Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Is There Anything Liberals Won't Start Boycotts Over?

It seems like every time I visit a liberal website, someone's calling for a boycott of some business, state, or organization due to a slight against some facet of liberalism.  Over at Feministing, they wrote last week about a boycott of Old Navy by "breastfeeding activists" (aka "lactavists") who are angry because they sell baby clothing with "Formula Powered" printed on it.

No, I'm not joking.

Ever since the boycotts and sanctions helped to end apartheid in South Africa, liberals have gotten the idea that boycotting is an effective tactic against anything that offends them, no matter how trivial.  And it will continue to be an effective tactic until people are willing to stand up to the political correctness at the core of liberalism.


  1. They've boycotted so much, it's a wonder if businesses don't write them off and figure they aren't getting their business anyway.

    Surely it must be easier to make everyone else go from spending x to 2x than to make a liberal pay 0.5x rather than 0.

  2. Well, liberals never were for boycotting Communist regimes. Instead, they favored people to people programs, cultural exchanges, endless negotiations, shipping tons of wheat, etc. Nor did they organize very many boycotts against African "majority rule" regimes which engaged in wholesale slaughter of blacks, or retail slaughter of Whites--see the farm attacks, etc., in the new rainbow national of South Africa.

  3. They don't boycott anti-White discrimination in America either.

  4. This doesn't make sense. By your title, you claim to be a Libertarian, yet you have a problem with people making an economic decision.

    You're a fence sitter. Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways. Either be a Libertarian and respect the right to boycott (even if you yourself don't want to participate in it), or forsake your beliefs and go down the Statist route.

  5. Zhuge
    Where does the author here state that people should not be allowed to boycott? Where does he not respect the "right" to boycott? (That is not exactly a "right" any way, as the constitutional definition goes)
    It seems he disagrees with the correctness of it, but he makes no attempt to quash there ability to boycott.
    Also, this is hardly an "economic" descision. This is a classic example of liberal/feminist people trying to coerce a company or other individuals into doing what the liberals want.
    Tantrums usually ensue if the aforementioned tactics of coercion do not work.
    Anwser me this - If a person feeds their baby formula, and wants to pay an exorbitant amount for a shirt to advertise that fact, why should they not be able to? Why should this woman, and others like her be able to force a company not to sell this shirt, and in turn be able to effect the choice of the idividual with the formula eating baby?
    You want to talk Statist? I can tell your a big fan of free speech.