Also, ISTM that there are tiers of interaction involved, that includes the aspect of who’s paying who, and who makes the decision of who got paid.
So there’s open market “doing business” in a segment where tyrants have an interest or benefit whether directly or indirectly, but where absent trade sanctions or an organized boycott the individual consumer/investor/merchant generally does not have the moral choice. This is where most consumption of things like petroleum products, things made with strategic minerals, etc. come under when it comes to the end user. The individual consumer/investor is not specifically deciding to put money in that tyrant’s pocket, but his expenditure on goods and services in the course of regular business will end up being good for the tyrant’s portfolio.
Then there’s a directed market choice, where you are buying goods and services in the course of normal business, but though “you should know better” you still make the active choice that benefits the tyrants. You do luxury tourism in the dictatorial country, or deliberately edit and rewrite your movies to please their rulers. You have your company buy specifically from a supplier there that you know engages in sweatshop labor, crony capitalism and theft of Intellectual Property, so as to get an advantage in pricing. You could have freely chosen to spend your money elsewhere and denied it to the tyrant but took the easy path.
The one that really riles up many people is someone actually or apparently accepting patronage FROM the tyrants. This is where we run into the Saudi Golf League or people like Beyoncé, JLo, etc. performing at dictators’ parties, as it involves specific individuals directly profiting from the tyrants’ favor.
In fact I have no idea where my gas comes from. Canadians are like other people - sometimes paying lip service to an idea while doing something else. I know which countries produce lots of oil. But no Canadian company would advertise not using Canadian oil since this would seem unpatriotic or supportive of places less respectful than Canada (or so people may think). I could not say how much non-Canadian oil, if any, is used in practice.
I think that gasoline is somewhere in between these two. Realistically, it’s not possible for anyone in the modern world to not use gasoline at all. But we can control, to some extent, how much of it we use. Using gasoline is a necessity, but using as much of it as the typical American does is a luxury. So, we’re enriching the oil tyrants in order to enjoy a luxury.
To my way of thinking, the only one of these that is even sort of truly ‘green’ is reduce.
Just … buy and consume less.
Very little is very green when looked at very closely.
I’ve long been a fan of buying less, and – wherever possible – buying better (buy once, cry once) … for no end of reasons. One nice consequence of this is that I tend to do less to feed the machines of the awful enterprises and regimes.
Less than I could, but more than some and less than others.
But if everybody were like me, the whole thing would go pear-shaped:
It seems to me that as long as there is a functional democratic form of government, there isn’t a need to make such a distinction. If voting has become ineffective and any particular group has de facto control either regardless of the way the population votes or by preventing there from ever being a choice they don’t approve of, then a distinction needs to be made, but if voting still works and the people are still responsible for putting the government in place, then the people are responsible for every action their government takes.
Especially those actions which have bipartisan (or multi-party, in those places which actually have more than one functioning political party) support. If an action is vigorously opposed by one party, then you might be able to argue that those who voted for the party opposing it aren’t responsible for it, but that’s a very difficult distinction to make.
As far as companies, well, there the blame is much more narrow - those in any position of management in the company where they may make a decision on the topic, and anyone who owns stock in the corporation could be fairly said to be responsible. So most Americans are only responsible for American companies so far as they are responsible for the government that creates the laws those companies must operate under.
Much then depends on how we define “functional democracy.” One challenge to the idea that the American system represents what voters want is offered by Elite Influence on General Political Preferences by Randall G.Holcombe. Briefly, his point is “the choices voters make do not affect political outcomes. Voters know that election outcomes will be the same regardless of how they cast their individual vote…[and so] people adopt the political preferences pushed on them by the political elite.”