6 ms·

What if it was Qatar instead, or Saudi Arabia? Are they not allies? Are ppl allowed to express dissatisfaction with their behaviour?

nerdponx 4y ago
Of course, but the government is also allowed to decide not to do business with those people. This case is more analogous to the case of the cake shop who wouldn't make a wedding cake for a gay couple. It's less about free speech in general and more about discrimination in doing business.
- Animatronio 4y ago
  You mean this one: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/24/bakersfield-california-bakery-same-sex-wedding-cake https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/24/bakersfield-ca...
- faxywaxy 4y ago
  The US and state governments are not private institutions. The money used to pay the contracts in question is collected from citizens who have to pay it. The government can't then turn around and gate that public money behind 1st amendment violating policy.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    Right: and the voters have decided that they don't want their tax dollars to be squandered paying a premium because contractors have decided to boycott. If someone wants to boycott Taiwan and avoid any semiconductors from TSMC, then they're engaging in significant self-sabotage and it's wise for the government to avoid people engaging in this behavior.
    - faxywaxy 4y ago
      There is no premium to be paid for boycotting Israel and that fabricated scenario has nothing to do with pro-Israel lobbyist driven first amendment violations.
      - Manuel_D 4y ago
        Any time you reject a segment of the market, you're limiting the pool of available vendors. This obviously applies more to markets with significant presence in the boycotted country. Semiconductors for Taiwant, Israel makes plenty of sensor and software products.
        faxywaxy 4y ago
        The only thing segmenting the market are the anti-BDS laws. You can boycott Israel and still bid on a government contract and let market forces do the work. This isn't an issue of market efficiency though, it's an issue of violating the first amendment.
        Manuel_D 4y ago
        Right except a specific country is excluded from that market. A company engaging in a boycott is saying "if the cheapest component comes from an Israeli firm, we're going to pay a prenup to source it somewhere from else." As a taxpayer, I don't want to be paying that premium.
        faxywaxy 4y ago
        As a tax payer you wouldn't overpay for anything since this has nothing to do with the bidding process.
        Manuel_D 4y ago
        A boycott is literally saying "we won't bid on x country's products". It means if the cheapest is from a boycotted country then a more expensive product will be bought instead. I'm baffled at the mental gymnastics one has to do to convince oneself thata boycott has no impact.
Gibbon1 4y ago
> Saudi Arabia? If you're a politician you aren't allowed to say anything against them either.

nerdponx 4y ago

Of course, but the government is also allowed to decide not to do business with those people. This case is more analogous to the case of the cake shop who wouldn't make a wedding cake for a gay couple. It's less about free speech in general and more about discrimination in doing business.

Animatronio 4y ago
You mean this one: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/24/bakersfield-california-bakery-same-sex-wedding-cake https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/24/bakersfield-ca...
faxywaxy 4y ago
The US and state governments are not private institutions. The money used to pay the contracts in question is collected from citizens who have to pay it. The government can't then turn around and gate that public money behind 1st amendment violating policy.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  Right: and the voters have decided that they don't want their tax dollars to be squandered paying a premium because contractors have decided to boycott. If someone wants to boycott Taiwan and avoid any semiconductors from TSMC, then they're engaging in significant self-sabotage and it's wise for the government to avoid people engaging in this behavior.
  - faxywaxy 4y ago
    There is no premium to be paid for boycotting Israel and that fabricated scenario has nothing to do with pro-Israel lobbyist driven first amendment violations.
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      Any time you reject a segment of the market, you're limiting the pool of available vendors. This obviously applies more to markets with significant presence in the boycotted country. Semiconductors for Taiwant, Israel makes plenty of sensor and software products.
      - faxywaxy 4y ago
        The only thing segmenting the market are the anti-BDS laws. You can boycott Israel and still bid on a government contract and let market forces do the work. This isn't an issue of market efficiency though, it's an issue of violating the first amendment.
        Manuel_D 4y ago
        Right except a specific country is excluded from that market. A company engaging in a boycott is saying "if the cheapest component comes from an Israeli firm, we're going to pay a prenup to source it somewhere from else." As a taxpayer, I don't want to be paying that premium.
        faxywaxy 4y ago
        As a tax payer you wouldn't overpay for anything since this has nothing to do with the bidding process.
        Manuel_D 4y ago
        A boycott is literally saying "we won't bid on x country's products". It means if the cheapest is from a boycotted country then a more expensive product will be bought instead. I'm baffled at the mental gymnastics one has to do to convince oneself thata boycott has no impact.

Gibbon1 4y ago

> Saudi Arabia? If you're a politician you aren't allowed to say anything against them either.