The Turn of an Unfriendly Card – 2

Let me stipulate right at the beginning that I accept that boycotts are and should be perfectly legal. I believe in free markets and the right of free association which means that people have the right to buy or not buy a particular product based on whatever reason they like. Nor is this a free speech issue. Boycotts are political maneuvers designed to influence a person or an organization to act in a certain way by a form of social and financial ostracism. No one’s rights are being trampled here. Card can continue to espouse his position as he wishes but only a fool believes that freedom of speech means freedom from consequences. Whole Foods CEO John Mackey learned that by writing and anti-Obamacare op-ed in the Wall Street Journal(corrected — originally said Washington Post) that sent his predominantly liberal customer base into a tizzy and resulted in calls for a boycott to the store.

For me, the issue is the ethics and morality of the boycott itself — any boycott. There are those who advocate separating the art from the artist. If Shadow Complex is a great game that of itself doesn’t promote a hateful agenda (and by all accounts it doesn’t — I haven’t played it myself), why wouldn’t I want to play it? I often quip that if I restricted my entertainment choices with those who agreed with me politically, I’d be stuck listening to country music and watching my DVD copy of Red Dawn in which case I’d simply have to kill myself. The fact is that art of any type can (and often should) espouse a particular point of view. If gaming means to be taken seriously as an art as well as a business then these situations are going to come up more and more often and we need to be prepared to discuss and deal with them like semi-rational adults. If I can choose not to view the films of Jane Fonda or Sean Penn because of their political activism, I can choose not to play Shadow Complex because of Card’s and tell others about to help them make their own choices.

Note however, that I’m not saying I will boycott Shadow Complex, merely that I can and that that decision should bear the same moral freight as my decision about whether or not to shop at Whole Foods or buy a Dixie Chicks album. In fact, that’s kind fo the crux of my issue. Boycotts aren’t exactly a precision weapon in one’s political arsenal. What’s my end game here? Am I looking to put the devlopers at Chair out of business for associating with Card despite the fact that hundreds of people worked on the game who no doubt represent a wide-ranging spectrum of political and religious viewpoints. One of the game’s other writers is Peter David, a noted comic-book scribe who’s a very gay-friendly artist (he put the mainstream comic world’s first man-on-man kiss in X-Factor 45). Shouldn’t I take his politics into account as well when making my decision? As for Card himself, he may very well have other political opinions that I do agree with. Shouldn’t those count as well?

e3-2009-shadow-complex-first-look-20090528044044407

I’m reminded of the controversy surrounding the El Coyote restaurant in Los Angeles when the owner, a Mormon, donated money to the “Yes on 8” campaign. El Coyote is a Los Angeles institution and has long-been known as a gay-friendly establishment. The restaurant’s managers took pains to distance themselves from their boss’ views and pointed out that the resulting boycott wouldn’t hurt the owners nearly as much as the 83 families that depended on El Coyote for their livelihood. This was matched by duelling boycotts in San Deigo where a local union and a conservative Christian newspaper faced off by boycotting first a hotel and then not tipping service people. It’s the kind of action that can really nasty, really fast and the ones who get caught in the middle are usually the ones who have the least to do with the point of contention. Right now there’s a coder at Chair who needs to pay his mortgage looking at this whole situation wondering why his house payment is being held hostage to the political whims of Orson Scott Card and those who disagree with him.

Unfortunately I don’t really have an answer to this conundrum. I could fall back on my basic libertarian sensibilities and just say that this is a personal matter and everybody needs to make their own choices. I certainly do that with Sean Penn. I will not watch or pay for anything he’s in (including Fast Times at Ridgemont High which really hurts) because I’m personally offended by some of the actions he’s taken in support of his political beliefs. As a practical matter, I know that this affects Penn not one iota, especially as this is a completely personal choice. I’ve never encouraged anyone else to boycott Penn’s work nor do I have any plans to do so in the future. Ultimately though, that position is a cop-out.

The fact is, there is such a thing as the public sphere and public life and a collective social environment and the shaping of that environment amongst disagreeing individuals is what politics exists for. I understand that in practical terms, boycotts almost never work but in the modern world, that’s hardly the point. This is a world that runs on image and duelling press releases. Boycotts are more about generating discussions, op-eds and uncomfortable looking people stammering into the unblinking eye of a news camera than actually taking money out of anybody’s pocket. The boycott as a modern-day political tool is simply too effective and powerful to hope that it’ll just be put aside the way poison gas was supposed to be after World War I. I just wish someone could give me a simple answer on just how, when and in what way these things are actually supposed to be used.

Page 1

Bookmark and Share

Advertisements

27 responses

31 08 2009
JorgXMcKie

First, of course, the Left has called for ‘Art’ to be political for as long as I can remember. Seems to have started in at least the 1930’s, although I wasn’t alive to remember it at the time.
Second, only some boycotts get national attention, especially from the MSM. For instance, boycotts by anti-gay groups of Pepsi appears to get mentioned by, well, by pretty much no one, although it seems they have at least 10 times the 60,000 petition signers claimed by the WF boycotters. I wonder why? Apparently it is that unusual weapon that can be wielded by only one side.
Third, I’m with you on both the legitimacy of boycotts (as long as no violence is committed) and that it is not a Free Speech issue. I think it would ‘work’ better if boycotts were allowed to happen with no MSM coverage whatsoever. That way, only those who could be approached more personally (even via blogs) would join in, and we could tell how strong the issue was.
Finally, it’s quite pleasant to read such a calm discussion of a potentially hot issue. Thank you.

31 08 2009
Wacky Hermit

I think that if you really, truly feel strongly that your dollars spent at Store X or on Product Y would go to supporting a nefariously evil cause, then you should do what is in your power: don’t shop at Store X or buy Product Y. I personally wouldn’t buy Soylent Greenola Bars from Dr. Mengele’s Emporium, no matter how tasty they were.

On the other hand, there’s very little out there in our current political sphere that’s nefariously evil. We are quite well sheltered here in America from the face of true evil, so much so that we imagine that someone with a political disagreement is evil. Orson Scott Card may oppose legal recognition of gay marriage, but he doesn’t go spearhunting for gays off overpasses in Hollywood or burn crosses on the lawns of his gay neighbors. He’s never advocated for violence against them. In fact he probably brings his gay neighbors and co-workers muffins and makes small talk with them. To conflate OSC’s position on gay marriage with the actual, mortal, evil persecution of gays (a la Iran) is a fallacy.

The problem is that in our society, we’ve decided that there’s no difference between violence and non-violent holding of an opposing viewpoint. I once had a conversation with a student of mine who was convinced that calling a boy a sissy was committing violence. Not “like violence,” not “tantamount to violence,” not “one step on the slippery slope toward violence,” but actual violence (I got her to clarify this because I was incredulous that she would actually believe it). In such a world, everybody who doesn’t think suicide bombing is justified hates Palestinians, everybody who disagrees with a decision to go to war hates their country, and everybody who dislikes a president’s policy decisions wants him dead. So long as we confuse rhetoric with fact, we will be faced with your boycotting dilemma, not knowing where to draw the line between what’s evil and what’s merely garden-variety disagreement.

31 08 2009
David Becker, Ph.D.

What a terrific post on a complex matter. One thing I look at when I avoid a product or artist is the civility of his dissent. The Dixie Chicks are not the sharpest knives in the drawer and appeared to just repeat hate-filled vitriol that they had heard, and in a venue in which attendees expected to hear music; I would have boycotted them if I could have. Genuine extremists of the right or left are also history for me (goodbye Michael Moore and Sean Penn.) And finally, because I am Jewish, I am particularly sensitive to those who support any sort of discrimination. This puts a few large corporations on my list of companies to avoid. As the post says, this is a personal matter and we all have to follow our own ethical guideposts. John Mackey’s op-ed piece was reasoned and mainstream, and, in addition, a personal opinion; it should not be the cause of a boycott of Whole Foods.

31 08 2009
hitnrun

“(and by all accounts it doesn’t — I haven’t played it myself)”

Some of the dialogue in Shadow Complex is awful enough to constitute a hateful agenda. But otherwise it’s a great game.

I see your conundrum here, but I’m not sure it’s quite the same thing as the Dixie Chicks incident (and not because I’m slightly closer to Card on the issue than you). The Dixie Chicks went overseas and denounced the president in the middle of (the real) Iraq War operations against Saddam’s Baathist regime. At the time, 70% of America supported the effort, Saddam was known to have used WMDs and was presumed to be stockpiling more to hold Eurasia hostage, and Al Qaeda was still a dangerous organization engaged with US troops in Afghanistan.

As such, the Dixie Chicks comment was, at best, selling out their country to play to a European crowd. At worst it was throwing in their lot with the enemies of their country, enemies who had already drawn blood (unless the singers harbored some secret knowledge about the facts on the ground that had yet to be discovered).

Also, not that it matters to the ethical or moral side of your problem, but it was the skull-exploding idiocy to say what they said when they depended almost exclusively on an audience of *country music fans* that made them swallow a real boycott. “Mainstream” entertainers, of course, say stuff like that all the time and it doesn’t hurt their bottom line much (at least, to the extent of their economic perception, which admittedly isn’t very far).

As for Shadow Complex, I understand that a proper, rabble-rousing, full-throated boycott should go as far as possible, but isn’t it a bit of a stretch to not buy a game with no author credited based on a book with a different name?

31 08 2009
bgates

I certainly don’t have a simple answer for your question, but I’d like to note that if you rephrase your goal from only supporting those you agree with to not supporting those you disagree with, your options broaden considerably. There’s a giant number of books and even movies and tv shows that were made a long time ago. Agree or disagree with Orson Welles’ politics (if he had any), you can be sure he won’t donate the proceeds from your copy of The Magnificent Ambersons to a cause you abhor.

31 08 2009
Typewriter King

The point about collaboration is a great one. We don’t have individual artisans crafting every aspect of their business anymore. The modern division of labor means that boycotts are no longer precise weapons, and now damage the whole socio-political spectrum each time they are employed. Even targeting a whole nation with an embargo harms more than the intended country, as an widget is the product of a globalized division of labor.

Our political attitudes haven’t yet caught up with the market reality of economic interdependency, to the detriment of everyone. But we need to catch up, and find a way to live together and prosper.

31 08 2009
guy

“I believe in free markets and the right of free association which means that people have the right to buy or not buy a particular product based on whatever reason they like.”

FASCIST!!!!

31 08 2009
NDC

I enjoyed this exploration of the issue of boycotts, but I think there’s a fundamental difference between the Dixie Chicks behavior and your other two examples. The Dixie Chicks in the context of performing their “art” made an overt political statement. Card and Mackey made their political statements in a forum removed from what it is that they are selling. They didn’t explicitly link their expectation that you agree with them politically to the consumption of their products. The Dixie Chicks did, and that, to me, puts them in a special category of inviting boycott.

31 08 2009
Brett L

NDC:

I’m not sure you can say that of Mackey. His editorial specifically held out the Whole Foods insurance/health care model as one to be emulated. Successfully boycotting Whole Foods could then be seen (by those advocating universal, government purchased/run health care) as a way to destroy and discredit an alternative competing model. Considering how close the rest of the Whole Foods corporate structure is to the ‘corporate good citizenship’ that many advocates of universal healthcare also advocate, I think its throwing the baby out with the bath water.

31 08 2009
delsyn

You are absolutely right — I will correct that.

31 08 2009
John Costello

The Whole Foods boycott has been met by a “buycott”of people who agree with the CEO.

31 08 2009
algie

Don’t feel like the Lone Ranger in refusing to look at anything Sean Penn does. I , and several other people I am acquainted with agree that if low crawling naked over broken glass was the only way out of a Sean Penn venue, then please have EMT’s standing by.

For Sean Penn and his Hollywood friends
Who think they are setting the trends
When I spend my dough
I want you to know
It won’t be on such sad odds and ends

….nnnn..’o.o’..uu!u….algie
Illegitimi nOn carborundum

31 08 2009
James

I don’t have much of an opinion about this, but I would note that the article that Mackay wrote was in the Wall Street Journal, not the Washington Post – as your link attests.

James

31 08 2009
ElvenPhoenix

I think you are comparing apples and oranges with your choice of Natalie Maines and John Mackey, a better choice would be Natalie Maines and Sean Penn.

Part of what enraged a lot of people about Natalie Maines was not her expressing her opinion so much as her expressing anti-American sentiment in front of a foreign audience, where presumably they agreed with her and she was safe from being booed (which most assuredly would have happened had she said the same thing in front of her former fans in the US). I used to love the Dixie Chicks. Has she simply expressed her feelings in a US interview, op-ed, or in front of an American audience I would have been offended but would probably still buy their CDs. By virtue of expressing that sentiment in front of a FOREIGN AUDIENCE she has caused me, along with many others, to never again purchase or listen to her band.

Regarding John Mackey – didn’t our President expressly say that he welcomed viewpoints from all sides during this health care debate? Why yes, I believe he did:

So Mackey took our President at his word and wrote an op-ed expressing his opinion as well options that (again, in his opinion) would achieve the stated goal – reforming health care. And the left went nuts and started a boycott, while the right is supporting his freedom of speech via a Whole Foods Buycott.

On Scott Card, well, I don’t agree with a lot of his views – just like I don’t agree with the Mormon church on a lot of things. I don’t think he’s anti-American (as is the case with both Natalie Maines and Sean Penn). I’m not going to boycott someone just because we have a disagreement on policy – think Susan Sarandon. I don’t boycott her, although we are polar opposites politically. I disagree with her opinions, but she is an American and entitled to them. Just as I am, just as you are.

The real issue is where the dividing line is. Mine is whether I think someone is anti- or pro- American. Where’s yours?

31 08 2009
Weisshaupt

I would speculate that the appropriate use of a Boycott is in a situation where there is a definitive and tangible wrong being done that needs to be corrected. In other words, when actual force (or threat of force) is being employed against a group or individual by another group or individual. I don’t believe using a boycott to punish people for their opinions and thoughts is appropriate. (What would be better is a reasoned response to those opinions and thoughts demonstrating why one believes them to be wrong)

Every individual has a right to boycott whatever they want (unless its Obamacare, in which case you will be fined if you don’t participate) but that doesn’t mean is always a good thing to do. Bonefish has decided to ask patrons to not carry wepons on their premises. It is their right to do so. But implied in that ban is a threat of force that you will be evicted if you do carry a weapon.

I am not calling for or advocating a formal boycott of Bonefish (its in fact one of my favorite restaurants) However, I think an informal “boycott” of the restaurant will occur, if only because those who conceal carry know they are not welcome there. In the end as long as we have the freedom to make our own choices, we will discriminate. Discrimination is a part of any free culture. Sometimes discrimination is appropriate and wise, and other times its unfair and irresponsible. Thats where the ethics come in. Are you discriminating to harm someone (Financially hurt somone for their opinions ) , or are you discriminating to avoid a conflict ( Gun advocates avoiding Bone fish) , or are you trying to put pressure on someone so they they cease harming others (Jim Crow Polices in Buses and Restaurants)

The problem with the Poltical Left is they wish to take away a person’s right to form and act on their own opinions, and instead subsititute thier own opinons and ideas of “correct” behavior (like not criticizing Obama care or being forced to buy obama care or face a fine) . That is the essence of political correctness – the defining and enforcement of “correct” behavior (not be be confused with defining and punishing incorrect (criminal) behavior )

31 08 2009
Peter

I would like to see boycotts of anyone saying that those who disagree with these idiotic bills in Congress do not want the poor to have health care. There are maybe ten people in the entire United States of America who think the poor should not have health care, everyone else is arguing about how to get there. Are boycotts the way to reach agreement?

I would like to see boycotts of those saying that disagreement on gay marriage equals hate for gays. There has never been a society that survived with gay marriage. While it is possible that up until the dawn of the 21st Century that people were just plumb stupid, it is even more possible that they were not. So, let’s boycott human history!

31 08 2009
Peter

It’s funny, too, Willie Nelson is, if anything, way to the left of the Dixie Chicks. Yet none of us uneducated rednecks boycotted him. Willie supported that geeky dwarf from Ohio, whose name escapes me at the moment, he did concerts for lefty causes. He wasn’t boycotted because he stated his beliefs and then got up and did his music someplace else. If it wasn’t a concert for some cause, we didn’t hear about politics.

If that Maines woman had, on US soil, stated her opinions about the war, etc, in a non concert atmosphere, the Dixie Chicks would still be stars.

31 08 2009
kyleb

If I boycotted everyone I disagreed with politically, I’d be left with damn few entertainment options. The rule of thumb I follow is I boycott only when the art itself is being used to push the artist’s political agenda. This has the added benefit of steering me away from crap like The Day After Tomorrow. With music it’s different, because every rock group but Rush are damn hippie socialists. Luckily it’s pretty easy to ignore the lyrics.

31 08 2009
Kevin

The only products I boycott are Sara Lee’s because 1) they donate money to anti-gun causes and 2) I have plenty of alternatives.

But note: Sara Lee takes an affirmative action: they take part of the money I give them and give it to groups I despise.

I don’t believe that Orson Scott Card has said that he will donate his income from Shadow Complex to anti-gay-marriage groups. Nor did the Dixie Chicks announce that they were going to fund Code Pick from their sales. If they had, the boycott would ahve been about the ACTIONS, not their speech. Which is where I think the line should be drawn.

31 08 2009
toad

Also the Chicks doubled down when they came back to the states and all the usual suspects that the fans of Country Western hate came to their defense.

I remember a group talk on a conservative talk radio station saying that if you boycotted every music and movie star whose politics you hated you wouldn’t see or listen to much.

I won’t go to a Whatsername Fonda movie, Sein Pein, or Danny rubber glover, movie, but at the same time I use Netflix and Google.

31 08 2009
Donald C

Expanding on Weisshaupt’s first paragraph. An ‘organized’ boycott should be for where there is a tangible wrong to be corrected. My last boycott, for you young fellers, was with StarKist over dolphin unsafe tuna. In that case, a fishing process gone bad was needlessly killing dolphins, when a simple modification to the nets would eliminate the problem. Apparently, after enough loss of sales, StarKist decided it was worth the small price to mod the nets.

By that rubric, Bonefish is eligible. Likewise the Dixie Chicks, in the sense that we don’t want your politicizing in concerts. Now for the movie stars, in the sense that they never stop in the middle of a movie for a political discussion with the audience… after seeing some of them run off their mouth, I do indeed get the desire not to watch them in a movie. In this case, their real world actions have impacted my desire to see them act. Personally, we all make boycotts of this nature in any of the things we purchase.

Now, both Whole Foods and Orson Scott Card (an author which I like some of his writing and dislike others), they are being boycotted for an opinion. I find this very troubling. In Mackey’s case, yes Obama has asked for a conversation and discussion. So now, the liberals are going to boycott his company because he gave them what they asked.

I found his thoughts very helpful. I’m the Treasurer for a small Credit Union and we are looking at how to reduce costs in this recession (where investments are receiving 0.5% interest at best). One of our major expenses for us and our employees is health care, for a very ‘gold plated’ plan. I have asked the CFO to start a discussion with the Tellers (low pay like Store Cashiers), to see if they would consider a Whole Foods type program. Since they are young and healthy, more money in their pocket may indeed outweigh the risk associated with a $2,000.00 deductible.

31 08 2009
Briareos

I’ve never been involved in any sort of organized boycott, but there have certainly been times when my knowledge of the actions and beliefs of a person or company have made it impossible to purchase their products. For example, Absolut vodka did that ad a while back that showed a large chunk of the southwest United States labeled as the area Mexican nationalists call “Aztlan” with the line “In an Absolut (read: perfect) World.” I was sufficiently horrified by that it’s made it impossible to drink Absolut (and their Citron used to be my favorite). Similarly, the association of Sean Penn’s semi-mongoloid face with his seemingly unending stream of anti-American hate, and aid and comfort to our enemies means when he appears on screen it is impossible to separate the role from the man.

31 08 2009
Just me

I have a few things I personally will not buy due to one reason or another. I don’t typically support organized boycotts, however.

My aunt will not buy Charmin to this day because she found the “Please don’t squeeze the Charmin” ads with Mr. Whipple to be insulting to the intelligence of women. It doesn’t matter what ads Charmin’s run since or what they price their TP at, she will. not. buy. it.

So everyone makes judicious decisions when it comes to what to buy and what not to buy and the reasons behind those decisions are vast and not limited to politics or morality.

I think what’s troubling about many recent boycotts, including those of Glenn Beck is that they are aimmed at political speech. Do we want to become a country in which people do not express their political views/ideas out of fear for their livelihoods?

On the flip side, do we want to give $$ to people through our buying dollars who turn around and use it to support causes and agendas which we oppose?

I am to the point where I won’t boycott someone over political speech. I am not interested in restricting free speech in this country. I am, however, more likely to personally spend my dollars elsewhere if I view a company or individual to be using my $$ to push their political beliefs on me and mine.

31 08 2009
Mr P

What I found very odd was that nearly everyone I’ve seen boycotting Shadow Complex mentions the gay marriage and not anything else the man ever wrote. Card’s an active political writer who’s written quite a lot that would irritate progressives over the last decade, so it’s strange that it’s all anyone could come up with.

It’s also strange that nobody seems to mention that the villains of Shadow Complex are a bunch of radical leftists called the Progressive Restoration and include pretty obvious allusions to real political figures. It’s not mentioned in the game, but if you wanted to mock the guy for being a right-wing nutjob it’s prime fodder.

What’s REALLY odd is that I can’t find anything about Card’s politics in relation to a Shadow Complex boycott before the one post you linked from Aug. 20, followed by a flurry of news articles and opinion pieces (many mentioning the post in question) the very next day. The date’s important because it’s the day AFTER Shadow Complex’s release, and a huge number of sales were immediate. That implies that before the coverage of the ‘boycott’ nobody cared (which is consistent with my observations above), and just restates why ‘Gaming Journalism’ is generally seen as an oxymoron.

2 09 2009
Xenovore

I’m going to “boycott” Shadow Complex simply because it’s not the sort of game I want to play. (I could care less about Card’s or any other Chair employee’s political views.)

Boycotting the game based on the political views of any members of the development team? Ludicrous! That’s rather like me saying I won’t drink Mountain Dew because my brother’s friend’s cousin’s sister doesn’t like Mountain Dew. =P

4 09 2009
Peter David

I think you make a lot of valid points in your very balanced and well-reasoned view of the situation (and thanks for the shout out on my work on X-Factor.)

The one place where we diverge, I suppose, is whether boycotts are a free speech issue. I feel they most definitely are, because the endgame (as you put it) is ultimately to restrict free speech. They are designed to put people who have voiced unpopular ideas out of business, and they are designed to make sure that anyone who possesses unpopular ideas think twice or three times about saying anything for fear of facing economic sanctions and potential loss of livelihood. The underlying strength of a free society is, “I disagree with what you have to say, but will defend to the death your right to say it,” not, “I disagree with what you have to say, and will do everything in my power to punish you for saying it.”

Should free speech mean freedom from consequences? Well, no. But the answer to free speech is always more free speech, and that should be the only consequence of speaking your mind. Boycotts are not free speech, no matter how much the practitioners of them claim that they are. Boycotts–particularly as utilized by those who take issue with opinions that are in opposition to theirs–are attempts to bludgeon someone into submission economically.

It’s not that people are offended because, for instance, the CEO of Whole Foods has opinions they don’t like. They’re offended because they KNOW his opinions, and the reason they know them is because he availed himself of free speech in a free society. So they’ll boycott Whole Foods and shop at Pathmark or Shop & Stop, and for all they know the CEO of the former is opposed to gay marriage and the CEO of the latter thinks that abortion should be criminalized. So unless they’re performing due diligence to check and see the corporate record of every store they’re frequenting, I’m forced to conclude that this is entirely about free speech, because it’s the use of free speech that’s getting people in trouble and it’s the intolerance of free speech that’s causing the boycotts.

I suppose what it comes down to is this: Protecting popular ideas is easy. Unpopular ideas are the ones that need the most protecting, if for no other reason than that many of the ideas we accept today as truth or even simple common sense, began their existence as unpopular ideas. The Church boycotted Galileo because he opined that the Earth moved around the sun; is that really the lead we want to follow?

PAD

5 09 2009
delsyn

Thanks for stopping by Peter!

I’m afraid we’re going to disagree on this issue. Boycotts aren’t Free Speech. What they ARE are other elements of freedom that are just as important — freedom of association, freedom of commerce and freedom of conscience. Note that none of those things necessarily make boycotts moral or ethical to use but by your argument I give up some freedoms (association, commerce, conscience) to protect the freedom of speech of a man I disagree with.

I’m afraid I’d have to reject that. I don’t believe my choice to buy or not buy a game prevents Card from saying what he will. If he chooses to modify his speech in the face of such things, that too is the free market in action and it works for both the right and the left. I have the right to, for example, choose to purchase my groceries only at markets owned by Caucasians or refuse to buy a game created by a designer who has donated to the Republican party (bye bye Sims!). One can and should bear the full moral burden of excersizing those rights but in doing so, I don;t believe anyone’s rights are endangered. These interactions are how societies get ordered in the first place.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s