# Prop 8 (CA) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 5, 2008, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250 "2008-11-05T09:48:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 668
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/668 "2008-11-14T05:09:58Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Something else to consider: should the position the employee holds in the company be considered when weighing wether or not to boycott the company? I think an argument can be made that, the higher a persons position in the corporate hierarchy, the more he tends to represent the company itself. For example, if I go to McDonalds, and I recognize the guy behind the counter as a vocal local racist, I’m not going to boycott McDonalds over it. So long as he’s not harrassing the customer, I don’t give a shit what the guy bagging my fries says in his spare time. On the other hand, if the CEO of McDonalds is revealed to go on regular racist tirades in private, I’m likely to move on down the road to Burger King when I want my cholesterol fix. On the continuum of CEO-Fry Jockey, “artistic director” seems much closer to the CEO side of the scale. Indeed, as a professional artist, isn’t he specifically being paid to represent the theater (or at least, aspects thereof) to the public? and > [@Bricker](#): > > Should those residents of Bigotville be permitted to take the information they glean from donor lists and use it in this way, too? > > > [@Miller](#): > > > > Yes, absolutely. How on Earth could you\* prevent\* them from doing so? **Miller** , a question if i may. Quite a while back (almost 4 years ago, in fact), in a thread about a toy bear that had offended some people, you took a pretty strong stand against the idea of people organizing boycotts against companies whose messages or practices they disagreed with. Here’s the core of your argument in that thread: > [@That bear is NUTS.](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-bear-is-nuts/288364/15): > > But I think the whole point of the free market is that, so long as a product is safe and works as advertised, _nobody_ has any business at all trying to force retailers to pull products from the market, or of depriving consumers of access to whatever product they want. > [@That bear is NUTS.](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-bear-is-nuts/288364/19): > > Sorry, but this is ridiculous. Consumer activity is not limited solely to individual choices about whether or not to purchase something. Consumers also have the freedom to form voluntary associations to concentrate their purchasing power, to institute boycotts, to generate positive or negative publicity, and in many other ways to pressure the market to get what they want. This is a perfectly legitimate part of market activity. > [@That bear is NUTS.](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-bear-is-nuts/288364/20): > > They have the freedom to do so in the sense that there is no law against it, and I don’t think there should (or could) be a law against it. It’s still a fucked up thing to do. It’s petty, DIY tyranny, and I’ve got zero respect for anyone who engages in an organized boycott. Such people are showing absolute contempt for the principles of individual freedom which are the foundation of this country. > > \ > > I don’t care if they’re using the government to enforce their morals on the rest of the country, or if they’re using private pressure groups. The end result is the same: a vocal minority gets to impose their ideas of what’s right on the rest of us, without our consent. > [@That bear is NUTS.](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-bear-is-nuts/288364/27): > > I’m not talking about the company’s freedom to market, I’m talking about my freedom to consume. Organized boycotts are grassroots censorship. They are attempts to dictate what other people are allowed to read/watch/hear/think about. While mercifully less effective than government censorship, they are no less disgusting, and the people responsible for them no less repulsive. I know it might seem rather bizarre that i’m bringing this up almost four years later, but i think it stuck in my mind because i was so surprised you had taken that position. I find that i agree with many (most?) of your positions on this board, but i remembered taking issue with your argument in that thread. I realize that the two situations are not identical, but i think there’s enough similarity to warrant a question about whether you have changed your mind about the general principle of the legitimacy of boycotts, or whether you think that this particular case is different enough that it does not conflict with your previous position. I’m also not asking this as a “gotcha” moment. I’ve changed my mind about things on this board, and i’m sure that someone with some time on their hands could find apparently inconsistent statements i’ve made here. I just happened to remember your previous position on boycotts, and thought i’d ask. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250)._