Businesses in France Feeling Sting of Boycott

[Master of Ossus]

Mike, I never claimed that what the boycotters are doing is morally correct, I'm pointing out that the French wine-maker's attitude towards this change is wrong.

The French wine-maker has the right to complain that people must try to be more fair. How is that wrong?

Now, I'm kind of surprised that you're advocating a determination of morality in terms of the degree of the alleged offense

How is that a surprise? A small offense does not warrant a large punishment, but a large offense does.

but I also don't see what the difference between CHOOSING to buy dolphin-safe tuna is, and the choosing not to buy French wine. I'm not seeing a distinction between the two actions.

There is also no distinction between choosing not to buy French wine because of the French government's antiwar policies and choosing not to continue paying an employee with antiwar views. That equivalence is the only thing I've been trying to say here.

Okay, but you've just acknowledged that the other analogy (drawing the connection between dolphin-safe tuna and a refusal to purchase French wine) is equally valid, and would lead to a completely different conclusion from the one that you are supporting.

Now, in this case, it can even be argued that the situation with Iraq actually HAS impacted the benefits of purchasing French wine over domestic producers, since some people DO use French wines as a status symbol. With many people losing respect for France as a nation, I think that the case can be made that the falling out between France and many members of the international community can actually affect how many utils can be derived from French wines.

[Darth Wong]

Okay, but you've just acknowledged that the other analogy (drawing the connection between dolphin-safe tuna and a refusal to purchase French wine) is equally valid, and would lead to a completely different conclusion from the one that you are supporting.

Why would it lead to a different conclusion? I don't boycott tuna companies for not being dolphin-safe. If I did, it would be caused by serious moral outrage from me, and if I were a tuna company and one of my employees killed a dolphin through carelessness, I would fire him for the same reason. Firing and boycotting over political views is still equivalent.

Now, in this case, it can even be argued that the situation with Iraq actually HAS impacted the benefits of purchasing French wine over domestic producers, since some people DO use French wines as a status symbol. With many people losing respect for France as a nation, I think that the case can be made that the falling out between France and many members of the international community can actually affect how many utils can be derived from French wines.

Heh heh ... let it not be thought that I am a fan of French wine. I've never bought a drop of it, and while I may be university-educated, I'm also a blue-collar man at heart. I'll take beer over wine anyday. But if you think it's good stuff, I don't see why it would cease being good stuff because of France's anti-war posture. If you bought it just to show off, I suppose you might make that argument, but that's not the argument the boycotters are making.

PS. How many people would refuse to buy a BMW or a Mercedes or a Porsche now, because of the political situation? Could it be that it's just too easy to boycott French wine-makers because French wine was overpriced and overrated to begin with?

[Master of Ossus]

Now, in this case, it can even be argued that the situation with Iraq actually HAS impacted the benefits of purchasing French wine over domestic producers, since some people DO use French wines as a status symbol. With many people losing respect for France as a nation, I think that the case can be made that the falling out between France and many members of the international community can actually affect how many utils can be derived from French wines.

Heh heh ... let it not be thought that I am a fan of French wine. I've never bought a drop of it, and while I may be university-educated, I'm also a blue-collar man at heart. I'll take beer over wine anyday.

Me, too.

But if you think it's good stuff, I don't see why it would cease being good stuff because of France's anti-war posture. If you bought it just to show off, I suppose you might make that argument, but that's not the argument the boycotters are making.

Maybe not, but I do think it's an argument that the French wine-makers don't have a real answer to. To be honest, I don't see the boycotters as making much of ANY argument. They just don't seem to be buying French wine. They don't seem to be organized by any group, they just seem to be so utterly disgusted with all things French that they've decided to take things out on wine. Go figure.

As a humorous aside, can you imagine the Iraqi Information Minister on the two sides of the issue? "There is no boycott. Our glorious products are rapidly converting the few remaining boycotters," or "The French are quickly going to lose their stomach for wine. Once their economy crumbles due to the loss of business, they will realize how grievous their mistakes have been."

PS. How many people would refuse to buy a BMW or a Mercedes or a Porsche now, because of the political situation? Could it be that it's just too easy to boycott French wine-makers because French wine was overpriced and overrated to begin with?

I think that's a big part of it. To be fair, when I think of those kinds of cars I do not immediately associate them with being German, when I do quickly make that connection with some French wines (that, in turn, is probably due to the fact that Germans do not usually boast about what kinds of cars they drive, whereas many French people enjoy discussing various wines), but since cars have a fairly inelastic demand (whereas wines have a fairly elastic demand, being seen as luxory goods...), they have a weaker claim to being injured by boycotts. Moreover, I see the alleged boycott as being concentrated among the lower-middle classes, and to be fair they would not be as likely to purchase a Mercedes to begin with.

Also, Mercedes, Porsche, and BMW are already losing business because of the slumping international economy. I think that any nominal losses in sales they suffer due to this boycott would be quickly mis-identified as being the result of the lack of disposable income among households, rather than as being any protest.

[XPViking]

The point is, American consumers may want to hit the French in their pocketbook, and thus force the French government to stop opposing U.S. efforts so stridently.

You're either with us or against us. Nice.

XPViking

[Coyote]

Mike, the French did more than just "have a different opinion". They actively opposed us and went through a great deal of effort to disrupt US foreign policy-- and remember, it was to protect theirown selfish and shady business deals, not for some highfalutin' moral ideal.

They also worked to intimidate and bully other nations for having 'different opinions' as well-- their threat that the Eastern European nations could kiss EU membership goodbye if they didn't toe the French line was without excuse. EU membership could bring economic benefits to many Eastern countries that would improve their quality of life, but the French didn't care. So now they reap what they sow.

[Darth Wong]

Mike, the French did more than just "have a different opinion". They actively opposed us and went through a great deal of effort to disrupt US foreign policy-- and remember, it was to protect theirown selfish and shady business deals, not for some highfalutin' moral ideal.

They also worked to intimidate and bully other nations for having 'different opinions' as well-- their threat that the Eastern European nations could kiss EU membership goodbye if they didn't toe the French line was without excuse. EU membership could bring economic benefits to many Eastern countries that would improve their quality of life, but the French didn't care. So now they reap what they sow.

Since this thread is about the French wine-making business leaders rather than the French government, I don't see how that is relevant. How many times have I heard Americans say that they shouldn't be judged as people on the merits of their foreign policy?

[Darth Fanboy]

Sooner or later, once that sweet Iraqi oil lowers our gas prices to a dollar a gallon the only French wine you'll hear about are made with fine grapes rather than high pitched bitching and moaning.

[Crown]

Under certain circumstances the emplower would be justified in firing the employee for such views. Let's put it this way, if an employee were constantly preaching anti-war propaganda to the customers, then the employer would be justified in firing him. Otherwise, people are free to hold whatever opinions they wish.

That's called discrimination. Look it up.

[Coyote]

Mike, the French did more than just "have a different opinion". They ...went through a great deal of effort to disrupt US foreign policy...

Since this thread is about the French wine-making business leaders rather than the French government, I don't see how that is relevant. How many times have I heard Americans say that they shouldn't be judged as people on the merits of their foreign policy?

But the French formed their opinion based on the actions of US foreign policy, whethere that is right or not. And the average American does not have access to the French gov't to vent their feelings. It can be argued that by exerting spin control for the Iraqi regime and stalling US policy, the French enabled the Saddam regime-- again, for selfish reasons rather than truly humanitarian ones.

It's not as if the US government got on the news and said, "Okay, everyone, let's get those Frenchies!" It was a grass-roots movement, vocalized by some news personalities and it took off. Just as the French have a right to their opinion, so too do the people of the US have a right to their opinion too. Refusing to buy French wine is certainly not as damaging or violent a statement as, say... ransacking a McDonald's, as has happened before over there in a violent display of "opinion".

This idea of boycotting France came from a lot of individuals. Long before there was any talk of a boycott, numerous emails and letters were read aloud, sent to Fox News, where Americans said that they were changing their vacation travel plans (ie, tourist dollars) From France to Spain, England, and Italy. That is their right.

[Glocksman]

That's called discrimination. Look it up.

No it's not.

It would be if he was fired for either holding the antiwar views or being politically active outside work.

If the employee however consistently preaches those views to customers during work hours after being warned not to, then it becomes a disciplinary issue of the employee affecting the customer/business relationship and that leaves him vulnerable to being termed.

To simplify it, the guy behind the counter at Burger King may be a flaming Marxist, but as long as he doesn't start handing out copies of Das Kapital with the Whoppers or greeting customers with 'Religion is the opiate of the masses', his job is safe as his views are his own business.

If he does start doing either one, he's affecting the business by his actions and is subject to discipline.

[Tsyroc]

Under certain circumstances the emplower would be justified in firing the employee for such views. Let's put it this way, if an employee were constantly preaching anti-war propaganda to the customers, then the employer would be justified in firing him. Otherwise, people are free to hold whatever opinions they wish.

That's called discrimination. Look it up.

Actually I think his example might work in extreme cases. Your place of work is for work. Not for you to preach to the patrons. If your employer feels that your speaches to the patrons are interfering with your work or driving away business he is probably justified in firing you. A fair amount of proof on the part of the employer is likely to be needed to back it up though. Documentation of complaints, whether the worker was formally warned or not. You can't legally be fired solely for having different beliefs or a view point.

[Ignorant twit]

Interesting Mike. Suppose there was a company with which you regularly did business. Suppose you then learned that a fixed percentage of all that company's profits went to support a group, like say the Aryan Nation, which you opposed. Is it ethical for you to boycott this company because you disagree with the Aryan Nations? Or should you ignore the secondary effects of your choice and send your business along even though it supports a group you oppose?

[XPViking]

Huh? So French wine producers are Aryans? Or they support Aryans (the French government)? Basically you're wondering if there is such a thing as a justifiable boycott, correct?

XPViking

[Master of Ossus]

Huh? So French wine producers are Aryans? Or they support Aryans (the French government)? Basically you're wondering if there is such a thing as a justifiable boycott, correct?

XPViking

It was obviously a hypothetical situation. It's basically the same as my hypothetical situation regarding the dolphin-safe tuna. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the original topic, he's just trying to find out how far Mike's ethical beliefs go. I'm not at all sure that I agree with Mike, here. I think that consumers are well within their moral, legal, and ethical rights to boycott a company or group of companies for whatever they see as being worthy grounds. It's their money, and I think they should be able to spend it as they wish.

[XPViking]

MoO,

Fair enough. But really, boycott a company for whatever reasons? Why don't come on down to South Korea MoO, where American products are often boycotted depending on the issue of the week? Still think the boycotts are justifiable since they seem to be based mostly on emotion?

XPViking

[Master of Ossus]

MoO,

Fair enough. But really, boycott a company for whatever reasons? Why don't come on down to South Korea MoO, where American products are often boycotted depending on the issue of the week? Still think the boycotts are justifiable since they seem to be based mostly on emotion?

XPViking

You can't really force someone to buy your products. The fact is that it's their money. They can spend it how they wish. In the case of many boycotts, that means foregoing either higher quality or a lower price in exchange for greater emotional well-being. If they want to do that, I don't have any problem with it. That's part of the free-market system.

[XPViking]

Arrgh. I also meant to add that you, MoO, shouldn't be opposed at all to people boycotting American goods.

XPViking

[Master of Ossus]

Arrgh. I also meant to add that you, MoO, shouldn't be opposed at all to people boycotting American goods.

XPViking

I'm not. If they feel strongly enough about something that they're willing to change what they purchase, I don't think that it's withing anyone's moral rights to stop them.

I personally don't boycott very many things, and I feel that some of the reasons why people boycott certain products are frivolous, but I also don't see people who do boycott various products as being morally wrong at all. It's a method of telling a company/individual/country that you as a consumer do not agree with something that they're doing. If you go to a restaurant and are treated poorly and given food that you don't particularly like, are you going to go there again? I see no difference between the disapproval over product quality and boycotting over a political, social, or other reform that you support.

Bottom line is, we have a free-market system. You are morally entitled to be able to purchase or not purchase anything you like, for whatever reasons you like.

[Darth Wong]

Interesting Mike. Suppose there was a company with which you regularly did business. Suppose you then learned that a fixed percentage of all that company's profits went to support a group, like say the Aryan Nation, which you opposed. Is it ethical for you to boycott this company because you disagree with the Aryan Nations?

Yes. I would also fire an Aryan Nations member who's an employee. For the umpteenth time, I am merely saying that the act of firing an employee and boycotting a company are ethically equivalent. If you think it's OK to boycott a company solely because they oppose the war, then you should also think it's OK to fire Joe Sixpack at the local factory if he does the same thing.

Or should you ignore the secondary effects of your choice and send your business along even though it supports a group you oppose?

Maybe you should learn to read an argument before you open your big mouth and repeat a strawman distortion that I've had to refute several times already, dumb-ass.

[XPViking]

I personally don't boycott very many things, and I feel that some of the reasons why people boycott certain products are frivolous

I'm just responding to this part if that's okay. For me, that's why I'm usually against many boycotts because I think the reasons provided are frivolous. Sorry if I didn't make that clear before.

XPViking

[Master of Ossus]

I personally don't boycott very many things, and I feel that some of the reasons why people boycott certain products are frivolous

I'm just responding to this part if that's okay. For me, that's why I'm usually against many boycotts because I think the reasons provided are frivolous. Sorry if I didn't make that clear before.

XPViking

That's fine. I just don't think that the reason behind the boycott is as important as the morality surrounding boycotts in general. I don't think that there should be restrictions, moral or otherwise, on how people choose to spend the money out of their pockets, provided that they do so willingly and within the scope of the law.

[Howedar]

[quote="Darth Wong"[/quote]
Since this thread is about the French wine-making business leaders rather than the French government, I don't see how that is relevant. How many times have I heard Americans say that they shouldn't be judged as people on the merits of their foreign policy?[/quote]The alternative method of indirectly or directly sanctioning the French government would be...?

[Ignorant twit]

Yes. I would also fire an Aryan Nations member who's an employee. For the umpteenth time, I am merely saying that the act of firing an employee and boycotting a company are ethically equivalent. If you think it's OK to boycott a company solely because they oppose the war, then you should also think it's OK to fire Joe Sixpack at the local factory if he does the same thing.

My apologies if I didn't make myself clear earlier, or if I misunderstood your view. I view these boycotts as an attempt to hurt the French government. A percentage of the profit every French corporation and every French citezen makes goes to directly aid and abet the French government. This cash flow is tangible support for a group that took active measures against US interests.

I don't view penalizing the French government, through lost tax receipts, as ethically equivalent to firing someone for espousing contrary views. Solely because firing someone does nothing to tangibly hurt the French government. Taking a whack at their tax base does.

Many countries have an anti-war stance, few are under boycott.
Frankly I doubt most are boycotting France because they disagree with the war, they are boycotting because of ACTIONS taken by the French.

Boycotting over beleif is as wrong as firing over beleif. Boycotting over action taken is as legitimate as firing over action taken. Likewise both must weigh the effect on the targeted party against the collateral harm they cause.

If I'm dense, stupid, or wrong ... sorry.

[LordShaithis]

In the absence of a contract, nobody has any moral obligation to buy anything from anyone.

If I decide to eat Burger King instead of Taco Bell because that fucking Taco Bell dog used to piss me off, am I being immoral? Frivolous perhaps, but immoral?

What if I take my car to Jiffy Lube instead of Bill's Oil Change because I have an irrational distrust of people named Bill? Now I'm paranoid, but am I immoral yet?

Or what if I quit going to the mall because the building owners painted the walls green and started piping in Limp Bizkit? The poor vendors had nothing to do with that. Is that immoral?

[Darth Fanboy]

In the absence of a contract, nobody has any moral obligation to buy anything from anyone.

If I decide to eat Burger King instead of Taco Bell because that fucking Taco Bell dog used to piss me off, am I being immoral? Frivolous perhaps, but immoral?

What if I take my car to Jiffy Lube instead of Bill's Oil Change because I have an irrational distrust of people named Bill? Now I'm paranoid, but am I immoral yet?

Or what if I quit going to the mall because the building owners painted the walls green and started piping in Limp Bizkit? The poor vendors had nothing to do with that. Is that immoral?

Your kinda trivializing the points peple are trying to make.