The Morality of the Arizona Economic Boycott

[TheresaLS]

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?

Very well put…and could not agree more. Maybe you caould write to Archbishop Dolan and Mahoney…they need a reality check…

 

[CAnnElizabeth]

I’ve boycotted Arizona for six decades simply because it’s too darn hot.

 

[mlund]

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.

Frankly, that old saw is a terribly deceptive story. I didn’t live here at the time, but a little bit of research below the surface is quite revealing.

First there was a huge fight over the appropriateness of an Executive Order creating a paid holiday without the consent of the Legislature. The paid EO holiday was replaced with an unpaid Martin Luther King Jr. Day holiday on Sunday.

So the meme that Arizona didn’t have a Martin Luther King holiday at that time is a complete lie. Arizona didn’t have the same holiday as the Federal holiday, and they didn’t add an additional paid day off for State workers, but they did celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. with a holiday.

Then you’ve got the personal odiousness of Ed Mecham. Then there was a fight over removing Columbus Day (the only paid holiday honoring a Catholic, by the way) to make Martin Luther King Day a paid holiday.

It was a terrible mess all around - almost as big of a mess as the job people do about reporting on it.

• Marty Lund

 

[Elizium23]

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.

And I would snicker at those hapless do-gooders, because as every Arizonan knows, Arizona Iced Tea is made in New York.

 

[rodomonte]

I am still researching this matter. What is clear is this is a “consumer boycott” analagous to other such boycotts by pressure groups that didn’t like a particular state law.

It is also clear that this boycott is presently immoral because the case has not been adjudicated yet. Harm is being done because of a law that will never take effect if it is declared unconstitutional, which is what the proponents of the boycott claim. If they believe that this law will be found unconstitutional, what they are doing now is nothing more than revenge.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I am still researching this matter. What is clear is this is a “consumer boycott” analagous to other such boycotts by pressure groups that didn’t like a particular state law.

It is also clear that this boycott is presently immoral because the case has not been adjudicated yet. Harm is being done because of a law that will never take effect if it is declared unconstitutional, which is what the proponents of the boycott claim. If they believe that this law will be found unconstitutional, what they are doing now is nothing more than revenge.

Whether or not the boycott is immoral has nothing to do with when the law has been tested in court. After all, if the Arizona state legislature started paying for abortions many people in the pro life community would begin a boycott immediately and there would be nothing wrong with that.

Second, a boycott can never be immoral, because buying something from somebody is not something that we are ever morally obligated to do. So if it was moral for me to boycott Arizona when I thought their prices were to high, it certainly can in no way be immoral to boycott Arizona because you don’t like a law they passed.

 

[po18guy]

I am still researching this matter. What is clear is this is a “consumer boycott” analagous to other such boycotts by pressure groups that didn’t like a particular state law.

It is also clear that this boycott is presently immoral because the case has not been adjudicated yet. Harm is being done because of a law that will never take effect if it is declared unconstitutional, which is what the proponents of the boycott claim. If they believe that this law will be found unconstitutional, what they are doing now is nothing more than revenge.

The Arizona statute was formulated and enacted, not as an action, but as a reaction to a situation for which the federal government has abrogated its duty to protect our national border. The root illness is being ignored, while only the prescribed medicine is being condemned. The very sovereignty of the United States is at stake. Either we have a border or we do not. Does Mexico have a moral obligation to her own citizens, or will it persist as a state which pays lip service to corruption, but whose heart is far from the suffering of her citizens?

 

[rodomonte]

Whether or not the boycott is immoral has nothing to do with when the law has been tested in court. After all, if the Arizona state legislature started paying for abortions many people in the pro life community would begin a boycott immediately and there would be nothing wrong with that.

Second, a boycott can never be immoral, because buying something from somebody is not something that we are ever morally obligated to do. So if it was moral for me to boycott Arizona when I thought their prices were to high, it certainly can in no way be immoral to boycott Arizona because you don’t like a law they passed.

From The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1914, “Labor Unions, Moral Aspects Of”, John A. Ryan

“The morality of the primary boycott depends upon the grievance that the boycotters have against the boycotted, and the extent to which, and the means by which it is prosecuted.”

and

"It is the principle that every man has the right to seek and obtain material goods and opportunities on reasonable terms, and without unreasonable interference… Hence it is a violation of justice to deprive a man of the benefits of social or business intercourse without some sufficient reason. "

QED

 

[po18guy]

From The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1914, “Labor Unions, Moral Aspects Of”, John A. Ryan

“The morality of the primary boycott depends upon the grievance that the boycotters have against the boycotted, and the extent to which, and the means by which it is prosecuted.”

and

"It is the principle that every man has the right to seek and obtain material goods and opportunities on reasonable terms, and without unreasonable interference… Hence it is a violation of justice to deprive a man of the benefits of social or business intercourse without some sufficient reason. "

QED

I much prefer the Catechism, in which its truths apply universally and in all ages. The 1914 encyclopedia entry clearly applies to situations within a national border, and to the conditions under which workers must earn their wage. I see it as quite a stretch to apply this reasoning - that associated with properly and legally constituted labor organizations to a situation of uncontrolled populations of non-union foreign nationals violating a sovereign border. It is actually a moral affront to labor unions, as their members are losing their livelihoods in the wake of this.

This is not a labor law situation, but rather a chronic event dealing with those seeking economic refuge and relief from an unjust home country. Our prayers and governmental effort are more properly directed at alleviating the underlying problem - corruption in Mexico. Arbitrarily penalizing Arizona for enacting laws which mirror existing federal statutes is morally indefensible, unless one is also opposed to the federal laws.

Of course, the vast majority of those who decry Arizona’s laws just happen to live elsewhere. There is a term for that.

 

[stinkcat_14]

From The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1914, “Labor Unions, Moral Aspects Of”, John A. Ryan

“The morality of the primary boycott depends upon the grievance that the boycotters have against the boycotted, and the extent to which, and the means by which it is prosecuted.”

and

"It is the principle that every man has the right to seek and obtain material goods and opportunities on reasonable terms, and without unreasonable interference… Hence it is a violation of justice to deprive a man of the benefits of social or business intercourse without some sufficient reason. "

QED

From the same article:

“It is true, indeed, that the employer or business man has no absolute right, nor any property right, to the patronage of his employees. The same principle applies to the merchant and his customers. Nevertheless both have a right that is valid as long as it is not forfeited by unreasonable conduct.”

The key here is unreasonable conduct. There is nothing in moral law that compels me to buy anything from Arizona. Like I said, I boycotted Arizona this year because their hotel prices were too high. There is nothing immoral about that. Now if I crashed the travel agents network so that nobody could purchase hotel rooms, that would be immoral.

 

[momor]

The key here is unreasonable conduct. There is nothing in moral law that compels me to buy anything from Arizona. Like I said, I boycotted Arizona this year because their hotel prices were too high. There is nothing immoral about that. Now if I crashed the travel agents network so that nobody could purchase hotel rooms, that would be immoral.

I don’t really have an opinion on the boycott itself, but I don’t think I can agree with your logic. Your personal boycott does not equal a national boycott. You were looking out for your own interests by choosing not to vacation in AZ, not to punish AZ. The boycott under discussion seeks to punish in order to cause a change. One can be moral and the other not. Likewise the same conduct by two different people can be moral or not depending on the intention of the conduct. It’s a little like comparing legal vs moral. Lot’s of things are legal that are immoral. It’s intentions and outcomes, not necessarily the conduct or action that is more likely to determine the morality.

 

[rodomonte]

From the same article:

“It is true, indeed, that the employer or business man has no absolute right, nor any property right, to the patronage of his employees. The same principle applies to the merchant and his customers. Nevertheless both have a right that is valid as long as it is not forfeited by unreasonable conduct.”

The key here is unreasonable conduct. There is nothing in moral law that compels me to buy anything from Arizona. Like I said, I boycotted Arizona this year because their hotel prices were too high. There is nothing immoral about that. Now if I crashed the travel agents network so that nobody could purchase hotel rooms, that would be immoral.

Various Arizona merchants are being boycotted because of an action by the state legislature, which they are only very remotely connected to, and which they have no control over. The target of this boycott is not appropriate, and the boycott is immoral on that ground. What unreasonable conduct has been done by the boycotted businesses in Arizona? Too many innocent people will be harmed.

There is nothing in moral law that compels you to buy anything from Arizona businesses, but the converse, supported by this article in The Catholic Encyclopedia, is that moral law proscribes you from boycotting Arizona businesses because of unreasonable conduct by the state legislature, to which there is no nexus.

Of course, that opens the bottomless question of whether this law is unreasonable conduct. The Border Patrol in Arizona already acts in a similar fashion at the many highway checkpoints it maintains in southern Arizona, and this legal conduct is what this laws seeks to have enforced by local police.

 

[j5hearts]

To support a boycott against Arizona is to support human trafficing and drugs. I live here. It is a hazzard to drive because illegals don’t have insurance but this doesn’t stop them from driving. I support the Governor of AZ.