[Vision2020] Boycotts
David Douglas
ddouglas@pacsim.com
Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:16:13 -0400
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C397DD.E2FD17F0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Tom [and Visionaries]:
"The discussed method of boycotting is legal. Refusing to pay your taxes
isn't."
That seems to be a pretty risky argument.
There is legal and then there is right. One Constitutional Amendment
outlawed alcohol. Did that make it right?
Would it be alright if we considered doing it again? (Not if I was asked).
Would you give the same answer if a political majority outlawed compulsory
contributions to public schools, AND outlawed boycotts?
The point is not what is LEGAL but the consistency by which we decide some
things are ok/legal (boycotting Bucer's or the Coop) and others aren't
(boycotting public schools). If I boycotted Bucer's and/or Coop the way
parent's "get" to boycott public schools, I'd pay for my pastry and then
leave it there for others and go home and make my own.
--
David Douglas
------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C397DD.E2FD17F0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1264" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>
<DIV><EM><SPAN class=3D517280118-21102003><FONT color=3D#000080>Tom [and =
Visionaries]<SPAN =
class=3D053041418-21102003>:</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></EM></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D517280118-21102003><FONT color=3D#000080><SPAN=20
class=3D142234917-21102003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D517280118-21102003><FONT color=3D#000080><SPAN=20
class=3D142234917-21102003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D517280118-21102003><FONT color=3D#000080><SPAN=20
class=3D142234917-21102003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>"The discussed=20
method of boycotting is legal. Refusing to pay your taxes=20
isn't."</FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><EM><SPAN class=3D517280118-21102003><FONT=20
color=3D#000080></FONT></SPAN></EM> </DIV>
<DIV><EM><SPAN class=3D517280118-21102003><FONT color=3D#000080>That =
seems to be a=20
pretty risky argument.</FONT></SPAN></EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM><SPAN class=3D517280118-21102003><FONT=20
color=3D#000080></FONT></SPAN></EM> </DIV>
<DIV><EM><SPAN class=3D517280118-21102003><FONT color=3D#000080>There is =
legal and=20
then there is right. One Constitutional Amendment outlawed =
alcohol. Did=20
that make it right?</FONT></SPAN></EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM><SPAN class=3D517280118-21102003><FONT color=3D#000080>Would it =
be alright=20
if we considered doing it again? (Not if I was =
asked).</FONT></SPAN></EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM><SPAN class=3D517280118-21102003><FONT=20
color=3D#000080></FONT></SPAN></EM> </DIV>
<DIV><EM><SPAN class=3D517280118-21102003><FONT color=3D#000080>Would =
you give the=20
same answer if a political majority outlawed compulsory contributions to =
public=20
schools, AND outlawed boycotts?</FONT></SPAN></EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM><SPAN class=3D517280118-21102003><FONT=20
color=3D#000080></FONT></SPAN></EM> </DIV>
<DIV><EM><SPAN class=3D517280118-21102003><FONT=20
color=3D#000080>The point is not what is LEGAL but =
the=20
consistency by which we decide some things are ok/legal (boycotting =
Bucer's or=20
the Coop) and others aren't (boycotting public schools). If I =
boycotted Bucer's and/or Coop the way parent's "get" to boycott public =
schools,=20
I'd pay for my pastry and then leave it there for others and go =
home and=20
make my own.</FONT></SPAN></EM></DIV>
<P><EM><FONT color=3D#000080></FONT></EM> </P>
<P>-- <BR>David Douglas <BR></P></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C397DD.E2FD17F0--