2 ms·

I'm not comfortable with the idea of "reverse boycotts", in which businesses can hinder candidates by denying them services. That gives business owners far too

I'm not comfortable with the idea of "reverse boycotts", in which businesses can hinder candidates by denying them services. That gives business owners far too much power over elections (and Citizens United already gives them too much, IMO). I want democracy, not plutocracy. > Which candidate do you hate the most? If what you were saying was reasonable, then you could be forced to provide material support for that candidate. How would you feel about that? Absolutely fine, if that "material support" was merely providing the same business I provide everyone else, at the usual cost. To me, paid services are not "material support", a phrase I would only use to describe in-kind contributions (that is, services provided for free). And 99% of businesses already act that way. The local office supply store doesn't discriminate based on politics. What's backwards about expecting big tech to act like other businesses? > Stripe is not a utility like electricity or the phone company. Nor are they anywhere close to a monopoly... [candidates] have other options for online payment processing That's an important point, and here's the rule I would propose to account for it: treat refusing to do business with a candidate while doing business with their opponent as an in-kind contribution to their opponent. If the cost of finding an alternative is small, denying services will be allowed as a small in-kind contribution. I'm not a lawyer and I'm talking about how I think things should work, not what the current law is, but I believe that's the legal principle behind the Equal-Time Rule, so it's not entirely legally unprecedented.

nobody9999 6y ago
>And 99% of businesses already act that way. The local office supply store doesn't discriminate based on politics. That's as may be. However, US Federal law doesn't require them to service anyone except in specific circumstances[0]. There are some state laws that extend to political affiliation, but that's almost always just in employment decisions and not B2B transactions. If you think the law is wrong (I do not), you can advocate for changing the laws. I won't support your efforts, but I will and do support your right to do so. Which is what you seem to want taken away from others. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
- leereeves 6y ago
  > I will and do support your right to do so. Which is what you seem to want taken away from others. I certainly don't want anyone's right to political activity to be taken away. I just don't want the weight of their opinion to be related to how much they own.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >I certainly don't want anyone's right to political activity to be taken away. How else can forcing people to provide support (whether that support is compensated or not) for a political entity be interpreted? Doing so would reduce the political rights of those affected. And reducing those rights for to one group means they can do that to you or to me. You can't eat your cake and have it too.
    - leereeves 6y ago
      Are campaign finance limits taking away people's political rights? I suppose they are, relative to unlimited rights, but I still think they are necessary because they they tilt the balance toward democracy instead of plutocracy. For the same reason, I'm opposed to unlimited in-kind contributions, and also to censorship and "reverse boycotts".
      - nobody9999 6y ago
        >Are campaign finance limits taking away people's political rights? I suppose they are, relative to unlimited rights, but I still think they are necessary because they they tilt the balance toward democracy instead of plutocracy. Actually, I think campaign finance limits expand political rights as it gives more people a more equal say. In fact, I support banning campaign contributions altogether and moving to publicly financed campaigns. Because that not only gives more people a more equal voice, it also gives more people the opportunity to run competitive campaigns without deep-pocketed supporters and/or deep-pocketed political parties. >For the same reason, I'm opposed to unlimited in-kind contributions, and also to censorship and "reverse boycotts". I'm also opposed to the first two. Quite strongly, in fact. As to the first, I have no problem with volunteering (time is a resource and, as such, could be considered an "in-kind" contribution but I'm okay with that) or using one's own resources (cars, phone minutes, electricity, etc.) while volunteering, but not much beyond that. As to the second, censorship (that is, government censorship) is always wrong. However, private persons or groups have every right to control their freedom of association and the speech they allow on their property. However, I'm not really clear on what you mean by a "reverse boycott." I'll hazard a guess that you mean multiple product/service providers refusing to do business with a specific customer. If that's what you mean, I'm not sure I can fully agree. Not because I don't believe in freedom, but just the opposite. Because forcing anyone to associate with someone they don't want to associate with (within the limits set out for protected classes[0]) reduces the freedom of those being forced. And I believe that to be especially true when it comes to political actors and issues. Primarily because forcing someone to support political speech/beliefs/actions with which they disagree is an affront to our free society and the ideals of free association and political choice. My apologies If I misunderstand how you define "reverse boycott," and I'd appreciate being corrected. Thanks. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group Edit: Added the missing link.

nobody9999 6y ago

>And 99% of businesses already act that way. The local office supply store doesn't discriminate based on politics. That's as may be. However, US Federal law doesn't require them to service anyone except in specific circumstances[0]. There are some state laws that extend to political affiliation, but that's almost always just in employment decisions and not B2B transactions. If you think the law is wrong (I do not), you can advocate for changing the laws. I won't support your efforts, but I will and do support your right to do so. Which is what you seem to want taken away from others. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group

leereeves 6y ago
> I will and do support your right to do so. Which is what you seem to want taken away from others. I certainly don't want anyone's right to political activity to be taken away. I just don't want the weight of their opinion to be related to how much they own.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >I certainly don't want anyone's right to political activity to be taken away. How else can forcing people to provide support (whether that support is compensated or not) for a political entity be interpreted? Doing so would reduce the political rights of those affected. And reducing those rights for to one group means they can do that to you or to me. You can't eat your cake and have it too.
  - leereeves 6y ago
    Are campaign finance limits taking away people's political rights? I suppose they are, relative to unlimited rights, but I still think they are necessary because they they tilt the balance toward democracy instead of plutocracy. For the same reason, I'm opposed to unlimited in-kind contributions, and also to censorship and "reverse boycotts".
    - nobody9999 6y ago
      >Are campaign finance limits taking away people's political rights? I suppose they are, relative to unlimited rights, but I still think they are necessary because they they tilt the balance toward democracy instead of plutocracy. Actually, I think campaign finance limits expand political rights as it gives more people a more equal say. In fact, I support banning campaign contributions altogether and moving to publicly financed campaigns. Because that not only gives more people a more equal voice, it also gives more people the opportunity to run competitive campaigns without deep-pocketed supporters and/or deep-pocketed political parties. >For the same reason, I'm opposed to unlimited in-kind contributions, and also to censorship and "reverse boycotts". I'm also opposed to the first two. Quite strongly, in fact. As to the first, I have no problem with volunteering (time is a resource and, as such, could be considered an "in-kind" contribution but I'm okay with that) or using one's own resources (cars, phone minutes, electricity, etc.) while volunteering, but not much beyond that. As to the second, censorship (that is, government censorship) is always wrong. However, private persons or groups have every right to control their freedom of association and the speech they allow on their property. However, I'm not really clear on what you mean by a "reverse boycott." I'll hazard a guess that you mean multiple product/service providers refusing to do business with a specific customer. If that's what you mean, I'm not sure I can fully agree. Not because I don't believe in freedom, but just the opposite. Because forcing anyone to associate with someone they don't want to associate with (within the limits set out for protected classes[0]) reduces the freedom of those being forced. And I believe that to be especially true when it comes to political actors and issues. Primarily because forcing someone to support political speech/beliefs/actions with which they disagree is an affront to our free society and the ideals of free association and political choice. My apologies If I misunderstand how you define "reverse boycott," and I'd appreciate being corrected. Thanks. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group Edit: Added the missing link.