meaning. An argument for this type of action, and against the passive, makes-me-feel-better idea of simply redirecting consumerism is much more valid.

Writing off any action of solidarity because it will only hurt the little guy and because one is not directly involved concerns me. People should act if they desire, but they should act thoughtfully, prayerfully, and with the willingness to sacrifice themselves.

I was not suggesting that a boycott not be accomplished solely due to the collateral damage; rather, I was voicing this to make sure that people are aware that this collateral damage will occur as a result of any kind of a successful boycott. In considering the morality of an action, one should consider the second and third order effects of that action.

Also, please don’t take my comments or discussion as representing support for such an action. I actually, based upon my reading of SB 1070, think that Arizona is fully within their rights to pass such a measure. And, although I wasn’t planning to take a vacation this year for economic reasons, I may change my mind and try to figure out a way that I could afford to fly out there with my family and pay a visit for a few days later on in the year. (A “buy-cott”)

 

[aspawloski4th]

If I could change anything on account of their new law, I’d be more likely to go to Arizona and spend my money there.

 

[ChangeWorkPeace]

The goal is the reversal of the law. That goal may be achieved through the courts or through the election process when candidates that have a more acceptable view of Arizona’s role in the immigration process can be elected to repeal that law. Does that require damage to Arizona’s businesses (which are, by all accounts, giving work to those illegal aliens…thus providing them a motivation to come to Arizona in the first place?)

The idea is that this is an effective way to put pressure on the government since those with money, particularly business leaders, have more sway over political leaders than those of less means. Remember that there is arguably a precedent for such a move since a referendum eventually reversed Mechem’s cancellation of the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday.

Also, please don’t take my comments or discussion as representing support for such an action. I actually, based upon my reading of SB 1070, think that Arizona is fully within their rights to pass such a measure. And, although I wasn’t planning to take a vacation this year for economic reasons, I may change my mind and try to figure out a way that I could afford to fly out there with my family and pay a visit for a few days later on in the year. (A “buy-cott”)

I was not mistaken in this whatsoever. I have not been reading this area of these forums long, but your political leanings seem pretty clear in the posts that I have seen. However, I did not wish to debate this. It would most likely not lead to anything very productive, although I appreciate your thoughtful comments.

To me, this discussion had nothing to do with our views on SB1070. It had more to do with the morality and effectiveness of boycotts. Boycotts can be used to support any political view.

There is certainly a way that one might act in solidarity with those in opposition to this law that would include a boycott. There is a way in which this could be done morally and in accordance with prayerful and thoughtful action. Unfortunately, much of what is perceived as political activism from any side of a political argument is, to quote the Bard, sound and fury signifying nothing. Much of this half-hearted boycott is of this vein. We will yell, shout, and hold placards, but we will not make sacrifices.

I believe that a serious point that you were raising was that this boycott is without meaning if it is without sacrifice. I agree with this. But I feel true sacrifice is the way in which one might balance some of what you describe as “collateral damage.” Without being able to do this, we would be paralyzed into inaction on any issue since most actions of this nature lead to difficult consequences.

I would ask those considering this boycott to think of ways that they could make sacrifices that might better engage them in solidarity with those in opposition to and affected by this statue.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Nobody is compelled to spend their money anyplace, so a boycott of anything can never be immoral, since we have no moral obligation to ever spend a dime. It may not be prudent to engage in a boycott. For example, some could question who it is that is really harmed by our boycott of buying goods from Cuba, but the boycott is not immoral.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The purpose of a boycott is to intentionally cause harm to the object of the boycott.

Now, that comes awfully close to what hate really is; an affirmative desire to harm the object of it. There’s a mighty thin line between chastisement and hate.

So, in joining a boycott, we need to be awfully sure we’re doing it for a proper purpose. Now, I realize some people think they have adequate cause to harm their fellow human beings in Az. But what I have seen so far doesn’t persuade me that they do. Nobody has yet acted on the law. It might turn out to be far more benign than some people speculate that it might be.

I had an occasion to go through the U.S. Code, reading through all the federal crimes and the penalties for them. It was interesting reading. I was astonished at how vague and general they are; far more so than the Az statute. Depending on how you read them, you could easily come to the conclusion that almost everybody commits at least one federal felony daily. And yet, we very rarely hear of any federal prosecution that strikes us as obviously unjust. That’s because most federal prosecutors interpret them fairly narrowly and don’t go out and prosecute everybody who, for example, pulls it just a trifle long on a bank loan application or puts a bit of a “fudge factor” into estimated costs on a federal bid, or mildly overstates the actual authority of the “minority” co-owner needed to get preference in a federal contract. Nor does the FBI go out and investigate, e.g., every loan applicant just to nail somebody. But everybody who does any of that could go to the penitentiary for 5 or 10 years. Obama will eventually appoint every last U.S. Attorney; every one of them. Will he instruct them to use the vagueness of the law to crush his political opponents or, more subtly still, those in the socioeconomic groups that pretty much never support him? He could easily do it without ever naming them by name or even seeming to do it, but everybody assumes he won’t.

I do not see any reason to assume the Az law enforcement people are going to find some way to abuse this law when we assume all kinds of laws won’t be abused when they could be abused much more readily. And then when someone considers in his heart whether to harm people in Az whom he doesn’t even know, based on an assumption he just pulled out of the air, I think such a person ought to examine himself very closely before acting or encouraging another to do it.

 

[ChangeWorkPeace]

The purpose of a boycott is to intentionally cause harm to the object of the boycott.

Now, that comes awfully close to what hate really is; an affirmative desire to harm the object of it. There’s a mighty thin line between chastisement and hate.

The purpose of a boycott is protest. It is the severing or refusing commercial relations with an entity in protest. One may equally choose to sever or refuse commercial relations for other reasons. For instance, I go to a restaurant and get poor service. I decide not to eat there again. Am I doing this with the purpose of intentionally causing harm? Am I doing it out of hate? No. I’m doing it because I prefer not to eat there with reason. The reason is just dissatisfaction rather than protest.

This could even be extended to personal preference. If I drink Coke, does this mean I am intentionally harming Pepsi? Should I be drinking their goods equally so as not to be hateful?

Is it the action that is hateful or the reason behind it? Protest is not hate. Disagreement is not hate.

I fail to see the immorality of a boycott based on this line of argument.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Actually, I made a decision to boycott Arizona well before the illegal immigration issue came up. I was planning a vacation for this summer, and one place I was considering was the Grand Canyon in Arizona. However, the hotel prices were ridiculous. So I boycotted Arizona and went someplace else. My motive? To save some bucks! If that is sufficient reason to boycott Arizona, then I certainly cannot fault those who want to protest Arizona’s immigration law.

 

[rodomonte]

Rodomonte, would you be willing to explain your reasoning more fully? I don’t understand why you consider this boycott to be a moral issue. Are all boycotts immoral? Does this boycott have a unique aspect which makes it a moral issue, while other boycotts are okay?

I think you have an interesting perspective. I just don’t understand where you are coming from.

Initially, I just had an intuitive feeling that boycotts have a moral aspect. Now I am more certain, especially after finding this article in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

newadvent.org/cathen/08724a.htm

Each boycott must be judged independently.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The purpose of a boycott is protest. It is the severing or refusing commercial relations with an entity in protest. One may equally choose to sever or refuse commercial relations for other reasons. For instance, I go to a restaurant and get poor service. I decide not to eat there again. Am I doing this with the purpose of intentionally causing harm? Am I doing it out of hate? No. I’m doing it because I prefer not to eat there with reason. The reason is just dissatisfaction rather than protest.

This could even be extended to personal preference. If I drink Coke, does this mean I am intentionally harming Pepsi? Should I be drinking their goods equally so as not to be hateful?

Is it the action that is hateful or the reason behind it? Protest is not hate. Disagreement is not hate.

I fail to see the immorality of a boycott based on this line of argument.

Then think it out some more. There is no question at all that the purpose of the boycott being encouraged against Az is to cause pain there; to harm economic interests, and all against people the proponents of it know nothing about. It’s not motivated by a preference for NM products over Az products on their own merits, as with your example about drinking Coke instead of Pepsi. It has nothing whatever to do with preferences. It has to do with an affirmative desire to harm others in order to punish them or force them to do our will, and nothing else.

A boycott is different from mere protest. That should be obvious to everyone. You may protest in any number of ways, and arguing against the Az law on here is one of them. That’s persuasion. But that’s not what a boycott is. A boycott is an attempt to force.

My point was, and is, that when we undertake to do that; to harm someone else, we had better be very sure we fully understand whether our reason for doing it is objectively valid. Nobody presently knows whether this law will have some malicious effect. The only bases for anyone saying it, either here or elsewhere, is the supposition that Az law enforcement people will use it to do something the law is not intended to do. Therefore, since its effect has not even been felt yet, the motivations for doing something like a boycott are necessarily subjective and cannot be objective. When I take on a belief about others based on purely subjective assumptions, without an objective underpinning for that belief, that’s commonly referred to as “bias”. When I act with a purpose to harm someone, without having an objectively valid reason to do it, and particularly if it is motivated by my “bias”, that’s “hate”. It just isn’t that complicated.

Well, okay, I’ll give you this. Since this boycott business is not likely to actually do that much harm, we can perhaps properly call it “hate lite”.

 

[TheresaLS]

I was wonndering where I could spend my hard earned American dollars this summer…I going to Arizona and show my support for what is right with this nation.

 

[rodomonte]

I was wonndering where I could spend my hard earned American dollars this summer…I going to Arizona and show my support for what is right with this nation.

It would be great if you could be in Phoenix on Saturday, June 5. There will be a pro-SB1070 rally with people coming from all over.

 

[po18guy]

Foolishness! Boycott if you must, but you will only be putting workers at the lower end of the scale (illegal and legal) out of work. This is justice? Proponents are apparently arguing that a national border is, per se, immoral.

The problem is not the border. It is the Mexican government. Period. Mexico is the world’s largest producer of silver. Mexico is #5 in petroleum. Tourism is huge. Over a billion is sent there annually by workers in the US, both legal and illegal. Hundreds of millions more in US foreign aid. Why then, such a poor nation? Rampant corruption.

Yet, all attention is cunningly diverted to the border, while the blood flows and misery spreads across the nation. Where is the justice for Mexico?