Tag: boycott

Many Miss the Forest When It Comes to Israel and Palestine

Warren Albrecht | United States

Recently, Rep. Ilhan Omar has criticized people in the United States who support Israel’s government and that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) influence.

I support the country of Israel and territories of Palestinian people; Israel is a legitimate country with an insane history. I believe in private property rights and do not believe two wrongs make a right. Peace between Jews and Arabs in the region is a very difficult issue. We must not get distracted by the trees of political rhetoric from the potential peace of the forest.

Continue reading “Many Miss the Forest When It Comes to Israel and Palestine”

Advertisements

Progressives Are Not for the Common Man

Jack Parkos | United States

Americans believe a lot about the political parties in America; that the right supports gun rights and the left does not, that conservatives support small government and liberals big government, for examples. We also hear that progressives stand for the working and middle class while the right is elitist. However, it’s not as easy as that to explain.

Progressives: Not for the Common Man

Do progressives really support the working class? It may appear so, as they boast with other populists about supporting the common man. Their policies, on the other hand, do not always represent this. Free healthcare and college may seem to be for the common person until he or she realizes that these policies only raise taxes and prices, which overwhelmingly hurts the middle class.

Furthermore, this break from expectation is evident in immigration policy. When figures on the right criticize illegal immigration, many progressives respond by saying how it brings cheap labor. But this directly hurts the blue collar worker. During his campaign, Trump made it a key point in his election that these policies hurt African-Americans, Hispanics, and the working class as a whole. Why don’t the so-called pro-working class left agree? It is harder for the uneducated to find work if illegal immigrants who work for less than minimum wage come into the country. It thus would appear logical for progressives to support stronger border security.

In fact, this logic used to hold true in the Democratic Party, which used to support strong borders. In a State of the Union address, Bill Clinton clearly stated the following:

“We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.”

The party position has changed drastically in recent years. During this time, the party became more focused on social equality.

Further Hypocrisy

Progressive hypocrisy also applies to the movement’s general opinions towards Apple. The massive tech company has seemingly taken over society, but Apple’s manufacturing plants in China have some of the poorest conditions in the world. The wages are terrible, but you don’t hear progressive outrage to boycott Apple. Instead, many will boycott Chik-Fil-A because its owners believe in traditional marriage.

There’s a reason more progressives aren’t boycotting Apple: the company has secured their futures. Tucker Carlson compares it to buying indulgences. Apple can commit their sins, but won’t face punishment because of their liberal CEO and board members. Nobody is mad that Facebooks spies on us and collects data because Mark Zuckerberg is not a fan of Trump and bans right-wing pages.

Many progressives often criticize libertarians for being only for “the rich.” Given this was true, why do the 1% vote Democratic or Republican? Libertarians don’t want to tax the middle class out of oblivion. Libertarians don’t want to harm small businesses with regulations they do not have the ability to follow. Furthermore, they never advocate for taxing the people who pay salaries for workers. The major parties, particularly not the progressive left, simply do not profess these beneficial policies.

The left cares little about the middle class, working class, or even the upper-middle class. Rather, they often are advocating for a utopia of government overreach that will hurt the common man.


71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon.

Americans Have Forgotten How to Boycott

TJ Roberts | United States

Since Nike released their new ad in support of Colin Kaepernick, the mainstream American Right has been losing their minds, showing images of them burning their Nike shoes or cutting the logos off of their gym clothes. The same can be said about the American Left’s revulsion towards In-N-Out and Chic-fil-A after they announced their support for conservative causes. The calls for boycotts, however, fall on deaf ears. This is simply because Americans have forgotten how to boycott, whereas they have come to rely on State intervention to achieve their social goals.

The Failure of the Boycott

When Chic-fil-A came out in support of traditional marriage, the American Left slammed them in the public sphere, but they never truly boycotted the franchise. Rather, they gave them free advertisement. They are now doing the same thing for In-N-Out due to their donation to the California GOP. American culture has become so materialist that people can’t even fathom doing without a product in order to enact the change that they desire.

This is largely due to the rise of the modern State. Whereas economic interventionism has become the immediate means by which society changes, the public does not realize their power in the market. This comes from two primary reasons. First, if a well-connected business goes under, the US federal government is likely to bail it out of its economic struggle. Second and most importantly, it is far easier for the government to change something than the private sector.

Government is a monopoly on violence. All state action is backed by either the barrel of a gun or the edge of a blade. Why would the people boycott if they could simply use government force to enact their social preferences? In the private sector, one must compete with the status quo in order to bring about change. With government, all it takes is for a bureaucrat to enact a new arbitrary legislation or law forcing businesses to stop whatever they are doing that is hurting the sensitivities of the thoughtless masses.

Refusing to Buy Goods is Not Enough

Conservatives tend to be able to actually refuse to buy/use products that they find despicable. Their belief in a relatively free market lets them at least realize that they have some power over corporations. But businesses don’t go under simply because they lose a small chunk of their consumer base (they will also gain customers due to controversial moves). While they may lose growth due to traditional boycotts, a boycott can only be effective if consumers are actively competing with businesses.

Instead of throwing an online fit and burning Nike products, it would behoove conservatives to sell their lightly used Nike products at unreasonably low prices in the secondary market as Dr. Robert Murphy, author of Contra Krugman, so brilliantly pointed out. Doing this would not only rid you of the products of a company that would dare to refuse to worship a cloth, but it would also push the price of their products down. This would hurt future sales.

While the Left and the Right are dramatizing minor issues, there is an economics lesson we can all learn from this. A boycott can and will work, but only if the public not only refuses to purchase a business’s goods/services but also compete with the business in order to hurt future sales. If the Left wants to push progressive “values” and the Right wants to push idol worship upon the people, then they may want to learn how an actual boycott works. Or they could focus on real issues such as the fact that the US is committing genocide in Yemen as you read this.


This post was originally published in LIFE.

Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

The Incompetence of the Canada Post Corporation

By Alexander Robak | Canada

As of October 16th, 2018, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) has declared that they will begin rotating strikes across the country. Over the past month, these rotating strikes have hit many major cities across the country such as Mississauga, Ottawa, and Toronto. Not only have these major cities (which are responsible for the processing of much of Canada’s mail) been affected, but many of the smaller cities and townships in Canada have been affected as well. This strike comes in the wake of the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement between Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. The CUPW believes that striking will prove to be an effective method in ensuring a fair agreement for employees of Canada Post. However, all they are doing is hurting the much despised government-operated corporation.

As rotating strikes hit many regional distribution centers across the country, distribution of mail in Canada has been slowed to a snail’s pace. On top of this, these strikes are not expected to end any time soon and are not uncommon. Almost every time that a new CBA must be negotiated between Canada Post and the CUPW, the workers strike and demand more benefits and pay. This is doing nothing but annoying Canadian consumers and forcing them to lose trust in the once-beloved crown corporation. The only logical solution for the Canadian consumer in this situation would be to boycott Canada Post altogether and make the switch from public mail distribution systems to private ones, such as UPS and FedEx, when sending and receiving both mail and parcels. This solution will not only show the government how the Canadian people are losing trust in Canada Post and crown corporations but will put Canada Post in a state of financial danger if done correctly.

A Government Failure

The main problem that comes with the mere existence of a corporation such as Canada Post is that it is owned and controlled by the government of Canada, yet it does not maintain a monopoly over the mail system as a whole in Canada. While Canada Post does maintain a massive market share, it has nowhere near enough of a market share to choke out its competitors that are privately run. On top of this, these private competitors have often exceeded Canada Post in terms of quality of service and customer satisfaction. My question to the Canadian taxpayer is this: Why do we continue to allow ourselves to pay our income to support an overpriced government-owned corporation that is often beat out by its competitors?

Under no circumstances does it make sense for the Canadian consumer to support a crown corporation with tax dollars and also have to pay to use the service provided by the said crown corporation. This financial ineffectiveness on the part of Canada Post only plays into the fact that governments are inept at creating and managing businesses in the free market. If Canada Post were a private corporation, but still maintained this deplorable level of service, there is absolutely no way that it would survive in the free market, being forced to compete with giants such as FedEx and UPS. The only way Canada Post continues to exist is through the extortion of the Canadian taxpayer.

The only solution to the Canada Post conundrum is to pressure the Canadian government into selling the corporation to a private owner. At the very least, the Canadian government should open up the market to allow more private options to the consumer. This would only happen through a minimizing of the size of Canada Post’s responsibilities, and the size of the business as a whole. However, we should seek for the Canadian government to abolish Canada Post. The Canadian consumer would be better serviced in the postal industry by a series of privately owned corporations, competing in a free market without government intervention.


Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

The Free Market Can Be Used To Preserve Tradition

Daniel Szewc | Poland

One of the most common mistakes made by political enthusiasts across the political spectrum, is the false notion that traditionalism can only exist and flourish under a market mutilated by many regulations, as well as at least basic forms of state redistribution. To best expose the problem with this idea at large, it’s worth viewing the subject from a broader perspective.

In the most basic sense, value systems compete between each other, and have done so since the beginning of civilization itself. This can be expressed by the fact that societies with good values turn out to out perform and take over societies with lesser values. All is well and fair with this, as long as deceit and force aren’t involved in the process of internal value changes. These occur in cases of revolutions installed by external powers (such as the Bolshevik Revolution, started thanks to German funding of Lenin), or when the tyranny of the majority (i.e democratic rule) takes control of societal values, as well as regulates the market, especially when it comes to the right to discriminate, or through redistribution. For it is because of the last two, that traditionalism has been abandoned in the West. Since tradition is the result of constant rivalry between moral values, and mutual discrimination is the tool by which the power of each competing world view is expressed, not letting competition happen creates a lack of clashes between the two. The older a tradition/value is, (for example the long for truth), the more, according to probability, enemies it had to face in the past, making it more likely to win with new competitors on the market of ideas. A good example of this happening in history, is the high quality of the press in the past, during an era when no failing businesses were saved, which systematically prevented the press from spreading, what we now call “fake news”- if any newspaper decided to publish false information, it would go bankrupt- starting a business was extremely simple in the past, and their market competition would therefore destroy them- not to mention the boycotts of their good, otherwise known as market discrimination.

The other problem causing the fail of traditional values in modern times, is the welfare state. If we look at history, the only people to die of hunger (excluding times of famine, and extremely rare exceptions), were units who were asocial and wouldn’t receive any help, because nobody in society wanted to help them. How much of a bad human being do you have to be, for literally nobody to help you? In contrast, the modern era allows people to completely detach themselves from society, dismiss the idea of having children (why would they, if they’ll get state help when they are old or sick?), and in general become parasites of the system. The same holds for representatives of ALL inferior value systems, and ones that are purely against Western interpretations of personal freedom.

Those who favor tradition often note, from the depths of their hearts, that single mothers and poor people must be helped! There are two problems with this. For one, the innocence attributed to poor people, is the result of poor people, historically having to appeal to society as good, or else nobody would help them. In the case of the help being state organized, and therefore ending the risk of not receiving any help, laziness and egoism may kick in in poor people. The second problem with is, is that the less dangerous a societal position is, (“Oh no! How will I feed my children!”), the less likely people are to fight off becoming part of it.

A typical example of a situation like this is of a man who leaves his woman and children alone, without funds to live. In the past, this meant uncertainty and extreme stress caused by financial risk for the mother, which caused the man to be seen as a monster, and people discriminated against him, because of what tradition would consider to be poor character. Nowadays, even though leaving your family is still frowned upon, people are less sharp against such deeds, as the mother isn’t in a position as bad as she would have been under a free market, which is precisely why more men leave their wives/partners with their children, than ever before.


To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.