6 ms·

I don't think the poster used legality as the moral compass, rather, consumer choice was the moral compass. If consumers lack the moral conciousness on their d

I don't think the poster used legality as the moral compass, rather, consumer choice was the moral compass. If consumers lack the moral conciousness on their day to day transactions, then how can we expect them to make the right moral choices when they vote?

xenocyon 6y ago
I addressed consumer choice in my first paragraph. Let me expand on that: There have in fact been successful consumer-led movements, but the most successful of these concern cases where the consumers also happened to be the same people being exploited (colonial India's rejection of dumped British textiles, the Montgomery bus boycott, the Boston tea party, etc). Cases where consumers have acted en masse on behalf of another exploited class are a lot fewer and weaker. To some extent, one may point to the current growth of organic animal products as an example of this, but even in this case, this has been boosted by consumers seeing these choices (in some cases rightly, in some wrongly) as also healthier for human end consumers besides the question of animal cruelty. History's guide suggests that while morally-minded consumers can and should vote with their wallets, such personal virtuous choices are largely useless without a larger movement to effect change.
- Natsu 6y ago
  Which of those apply here, exactly?
- kgantchev 6y ago
  If consumers are not morally-minded enough to act on the behalf of another exploited class, then how can you expect them to vote on behalf of the exploited class? And if history suggests that people's virtuous choices are largely useless, then how is their voting going to be any better?
almost_usual 6y ago
What? You don’t think people give more thought to who they vote for than buying a burrito?
- GarrisonPrime 6y ago
  No, actually.
- kerakaali 6y ago
  Everyday I'm more inclined to believe that it's about equal. You've heard of single issue voters yes?
fzeroracer 6y ago
That assumes consumers actually have a choice to make in the situation. For example let's say you disagreed with how Comcast throttles the internet or behaves in monopolistic behavior. Your only option to make the moral choice is to simply not have internet at all in certain regions. A more topical one might be if you disagree with a company using sweatshop labor. Figuring out which companies engage in sweatshop labor and avoiding them is a remarkably difficult task, not in the least because companies do whatever they can in order to hide said actions. And even if you do manage to create a list of good/bad companies, there's no guarantee that you can purchase solely from the good companies without having to go through some other morally dubious medium such as Amazon. The idea of shopping based on your moral conscious might've worked 50 years ago when the supply chain was far smaller, but nowadays it's so complex as to be almost unfathomable for one user to shop their moral compass without touching at least one thing they disagree with.
- kgantchev 6y ago
  Comcast is in a position to throttle the internet because voters voted against the interests of the consumers. Specifically, the voters restricted other market participants from competing with Comcast. So the consumers are not acting in their own best interest as consumers and they're not acting in their own best interest as voters. Why is Comcast on the hook? With regards to the sweatshop labor: if you care not to buy sweatshop clothes and you can't reasonably establish the origins of the clothes, then don't buy them. Only stick with manufacturers who have had their products verified by a trusted third party.
  - fzeroracer 6y ago
    For your first argument: Isn't that argument absolving companies of all blame possible? If a company for example chooses to dump waste in a local river and there aren't any laws preventing that, is that because of the consumers failing to act in their own best interest? I just want to establish according to your logic at which point a company should be blamed for immoral behavior. It's also overly reductive and ignores things like voter suppression, extralegal affairs and abusing the court system. For your second argument, you seemed to ignore my original point which is that it's generally impossible to actually establish the origin of said clothing due to the complex supply chain behind the scenes. Even if it's a trusted third party, that clothing is still being delivered via companies that deliver sweatshop clothing and sold in stores which sell sweatshop clothing. At a certain point some percentage of what you pay will go to support said sweatshops whether directly or indirectly, so how can you expect a consumer to operate in a full moralistic behavior when all of their actions are losses? At that point the only winning move is to not play, which is also not possible because, well, Capitalism.

xenocyon 6y ago

I addressed consumer choice in my first paragraph. Let me expand on that: There have in fact been successful consumer-led movements, but the most successful of these concern cases where the consumers also happened to be the same people being exploited (colonial India's rejection of dumped British textiles, the Montgomery bus boycott, the Boston tea party, etc). Cases where consumers have acted en masse on behalf of another exploited class are a lot fewer and weaker. To some extent, one may point to the current growth of organic animal products as an example of this, but even in this case, this has been boosted by consumers seeing these choices (in some cases rightly, in some wrongly) as also healthier for human end consumers besides the question of animal cruelty. History's guide suggests that while morally-minded consumers can and should vote with their wallets, such personal virtuous choices are largely useless without a larger movement to effect change.

Natsu 6y ago
Which of those apply here, exactly?
kgantchev 6y ago
If consumers are not morally-minded enough to act on the behalf of another exploited class, then how can you expect them to vote on behalf of the exploited class? And if history suggests that people's virtuous choices are largely useless, then how is their voting going to be any better?

almost_usual 6y ago

What? You don’t think people give more thought to who they vote for than buying a burrito?

GarrisonPrime 6y ago
No, actually.
kerakaali 6y ago
Everyday I'm more inclined to believe that it's about equal. You've heard of single issue voters yes?

fzeroracer 6y ago

That assumes consumers actually have a choice to make in the situation. For example let's say you disagreed with how Comcast throttles the internet or behaves in monopolistic behavior. Your only option to make the moral choice is to simply not have internet at all in certain regions. A more topical one might be if you disagree with a company using sweatshop labor. Figuring out which companies engage in sweatshop labor and avoiding them is a remarkably difficult task, not in the least because companies do whatever they can in order to hide said actions. And even if you do manage to create a list of good/bad companies, there's no guarantee that you can purchase solely from the good companies without having to go through some other morally dubious medium such as Amazon. The idea of shopping based on your moral conscious might've worked 50 years ago when the supply chain was far smaller, but nowadays it's so complex as to be almost unfathomable for one user to shop their moral compass without touching at least one thing they disagree with.

kgantchev 6y ago
Comcast is in a position to throttle the internet because voters voted against the interests of the consumers. Specifically, the voters restricted other market participants from competing with Comcast. So the consumers are not acting in their own best interest as consumers and they're not acting in their own best interest as voters. Why is Comcast on the hook? With regards to the sweatshop labor: if you care not to buy sweatshop clothes and you can't reasonably establish the origins of the clothes, then don't buy them. Only stick with manufacturers who have had their products verified by a trusted third party.
- fzeroracer 6y ago
  For your first argument: Isn't that argument absolving companies of all blame possible? If a company for example chooses to dump waste in a local river and there aren't any laws preventing that, is that because of the consumers failing to act in their own best interest? I just want to establish according to your logic at which point a company should be blamed for immoral behavior. It's also overly reductive and ignores things like voter suppression, extralegal affairs and abusing the court system. For your second argument, you seemed to ignore my original point which is that it's generally impossible to actually establish the origin of said clothing due to the complex supply chain behind the scenes. Even if it's a trusted third party, that clothing is still being delivered via companies that deliver sweatshop clothing and sold in stores which sell sweatshop clothing. At a certain point some percentage of what you pay will go to support said sweatshops whether directly or indirectly, so how can you expect a consumer to operate in a full moralistic behavior when all of their actions are losses? At that point the only winning move is to not play, which is also not possible because, well, Capitalism.