The Boycott Mania

The Ludwig von Mises Institute ^ | April 22, 2003 | William L. Anderson

[billbears]

The sanctions on IRAQ were essentially an enforced boycott. That was a good enforced boycott

We were at 'war' with Iraq

The same goes for the Frogs.

Contrary to the neocon belief, we weren't with France

[sheltonmac]

Last I checked, Nazi Germany collapsed in 1945. Besides, you can't compare human lampshades to French toast.

[LiberalBuster]

Only economic illiterates would be persuaded to "boycott France." Thankfully, those who are persuaded as such usually don't have the financial wherewithal to have much of an impact anyway.

[demosthenes the elder]

to little willie anderson:
no, dumbass.
France was against the United States, therefor it was against the war, and thus we should boycott 'em.
Clear, dimwit?

[demosthenes the elder]

that's a nifty analysis - yours?

[billbears]

France was against the United States, therefor it was against the war, and thus we should boycott 'em. Clear, dimwit?

What absolute crystal clear undeniable logic < /sarcasm>

So by that statement any nation's government that has national interests other than what the government of these 50 States has is suspectible to boycott? Heck why not just boycott the whole world then? Agree with us or we won't buy your product!! Lock the doors and throw away the key, eh?

Tell me, when the government starts telling you what legal products you can and cannot own, and the very reason you can't own them is because it's from a nation that we're not at war with but politicians, who bow to public pressure instead of what's best for the economy as a whole, decided for us that we shouldn't be able to own them, how is that freedom again?

[Jason Kauppinen]

I've found that the quality of the Institute's articles varies widely.

This was one of their "stinkers".

[Jason Kauppinen]

"So by that statement any nation's government that has national interests other than what the government of these 50 States has is suspectible to boycott?"

France's actions deserve a lot more than a effette slap on the wrist--TotalFina intrests or no.

[billbears]

Look my point is that it's not the responsibility nor the right of the federal government to ban legal products from a nation we're not at war with. If we start with France, who's next? Germany? Russia? China? Venezuela? Great Britain? Tell me when to stop. Because sooner or later this nation of states will be at odds with one of those countries. It may be a major issue, it may be a minor issue. However, the precedent will have already been set and as we all know, once the national government uses domestic power once, it is very unlikely that it would give up that option to use that power again.

[Nick Danger]

So by that statement any nation's government that has national interests other than what the government of these 50 States has is suspectible to boycott? Heck why not just boycott the whole world then?

Yeah, but the original premise is a falsified one that was stuck in there by the Von Mises Boys to tilt the argument. "As we have heard ad nauseum, France was against the war, so France is against the United States, so we should not buy French products to punish the insolence of those people." That was their formulation. Whether that is an accurate characterization of the public debate is questionable. I would say it is a deliberate over-simplification for the purpose of subjecting it to ridicule.

There were many countries which disagreed with the United States on the subject of going to war in Iraq. Except for a few hotheads, not many people are calling for boycotts of all of them.

France is special. France led an effort to undermine NATO as an organization, and the NATO treaty, at a time when Turkey was seeking assistance (which it had the right to do under the NATO treaty) with defending itself against possible attack.

Representatives of France delivered personally insulting speeches on worldwide television directed at the Secretary of State of the United States. They were not alone in making such statements, but they were alone in making them literally on the world stage, and in a manner that would cause the Secretary of State to feel that he had just been blindsided by a treacherous enemy.

France actively worked to sabotage negotiations between the U.S. and Turkey, on a subject which at the time was thought to have critical importance to our war planning.

The French president attempted to intimidate Eastern European countries who were predisposed toward aiding the United States, into not doing so. He failed at this, but his efforts must be noted.

None of these acts are those of a friend or ally. None of these acts are those of a power which merely "disagrees." Given its veto power on the Security Council, France needed to do none of these things to assure that no resolution would pass. But it did them anyway. It did things that an actively hostile enemy state would do in pursuit not of its own agenda, but of one designed to obstruct ours.

There is no reason to purchase anything from these people if reasonable alternatives are available.

[Dat]

You're evading the question, not answering it.

[Jason Kauppinen]

Since when was anyone saying the federal government should get involved?

[weegee]

About 10 years ago, Target's parent company, Dayton-Hudson Corporation, notified Planned Parenthood that it would no longer contribute its annual $50 thousand to the organization, as it wanted to move away from contributions that could be deemed political.

Planned Parenthood's leaders, which permit no dissent, immediately swung its public relations machine into highest gear and announced it would organize a boycott of Target unless Dayton-Hudson relented and gave Planned Parenthood the $50 grand that was rightfully theirs.

This biased clymer has some explaining to do as to just why that money was "rightfully" PPs.

[weegee]

Get off your high horse. The Statue of Liberty was a gift, France sees no money from it these days.

Does Louis Pasteur's estate still get patent royalties for the pasteurization process? If so and you are so inclined, go to Whole Foods or another grocer where you can buy unpasteurized milk.

If you don't want to participate in a boycott that is your business but must you ridicule those who do choose to spend their money elsewhere?

[weegee]

More recent history, do you remember the entertainment industry boycott of South Africa and the big movement to divest funds from South African industries while apatheid existed?

We also have an embargo against Cuban products in this country.

[weegee]

Know an American store where you can buy Cuban rum, cigars, coffee, or sugar?

[weegee]

The author of this article doesn't appear to be too keen even on individuals boycotting things (like Hollywood or France), let alone government boycotts.

Should the government field bids from France for construction projects in Iraq or offer those contracts to those nations that didn't obstruct our efforts?

[sheltonmac]

Evading what question? Nazi Germany no longer exists! A boycott of goods from a particular country shile at war with that country is acceptable, but I haven't seen the headlines saying France has declared war on the U.S.

By the way, are you being consistent and boycotting all products manufactured in China?

[sheltonmac]

"If you don't want to participate in a boycott that is your business but must you ridicule those who do choose to spend their money elsewhere?"

Oh, absolutely! Anytime I see such blatant hypocrisy I can't help myself. You can call it a "high horse," but I call it common sense. You are the one taking a holier-than-thou attitude by calling for a French boycott.

I suppose you loved the fact that the house cafe in D.C. started serving "freedom toast" instead of "French toast." Does that give you a warm, fuzzy, patriotic feeling inside?

Tell me, have you boycotted everything made in China? What do you think about Bush granting that totalitarian regime permanent most favored nation status?

[schaketo]

Please. This whole boycott thing is getting a little too...oh, what's the word...stupide

Oh ... I get it ... you're one of the more sophisticated and enlightened ones. Similar to how the french see themselves. Here's a thought. You don't like it or agree with it ... don't do it.

America's great, isn't it?