SCOTUS decides for Hobby Lobby

[OttoVonBismarck]

You are correct.  Being a smart consumer takes effort.  But nobody would bother making any effort if they subscribed to your orginal point that all transactions are nuetral and one should never care how the money is used after the point of purchase.  If consumers dont care then they will never influence how producers and merchants operate.  But there is lots of evidence to the contrary and so a rest easy in knowing you and Ide are in the minority - although for different reasons.

"Being a smart consumer" isn't the same thing as researching the political activities of the businesses with which you transact. Being a smart consumer involves things like comparing the actual offerings of said business to the offerings of their competitors, and pulling in expert research/advice when the purchase is of high enough value to warrant it (ex. new car, house etc.) The whole point of the discussion at this point is whether it's morally necessary to vet the political activities with business you have transactions with, if you "equate" being a smart consumer to doing just that you're just making the assumption that such a stance is correct without any real basis to it.

Further, I think the evidence is Ide and I are the overwhelming majority. Very few consumers seem to make political decisions when shopping. Activists do, but activists by their nature are a niche group, otherwise they wouldn't stand out as activists. Now, I think many consumers do research on what they buy--but that's far different from vetting the political activity of the companies they do business with.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I wouldn't say they're in the minority.  I think most people (in the US anyway) want to buy things they like and live their own lives.

Yeah for the most part I just buy whatevs. But if I was confronted with slaves* when going to purchase something? Probably wouldn't go to that store anymore.

*or knew about the slaves toiling in backroom.

I'd probably tell on them if they have slaves.  That's just not right.

The slave comment was hyperbole. Yes, if a business had slaves working in the back you'd have a moral responsibility to tell the authorities, the question of whether to do business with them not even being the pressing concern at that point.

[crazy canuck]

Corporations dont have religious beliefs.

I agree, and think the very notion is absurd ... but evidently, the US Supreme Court thinks otherwise.

Yes, but lets not carry their error into this discussion. 

[OttoVonBismarck]

It's been clear for a while that that's not the case. There are a number of stores that I will not buy from for a similar reason to the Hobby Lobby mess. (By the way, I stopped shopping at HL a while ago because of their contributions to groups fighting gay marriage.)

That what isn't the case? I think you're wrong if you think your approach is typical. Do you have any empirical evidence to suggest there is significant economic activity driven by the sort of calculus you half-heartedly engage in? Everything I've ever seen on it suggests there is little to no real meat behind this stuff. Companies do like to avoid political controversies in general, which is why they try to fix it anytime it happens, but even the companies that don't really try very hard (Whole Foods and its anti-union CEO, CFA and its stuff, HL and its behavior, Domino's when it the Pro-Life Crusader as CEO) don't really show any measurable impact from this behavior.

As for Otto's statement that it requires an all-or-none approach, I don't agree. I have an advantage of living in a relatively small city, so finding out the general corporate contributions, if there are any, aren't difficult. I shop primarily at the local food co-op or a locally owned grocery store. I've looked into the other stores that I frequent. I know which fast food restaurants I'm comfortable supporting, and I avoid new ones until I've had time to see where they stand.

Are these absolutes? No. But I believe that making my stance known with my credit card is the best option that I have, even if I'm imperfect in it.

This just basically sounds like "well, it's fine if I do it half-assed because it makes me feel good." But then that has nothing to do with intrinsically moral or amoral or immoral behavior, that's just "doing what you feel like", which is exactly what Ide does.

[derspiess]

Corporations dont have religious beliefs.

I agree, and think the very notion is absurd ... but evidently, the US Supreme Court thinks otherwise.

Not only that, but all five justices in the majority were MEN-- who know nothing about women's health issues.

[merithyn]

That what isn't the case?

The comment was directed toward Malthus' saying that corporations don't have religious beliefs.

I think you're wrong if you think your approach is typical. Do you have any empirical evidence to suggest there is significant economic activity driven by the sort of calculus you half-heartedly engage in? Everything I've ever seen on it suggests there is little to no real meat behind this stuff. Companies do like to avoid political controversies in general, which is why they try to fix it anytime it happens, but even the companies that don't really try very hard (Whole Foods and its anti-union CEO, CFA and its stuff, HL and its behavior, Domino's when it the Pro-Life Crusader as CEO) don't really show any measurable impact from this behavior.

I don't know if my approach is typical or otherwise, and I've never claimed one way or the other. I've also never looked into whether this kind of behavior has any demonstrable affect on a company. I don't want my money helping to support organizations that I find objectionable, ergo, I don't shop where I know that can/will happen.

At no time have I claimed that by exercising my right of where I spend my money am I exacting some social change. Rather, I'm making sure that I am not - directly or indirectly - supporting groups I disagree with. Still not sure why this in any way offends or concerns you at all.

This just basically sounds like "well, it's fine if I do it half-assed because it makes me feel good." But then that has nothing to do with intrinsically moral or amoral or immoral behavior, that's just "doing what you feel like", which is exactly what Ide does.

Erm. Not really. If 95% of my money goes into stores that I'm comfortable shopping in because I've made sure that they do not contribute to organizations I have a fundamental difference with, then I'd say that I'm doing okay. Even if that amount is 50%, that's still 50% less money that they can use for those endeavors.

You're coming at this as if I expect to make some huge, overarching social change. I'm not. I'm simply making sure that my money isn't going into things I disagree with. If I do shop at a store that does such a thing, I at least understand what I'm doing, and I'm making that conscious choice to do so.

[derspiess]

Erm. Not really. If 95% of my money goes into stores that I'm comfortable shopping in because I've made sure that they do not contribute to organizations I have a fundamental difference with, then I'd say that I'm doing okay. Even if that amount is 50%, that's still 50% less money that they can use for those endeavors.

You really think you're making an impact?

[crazy canuck]

You are correct.  Being a smart consumer takes effort.  But nobody would bother making any effort if they subscribed to your orginal point that all transactions are nuetral and one should never care how the money is used after the point of purchase.  If consumers dont care then they will never influence how producers and merchants operate.  But there is lots of evidence to the contrary and so a rest easy in knowing you and Ide are in the minority - although for different reasons.

"Being a smart consumer" isn't the same thing as researching the political activities of the businesses with which you transact. Being a smart consumer involves things like comparing the actual offerings of said business to the offerings of their competitors, and pulling in expert research/advice when the purchase is of high enough value to warrant it (ex. new car, house etc.) The whole point of the discussion at this point is whether it's morally necessary to vet the political activities with business you have transactions with, if you "equate" being a smart consumer to doing just that you're just making the assumption that such a stance is correct without any real basis to it.

Further, I think the evidence is Ide and I are the overwhelming majority. Very few consumers seem to make political decisions when shopping. Activists do, but activists by their nature are a niche group, otherwise they wouldn't stand out as activists. Now, I think many consumers do research on what they buy--but that's far different from vetting the political activity of the companies they do business with.

Being the overwhelming majority on languish, by definition, makes you an extreme outlier in general society.  At least one would hope. 

[merithyn]

Erm. Not really. If 95% of my money goes into stores that I'm comfortable shopping in because I've made sure that they do not contribute to organizations I have a fundamental difference with, then I'd say that I'm doing okay. Even if that amount is 50%, that's still 50% less money that they can use for those endeavors.

You really think you're making an impact?

This is really lost on you guys, isn't it?

I shop where I'm comfortable spending my money. I shop where I know that my money isn't going toward endeavors that I disagree with. Does it make a huge impact on that company? I'd guess not. But at least I know that I'm not part of the problem.

It's like litter. My street can be filled with litter, but that doesn't mean that I have to throw my trash out the window of my car, too. And maybe I can help a bit by telling others not to throw their trash out the window, either. I can't make them not throw their trash, but maybe if they know what happens when they do it, they'll be less likely to throw it out the window, too. Instead, they'll take the extra 10 steps and go to a trash can.

Does it make the street spotless? Nope, but I know that it's not my trash out there, and I tried to help others make a different choice, too.

[derspiess]

I still don't understand the mindset.  Almost seems like a hobby.

[Malthus]

Erm. Not really. If 95% of my money goes into stores that I'm comfortable shopping in because I've made sure that they do not contribute to organizations I have a fundamental difference with, then I'd say that I'm doing okay. Even if that amount is 50%, that's still 50% less money that they can use for those endeavors.

You really think you're making an impact?

This is really lost on you guys, isn't it?

I shop where I'm comfortable spending my money. I shop where I know that my money isn't going toward endeavors that I disagree with. Does it make a huge impact on that company? I'd guess not. But at least I know that I'm not part of the problem.

It's like litter. My street can be filled with litter, but that doesn't mean that I have to throw my trash out the window of my car, too. And maybe I can help a bit by telling others not to throw their trash out the window, either. I can't make them not throw their trash, but maybe if they know what happens when they do it, they'll be less likely to throw it out the window, too. Instead, they'll take the extra 10 steps and go to a trash can.

Does it make the street spotless? Nope, but I know that it's not my trash out there, and I tried to help others make a different choice, too.

Their reasoning is a classic example of the "all or nothing fallacy" in action.

[crazy canuck]

Consumer action that even Languishites can appreciate 

http://www.nber.org/papers/w11981

The French Opposition to the war in Iraq in early 2003, prompted calls for a boycott of French wine in the US. We measure the magnitude of consumers' participation in the boycott, and look at basic evidence of who participates. Conservative estimates indicate that the boycott resulted in 26% lower weekly sales at its peak, and 13% lower sales over the six month period that we estimate the boycott lasted for

.

[OttoVonBismarck]

To me the all or nothing thing is just part of what makes it ridiculous.

The core of it is, if I give you money and you beat your wife that night, I'm not responsible for that. Your actions and my giving you money (in exchange for goods or services, services in your case I suppose) are 100% separate and in no way morally linked.

[merithyn]

I still don't understand the mindset.  Almost seems like a hobby.

I call bullshit on you not understanding the mindset. If you have two lemonade stands side by side, one with the kid wanting to sell lemonade to buy a bike and one kid selling lemonade to buy 10 pounds of candy to eat by himself, where would you spend your money?

Just because I asked what the kids are trying to buy and you didn't doesn't make me stupid.

[merithyn]

To me the all or nothing thing is just part of what makes it ridiculous.

The core of it is, if I give you money and you beat your wife that night, I'm not responsible for that. Your actions and my giving you money (in exchange for goods or services, services in your case I suppose) are 100% separate and in no way morally linked.

But if you gave me money knowing that I would use it to buy a bat to beat my wife, then you're a jackass.