Rats. Too late to watch it....

Although I saw a headline -- the boycott, right?

What is funny is my uber conservative nephew -- his daughter is selling Girl Scout cookies for the first time this year. I was buying some any way but now there is double pleasure in it!

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
I'm buying more girl scout cookies this year. My way of giving this type of thinking a big FU!
http://youtu.be/Y514LSe8FWk

Good for Wikipedia and everyone else that is making a stand. Now if it would only do something. Hopefully, there are enough businesses involved that can feel direct impacts that it might make a difference. But, it has to happen quick.

Otherwise, people will get their little shock and surprise on the Internet when it passes and goes into affect. Then I can only hope that people really will begin to crack down and boycott the big boys in this pissing contest--hopefully that doesn't have to happen, because it'll take around five years just to get it overturned, if possible and if people even care.

I owe paul4dirt more upvotes. The circle comes round.

In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
There is more Bonaparte on the sift, this one is a bit similar to Boycott Everything:
http://videosift.com/video/Bonaparte-Computer-in-love

Some of their other stuff is a bit more random :
http://videosift.com/video/Too-much-too-much-much-too-much-too-mu
ch-Bonaparte

And if you're looking for total punk anarchy:
http://videosift.com/video/Bonaparte-Too-much-and-Oh-when-the-saints
In reply to this comment by evil_disco_man:
The run-on about the different countries was just too good to pass up. Clever as hell and I like their sound.

In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
Thanks : I really like Bonaparte.

In reply to this comment by evil_disco_man:
*promote because why the fuck not, for the motherland!

There is more Bonaparte on the sift, this one is a bit similar to Boycott Everything:
http://videosift.com/video/Bonaparte-Computer-in-love

Some of their other stuff is a bit more random
http://videosift.com/video/Too-much-too-much-much-too-much-too-much-Bonaparte

And if you're looking for total punk anarchy:
http://videosift.com/video/Bonaparte-Too-much-and-Oh-when-the-saints

In reply to this comment by evil_disco_man:
The run-on about the different countries was just too good to pass up. Clever as hell and I like their sound.

In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
Thanks : I really like Bonaparte.

In reply to this comment by evil_disco_man:
*promote because why the fuck not, for the motherland!

The run-on about the different countries was just too good to pass up. Clever as hell and I like their sound.

In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
Thanks : I really like Bonaparte.

In reply to this comment by evil_disco_man:
*promote because why the fuck not, for the motherland!

Thanks I really like Bonaparte.

In reply to this comment by evil_disco_man:
*promote because why the fuck not, for the motherland!

(I don't exclude myself from any of the criticisms in this comment.)

The thing about a true free market is it requires responsible consumers and we are most certainly not responsible people on the whole. Consumers need to be willing to organize protests and boycotts, and even to create new competition by starting new businesses in order to keep everything in check. How many protesters are looking to start their own small credit unions?

Ironically, OWS is one of the first signs I've ever seen that people are moving away from the complacency which prevents a free market system from working and yet all they want is to be able to go back to the complacency we've all enjoyed for our entire lives until recently. We don't want to take responsibility for our country on a daily basis; we want to think about it for a week before election day and designate someone else to do it for us. After all, the McRib is back and those things aren't going to eat themselves.

I really think there are numerous systems which can successfully regulate a market but we've got these bits and pieces of several of them that don't work together. The people we've put in charge of this stuff all have such deep emotional attachments to their one economic gospel that they're often unwilling to even honestly discuss things with anyone from a different church.

I like having Libertarians in discussions because they're a good voice to have because market forces are potential solutions to various issues, because sometimes we do turn away from market forces too soon. However, the philosophy just flat breaks down as any other philosophy does, and I think this debate kinda proves it. Stewart keeps coming back to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forced public businesses open to the public to desegregate. According to libertarian philosophy, the free market should have ended segregation by citizens who were conscientious objectors to boycott any public business that was practicing racial segregation. If you notice in the debate, Napolitano skirts this when pressed, and kept saying the gov't should have desegregated gov't institutions, but that skirts the issue of what should have been done in privately owned public businesses. It's a point where libertarian philosophy breaks down, and true hardcore libertarians either know it and try to avoid it because it is so unpalatable to the general population, or they will outright admit that would be their stance and advocate for it.

Public schools are another example. The simple fact of the matter is the general population was not generally educated until the gov't began public schools, and society is all the better for it.

Concise point. Now you'd have to agree that all of those protests and movements that got us somewhere had a precise focus that everybody could agree upon. They were marching, picketing, and protesting one specific cause, not a vague "boogie-man". I fail to see that aim within this "movement". In fact, I think the vagueness of it is why there are such numbers. I think if there were a specific aim, that some people might not agree with, they'd lose some strength in numbers. It's easy to just yell and shout that you're being fucked, but it's another thing to march organized towards one goal. That's all I'm saying, no focus, no work will get done.>> ^NetRunner:

@rottenseed and @Boise_Lib, I'm not arguing that boycotts never have an impact, but boycotts alone didn't end apartheid, and boycotts alone didn't desegregate the South. Boycotts didn't get us child labor laws, boycotts didn't get us the Civil Rights Act, and boycotts didn't get us the FDA.
Boycotts are no substitute for laws. You don't stop carjackers by boycotting car companies, or gunmakers. You stop them with law enforcement.

@rottenseed and @Boise_Lib, I'm not arguing that boycotts never have an impact, but boycotts alone didn't end apartheid, and boycotts alone didn't desegregate the South. Boycotts didn't get us child labor laws, boycotts didn't get us the Civil Rights Act, and boycotts didn't get us the FDA.

Boycotts are no substitute for laws. You don't stop carjackers by boycotting car companies, or gunmakers. You stop them with law enforcement.

Do you think nobody knows that corporations are in bed with the government? What are we, stupid? But try telling a poor person not to buy their clothes at walmart, or their groceries at a large chain grocery store. Boycotting isn't realistic for everybody and unfortunately corporate product is very tempting.>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^rottenseed:
So you're saying that boycotts DO work. So then why isn't that enough to force corporations to behave???>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^rottenseed:
"One" is a synonym for a minority voice in this instance. Boycotting isn't usually done by one person at a time either>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^rottenseed:
I understand the "one voice won't make a difference" philosophy, but isn't that, in the same breath, admitting that a protest is futile?

One voice added to many others in a protest is no longer one voice.


Color of Change's boycott of advertisers on Glenn Beck's show.
The massive, international boycott of South African products over apartheid.
Too many examples to list here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_boycotts
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboa
rd.php?az=view_all&address=132x2590712


Boycotts HAVE worked. After enough people are aware of the problems.

>> ^rottenseed:

So you're saying that boycotts DO work. So then why isn't that enough to force corporations to behave???>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^rottenseed:
"One" is a synonym for a minority voice in this instance. Boycotting isn't usually done by one person at a time either>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^rottenseed:
I understand the "one voice won't make a difference" philosophy, but isn't that, in the same breath, admitting that a protest is futile?

One voice added to many others in a protest is no longer one voice.


Color of Change's boycott of advertisers on Glenn Beck's show.
The massive, international boycott of South African products over apartheid.
Too many examples to list here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_boycotts
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboa
rd.php?az=view_all&address=132x2590712



Boycotts HAVE worked. After enough people are aware of the problems.

So you're saying that boycotts DO work. So then why isn't that enough to force corporations to behave???>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^rottenseed:
"One" is a synonym for a minority voice in this instance. Boycotting isn't usually done by one person at a time either>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^rottenseed:
I understand the "one voice won't make a difference" philosophy, but isn't that, in the same breath, admitting that a protest is futile?

One voice added to many others in a protest is no longer one voice.


Color of Change's boycott of advertisers on Glenn Beck's show.
The massive, international boycott of South African products over apartheid.
Too many examples to list here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_boycotts
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboa
rd.php?az=view_all&address=132x2590712

>> ^rottenseed:

"One" is a synonym for a minority voice in this instance. Boycotting isn't usually done by one person at a time either>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^rottenseed:
I understand the "one voice won't make a difference" philosophy, but isn't that, in the same breath, admitting that a protest is futile?

One voice added to many others in a protest is no longer one voice.



Color of Change's boycott of advertisers on Glenn Beck's show.
The massive, international boycott of South African products over apartheid.

Too many examples to list here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_boycotts

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2590712

I understand the "one voice won't make a difference" philosophy, but isn't that, in the same breath, admitting that a protest is futile? >> ^NetRunner:

@rottenseed, my read of that declaration is that it isn't so much about trying to win a war against consumerism and greed, so much as a call for the restoration of the rule of law and democracy.
And spare me the BS about boycotts being the proper way to deal with every issue of corporate malfeasance.
Is my refusal to buy Apple products making them take steps to improve the working conditions at Foxconn? You tell me, am I winning?
If I start riding my bike to work from now on, will that make oil companies improve their safety on offshore oil wells?
If I move my checking account from Bank of America to a local credit union, am I really going to make Wall Street stop defrauding people?
Boycotts just won't get the job done. People can shop at farmer's markets, and spuriously boycott this company or that company, but has any boycott ever really resulted in an entire industry changing how they behave?
Maybe the protests won't go anywhere either, but they might wind up bringing real change too. It's happened before, it could happen again.