Whats the point?

[Donut]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Um, no offense, but how is getting rid of Bacardi in a bar making the world a better place? I'm a southwest-american libertarian, which isn't really right or left wing. I will occasionally boycott things: my wife and I agree on diamonds, for example. But ...

well, I don't want to irritate you. I just don't get it.

---

I boycott things from time to time. I don't expect to have much impact but it certainly makes me feel better.

Of course there was one boycott which had a huge effect on the world. The boycott of South African products, which along with the boycott of sporting links, brought about the demise of apartheid in that country.

[Russ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Donut:
I boycott things from time to time. I don't expect to have much impact but it certainly makes me feel better.

---

We don't boycott diamonds because it's going to make the world a better place... we boycott diamonds because the DeBeers family that controls the world's diamond supply is a bunch of soulless amoral thugs who continue to run what amounts to a combined extortion ring and slave empire. I'll be damned if I'm giving them any of my money.

But as far as I can tell, the left-wingers and the right-wingers all want to just take things away from people. It's one thing if I make an informed, conscious choice to do something, but it's something else entirely if somebody FORCES me to do that... so somebody doesn't like the Bacardi company.. that gives them the right to make sure that nobody else is allowed to drink their stuff? that strikes me as about as morally aware as me running around prying the diamonds out of peoples' wedding rings... I've never understood how two wrongs make a right: taken too far it's the same ends-justify-the-means logic used by the socialists in germany and russia prior to WWII..

[Barry the Sprout]

Read the website if you want to find out why I personally boycoot bacardi. The problem is that the website is pro Cuban so a lot of people just don't get past the first page before dismissing the whole thing as propoganda.

r.e. your point MagiK about Cuba having more to worry about. I am assuming you mean the communist government right? Well I can have that argument with you if you want but it might be better off in a different thread. Suffice to say that i think the communists are far from perfect, but definately the best example of socialism in action the world has ever seen (possibly with the exception of Israeli kibutz's, s/p?).

And to the point that I should not force people to not drink Bacardi. There are a number of points here:

1. My student union operates the bar on the basis that drinks are sold at lower than market price. This means that to cover the loss student union money has to be spent on keeping the bar running (for all of our benefits ). But the problem with this is that my student union is financing people to drink cheap bacardi. So I cannot simply boycott them, as i still end up paying money to the company.

2. You choose your freedom of choice to drink a certain brand of white rum over the freedom of choice of a person not to get blown up. If the boycott is to have any effect we have to get as many people involved as possible. That may involve stopping some of my student union from drinking it at subsidised prices in our bar. But i think the ends really do justify the means.

3. Considering that it is a company that openly admits financing terrorist activities can you think of a good reason why you shouldn't boycott bacardi? If you had the freedom of choice why would you wish to exercise it in this case? What I am getting at is that everyone immediately go's to the point of freedom of choice, but doesn't ever argue why they might need such a freedom. Give me an argument that I can't counter and I will admit you have a point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
Suffice to say that i think the communists are far from perfect, but definately the best example of socialism in action the world has ever seen (possibly with the exception of Israeli kibutz's, s/p?).

---

You may be correct, however Communism and Socialism (both completely seperate entities) will never succeed in the real world, they ignore too many truths about the human animal. Untill humans evolve into some other more morally aligned entity they just do not work as a system of efficient and workable governments. There is a reason why the whole world hasn't changed over to socialism or communism and why the world IS becoming more democratic in its make up. In an Ideal world with Ideal beings, socialism and or communism wouldnt be such bad things...but humans being what they are gaurentee that this ain't the case. In REAL life socialist countries and communist countries are stunted backward and oppressors of their citizens.


I guess we should have a thread for this topic though.


Im really hoping to get time to go and reply to SC's earlier posts today...so far time is not looking good...but Im a tryin.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
3. Considering that it is a company that openly admits financing terrorist activities can you think of a good reason why you shouldn't boycott bacardi? If you had the freedom of choice why would you wish to exercise it in this case? What I am getting at is that everyone immediately go's to the point of freedom of choice, but doesn't ever argue why they might need such a freedom. Give me an argument that I can't counter and I will admit you have a point.

---

I have yet to see a Barcardi ad or brochure with the words "We sponsor terrorists and are damn proud of it"

Could it be what you claim is blatant open support of terrorism may be viewed differently by others...do they ever state they support terrorism? Or do they say they support x,y & z and you translate that into terrorism because you do not like X,Y or Z?


And you are right, No I don't wish to wade through pages of Cuban propaganda (or information ....see how words can be used and abused?) to get to the specific point...and if you want people to wade through stuff to get to other things on your site....well good luck. I think you would be better off having direct links to distinct topics on the web page... otherwise you loose audience.

[Donut]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:


We don't boycott diamonds because it's going to make the world a better place... we boycott diamonds because the DeBeers family that controls the world's diamond supply is a bunch of soulless amoral thugs who continue to run what amounts to a combined extortion ring and slave empire. I'll be damned if I'm giving them any of my money.

---

LOL Russ, I thought you were joking. I thought you and your wife boycott diamond in the same way that I boycott Ferraris and Lear Jets.

[Russ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
Read the website if you want to find out why I personally boycoot bacardi.

---

I have no problem with anybody boycotting anything. And if Bacardi comes out and says "we finance terrorists," then sure I won't be drinking any of their rum. Granted, I'm a brandy man myself, but the principal holds.

However, I see a tremendous difference between allowing people to make moral choices based on presentation of information, and removing that freedom of choice from people. Simply letting people know that Bacardi's up to some shenanigans, resulting in less than stellar sales for Bacardi, would achieve the same thing, but not attempt to control other people in the process.

Basically, I don't believe the end justifies the means. Granted, I also don't believe that some means need justifying: I am comfortable with a level of force used in self-defense that would probably make most of the folks on this forum very uncomfortable. So as long as you're not trying to coerce people, and make the world over into the image of your beliefs, then I think you should keep up with opposing evils where you find it. But I think it's perfectly normal for reasonable people to disagree with each other, and sometimes strongly so, and that therefore it is immoral to allow the means to be justified by the ends.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
I am comfortable with a level of force used in self-defense that would probably make most of the folks on this forum very uncomfortable.

---

Would that level include blowing the head off someone who has broken into your house in the middle fo the night to either steal or in some other way harm your family?


That wouldnt make me uncomfortable at all. Actually I think being willing to kill to protect yourself, your family and your property is a great way to encourage anti-social criminal types to pick on someone else....

[Yorick]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MagiK:


Would that level include blowing the head off someone who has broken into your house in the middle fo the night to either steal or in some other way harm your family?

---

Nope. Not me. Scare, hurt maybe, but not kill.