3 ms·

But asking consumers to vote for moral, intelligent legislative agents is somehow better? Optimizing for past opinions, moral fiber, understanding of the issues

But asking consumers to vote for moral, intelligent legislative agents is somehow better? Optimizing for past opinions, moral fiber, understanding of the issues, etc. is easier? Personal responsibility is required in a good society, irrespective of the system of government or the level of regulation that currently exists. Even if it's consumers/voters pushing their legislators to build regulations, you need a mass of regular old people who care in order to change a society. Then the onus is on you to prove that regulation of an issue--say, drinking and driving--didn't just happen to coincide with a national education campaign coming from a well-funded 501(3)(c). Sometimes it's obvious, sometimes not so much. In my opinion, the problem here isn't regulation vs. collective action people like grand-OP who are willing to continue using the service. Those same people will push back against legislation if they believe it will increase their prices, or eliminate the service altogether (Uber/Lyft in e.g. Austin?) And in any case, consumer-driven action is MUCH faster than regulation. You can boycott them TODAY and cause an actual hit to their bottom line.

JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
The problem is that corporations have people beat in terms of being able to obfuscate their business practices. While certainly true that people can often cause a business to change its actions when a big scandal come out, it's usually only the very obvious or very stupid, or relies on quality investigative journalism or things to quickly spread on social media to a large enough amount of people - and despite this seemingly happening regularly, it's still a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of companies doing morally grey stuff. However, laws and independent bodies specifically created for the purpose of regulating industry and researching consumer effects are much better than people at finding out the broad effects of company practices. They are specifically reviewing and analysing company practices and making targeted recommendations on effective regulation. For me, relying on consumer driven action is ineffective, it certainly should be a part of any society, but with the pace of society today, you can't rely on people to be able to have the time, information and energy to vote with their wallets - especially when it often hurts their wallet to do so. Governments and independent bodies have to lead the way with the support of people. I'm painfully aware of being privileged with the time and wealth to be able to vote with my wallet, but I think the majority of people have neither for most of these boycotts.
- mikem170 8y ago
  I wonder if this is all a problem of scale. Maybe it is unreasonable for us to expect very large companies and governments to be anything but corrupt and minimally responsive, nothing like the smaller scales that humans are evolved to deal with. This is all very new, and loaded with bugs...
ip26 8y ago
This is just my suspicion, but I figure many people don't boycott because they feel it doesn't make a difference, that they are giving up something useful to them and nothing at all will come of it. That feels unfair in addition to being unproductive. I'm constantly reminded of a short blurb/study-abstract I read a little while back that found the chief determinant of whether people perceived the taxes they paid were 'fair' was perceived compliance of everyone else. That is, it was more important that everyone else was paying whatever their fair share was, than exactly what my own particular rate is. Thus you can get people to vote for things that might hurt them a little, that they wouldn't do on their own, as long as they know that everybody else will fairly share in the burden.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
The boycott of South African goods during apartheid, and that against Nestle because of them promoting formula over breast milk in the developing world beg to differ. Very significant numbers participating, to no noticeable effect. Nestle undoubtedly considers it an acceptable cost of doing business, cheap at ten times the price. Those who participate are likewise aware it means never buying anything Nestle ever again. But it's a great way to put the onus on the consumer and not blame the cause - the government or multinational. EU or US regulation on the other hand could probably have Nestle ceasing that practice in days.

JauntyHatAngle 8y ago

The problem is that corporations have people beat in terms of being able to obfuscate their business practices. While certainly true that people can often cause a business to change its actions when a big scandal come out, it's usually only the very obvious or very stupid, or relies on quality investigative journalism or things to quickly spread on social media to a large enough amount of people - and despite this seemingly happening regularly, it's still a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of companies doing morally grey stuff. However, laws and independent bodies specifically created for the purpose of regulating industry and researching consumer effects are much better than people at finding out the broad effects of company practices. They are specifically reviewing and analysing company practices and making targeted recommendations on effective regulation. For me, relying on consumer driven action is ineffective, it certainly should be a part of any society, but with the pace of society today, you can't rely on people to be able to have the time, information and energy to vote with their wallets - especially when it often hurts their wallet to do so. Governments and independent bodies have to lead the way with the support of people. I'm painfully aware of being privileged with the time and wealth to be able to vote with my wallet, but I think the majority of people have neither for most of these boycotts.

mikem170 8y ago
I wonder if this is all a problem of scale. Maybe it is unreasonable for us to expect very large companies and governments to be anything but corrupt and minimally responsive, nothing like the smaller scales that humans are evolved to deal with. This is all very new, and loaded with bugs...

ip26 8y ago

This is just my suspicion, but I figure many people don't boycott because they feel it doesn't make a difference, that they are giving up something useful to them and nothing at all will come of it. That feels unfair in addition to being unproductive. I'm constantly reminded of a short blurb/study-abstract I read a little while back that found the chief determinant of whether people perceived the taxes they paid were 'fair' was perceived compliance of everyone else. That is, it was more important that everyone else was paying whatever their fair share was, than exactly what my own particular rate is. Thus you can get people to vote for things that might hurt them a little, that they wouldn't do on their own, as long as they know that everybody else will fairly share in the burden.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

The boycott of South African goods during apartheid, and that against Nestle because of them promoting formula over breast milk in the developing world beg to differ. Very significant numbers participating, to no noticeable effect. Nestle undoubtedly considers it an acceptable cost of doing business, cheap at ten times the price. Those who participate are likewise aware it means never buying anything Nestle ever again. But it's a great way to put the onus on the consumer and not blame the cause - the government or multinational. EU or US regulation on the other hand could probably have Nestle ceasing that practice in days.