We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Samizdata quote of the day

The part I find hilarious is the divestment movement that’s popping up around this law. They’re basically saying that Indianans have done something they find deeply and personally offensive, so the boycotters are going to refuse to do business with them as a result. It sounds like a prima facie argument for the exact bill that they’re opposed to.

– Samizdata commenter Alsadius

11 comments to Samizdata quote of the day

  • Tedd

    Is there an award for be-clowning? There really ought to be, for cases like this.

  • Yup as I posted on twitter, Folks boycotting Indiana will be exercising same right they wish to deny others: deciding who they do business with

  • Dom

    This isn’t really a good analogy. In one case, you have people refusing to buy goods, in the other, people refusing to sell goods. The act of buying is always an act of discrimination.

    A better analogy (if you can stand a reference to Hitler) is asking a baker to create a cake with a swastika. Does he have the right to refuse? Yes, therefore …

  • Michael Brown

    You have a point, in a way.
    But the original statement. is not an ‘analogy’. It’s not a figure of speech but rather points out an equivalence. It doesn’t make a distinction between buying and selling. It just says ‘doing business’. So it is correct, both the CT protesters/boycotters and the Hoosier business people are refusing to do business.

  • Nick (Self-Sovereignty) Gray

    Maybe they are just showing the evil discriminators what it is like?

  • Paul Marks

    Good post.

    The people who are demanding “boycott Indiana” are engaging in their right to non association.

    The very right (the right to non association – logically part of Freedom of Association) they claim does not exist.

  • John Mann

    Alsadius’ point is true enough.

    However, as Dom says, there is a slight difference. The difference is basically that those who refuse to sell are, financially speaking, hurting themselves, rather than the people they are choosing not to do business with. Those who refuse to buy are hurting the people they are choosing not to do business with.

    I would have thought that since the law exists primarily to stop us from hurting other people, rather than to stop us hurting ourselves, then there is a stronger case for enacting a law criminalising those who engage in a boycott, than for enacting a law criminalising those who might refuse to sell to someone for some reason or other.

  • CaptDMO

    Not ONLY is it prima facie argument for the exact bill that they’re (publicly preening to be) opposed to.
    It ALSO becomes a self solving problem.
    “Progressives are stupid, throw rocks at them!” (Parady of a “cute” feminist tee shirt for girls)
    Now, when the death threats, and obstructionist/extortionist “protests” against “others” that do NOT share their economically disasterous “commitment to (fill in the blank)” begin….
    When the tax dollars for “equality” law suits fails to materialise…
    When the vandalism/arson/mob assault becomes somehow “justified” by Ministry of Truth, YET AGAIN….
    Then maybe the VERY SAME folks will have provided the prima facie argument for the exact (US) Stand your Ground/so-called “extended” magazines/ so-called “assault” rifle/ “State” milita bills that the VERY SAME folks have been re-educated to *ahem* violently oppose.
    Or not!

  • CaptDMO

    “Is there an award for be-clowning?”
    Yes, but in the US, we use the prefix “The Honorable…” for winners.
    We’re a lazy bunch though.
    Often “The Award winning” or “The Award nominated” is used.

  • Dom

    I will not buy your products, until there is a law that forces you to sell me your products.