- Capitalism and Alternatives -

not those immediate ones

Posted by: Gee on March 22, 1999 at 17:41:37:

In Reply to: les Invisibles... posted by Red Deathy on March 22, 1999 at 16:02:23:

: You're advocating collective action?

When such has the agreement of participants and doesnt destroy the liberty of those protested against (which 'no-buy' boycotts dont) then fine. You mustn't mix me up with statist status quo conservatives y'know!

: but union Carbide is a primary producer, it makes chemicals which are used in countless products, most capitalists wouldn't want to interupt their production over the matter, and most of us can't directly boycott UC, because we don't buy from tehm directly- we'd just have to boycott anything that might have their chemicals in.

It sure would be difficult to do, but difficult doesnt mean giving up does it? And boycotss neednt be silent, they can be very loud and public.

: Besides, such a boycott is hardly Capitalist, is it, and further, it doesn't help the victims non.

It is in the sense that it promotes liberty in free speech and free action and property rights (no more money for you mr company). It doesnt help the victims direct, lawsuits do in either minarchist "laws & police only" states or via private lawsuits, where profession % taking law companies are only to happy to help out (and dont even say that govt doesnt take a big % in its own inimatable way!).

Ofcourse, the company could just ignore it all, ignore private lawsuits (in a stateless society) and then watch its revenue dwindle as the boycotts and bad reputation sets in - not as satisfying as righteously slamming the cell doors perhaps, but the same effect.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup