🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan28.133545.28410@news.unige.ch> swann@divsun.unige.ch (SWANN philip) writes:
   In article <BURKE.93Jan24131538@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu>, burke@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Robin Burke) writes:


   > But the issue here is not opinions, but behavior.

>The issue concerns neither opinions nor behavior. Democracy is a game
>we agree to play because it is in our mutual interest. If you don't
>like losing and you can't accept the rules when they work against you,
>then those of us who accept the constraints will do our best to expose
>you as a cheat.

>   - philip swann


Democracy does not imply that one is forced to patronize those
businesses/states (little difference in practice) with whom you
disagree, only that those entities and their owners/constituents have
the freedom to hold their own opinions. If you dislike some other
feature of a state's code of law, like the sales tax, you are free not
to live there or visit. If you don't like a corporation's policies on
the environment or on investment in unsavory governments, then you are
free not to buy products from them.

The proponents of the boycott are not suggesting jail for the "non-PC
demons" of Colorado. They just do not want to support a behavior which
they do not agree with. They also have the right to try to convince
others with similar views to do the same.


Not "accepting the rules" is a fairly time-honored way of conducting
political action, by the way. Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and
Henry David Thoreau are among the "cheats" who caused major changes
for the good.

-Layne 

-- 
  Layne Ainsworth | lains@world.std.com <or> ...!{xylogics,uunet}!world!lains
	The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. -H.D.T.