Boycotts and boycotters... artisans for and against

KeskusteluPro and Con

Liity LibraryThingin jäseneksi, niin voit kirjoittaa viestin.

Boycotts and boycotters... artisans for and against

Muokkaaja: huhtikuu 16, 9:15 am

In the world of commerce, it's your right--indeed, it's part of the bed-rock principles of free enterprise and the very reason that the phrase has the term "free" in it--that you, the consumer, may choose where, when, and how-- i.e. to whose benefit-- you spend your own money.

This freedom has particular application in the world of artisan commerce--that refers to businesses the products of which are creative and imply to some extent artistic talent. Bakers, florists, hair-dressers, nail-salon specialists, musicians, photographers, independent film and video producers are all part of such artisan commerce. You, as a consumer, can choose to favor those artisans whose moral and political opinions conform to your own--or not. It's up to you. You're equally free to take no such notice or even to trade with artisans (and any othe merchants) in spite of knowing that some hold political or moral views which you don't share or even choose to support in various direct ways.

In like fashion, you can seek out and favor those merchants, those artisan businesses which do favor, espouse, or promote in some manner the morals or political views you approve.

It works both ways, however.

The baker, for example, or any other artisan, is free to decline to produce a creation which, by its design and inherent purpose, is antithetical to his or her beliefs. That, too, is part of why the term "free" belongs in free enterprise.

An artisan's non-specialist those, that is, which are made for sale on general goods bases, those wares, on the other hand, can't be offered or withheld on the basis of whether his walk-in customers' moral or political opinions are such as he finds comfortably suitable and conforming to his own.

These once simple principles of freedom and free-trade practice so widely understood and taken for granted have, in the course of the present-day political insanity, become part of that insanity's collateral damage.

Jonathan Turley takes up these matters in his latest (at this writing) commentary: Florists’ free speech: Liberals in Tennessee appear to be making the case for conservative justices | by Jonathan Turley | The Hill (Washington, D.C.) | 04/15/23 10:30 AM ET

Boycott as you see fit. Shop and spend your money as you see fit. But don't be surprised if others--with whom you vehemently disagree--assert an equal right to do the same.

Meanwhile, dear artisans of commerce, you may, if you choose, signify your readiness to welcome and serve all comers, regardless of their moral or political views by somehow indicating this in your shop-front--

Something like, for example, the notice:

"All are welcome. No moral or political litmus-tests applied here"

It's a shame that things have come to this. But they have. Today, to the general shame of this society, the use of free-association, one of the most important of civil liberties, is more often practiced and applied in its more negative sense: that of shunning, avoiding, refusing, excluding any and all things, people, ideas, opinions, practices-- won't read, hear, listen, speak with or even show courtesy to-- which fall afoul of an ever-expanding list of what is "beyond the pale".