If people disagree with his position, they have every right to peacefully make their dissent known. If the easiest way they have to do that is to boycott his business, then it is entirely acceptable for them to do so. And lets be honest, the ability for people to engage in a debate with him is limited at best. The average person isn't likely to have the opportunity to write an editoral for the Wall Street Journal, and a small minority of anti-reform fanatics have made sure that it is impossible to have an actual dialog in town hall meetings. Debate would be great, but where is it going to happen?
At the end of the day, people want to feel that they're being heard. And if they believe a boycott is the best option they have to get their opinion out, then we should support their right to do so.
In an ideal world, the purpose of political speech is to persuade. Mackey's piece, while inflammatory in parts, is an argument that he intends to persuade at least some people.
In an ideal world, the appropriate response to political speech that one find's wrong, objectionable, erroneous, or otherwise misleading is to engage in political speech yourself. The cure for political speech is more political speech.
However, I agree with you that the average person does not have the same level of access to venues for political speech that Mackey does. It's not easy to get pride of place on the WSJ editorial page. Not even terribly easy to get your letter to the editor printed.
Nevertheless, we have to ask ourselves what the purpose of the boycott is. We can all agree that free people are necessarily free to spend their money where they like, going out of their way to avoid certain brands in favor of others. Usually, we avoid brands because the products that the brand represents are flawed, sub-par, or fraudulent. Obviously, this is not the case with the Whole Foods boycott. Boycotting Whole Foods for the political speech of its CEO is an action not directed at Whole Foods per se, but at the political opinion of one man responsible for the company.
Will affecting Whole Foods' bottom-line persuade Mackey? Will it persuade the rest of the public? Unlikely in either case. A boycott of this sort is not meant to persuade, it's meant to punish. This is why people like the author of the linked article and others think that this kind of boycott crosses the line from civil speech to incivility. The rationale seems to be: if we can't persuade Mackey or achieve a place on a soapbox comparable to his, then perhaps we can punish him enough that he will regret having spoken up.
Seeking to punish Mackey for expressing his opinion is not an equivalent act of free speech. It crosses the line into incivility.
It gets media attention to the boycott itself, perhaps, and to the vague idea that "people disagree with John Mackey", but it doesn't contribute to the discourse. It's the equivalent of John Mackey making a poignant and eloquent speech, and a mob of campus radicals shouting him down. One of these sides is trying to actually say something, and the other side is just screaming "shut up" at the top of their lungs.
Refusing to buy products from John Mackey, or from Ben & Jerry, or from the Dixie Chicks because you disagree with their politics is the height of arrogance: "I am so 100% certain that the federal government should be running a health insurance company (or blowing up Iraq, or legalizing oil-drilling in Alaska) that I want you to lose your livelihood for ever expressing an opinion to the contrary".
> I am so 100% certain that the federal government should be running a health insurance company (or blowing up Iraq, or legalizing oil-drilling in Alaska) that I want you to lose your livelihood for ever expressing an opinion to the contrary
That is not at all what is says. What it really says is this
> I am so 100% certain that the federal government should be running a health insurance company (or blowing up Iraq, or legalizing oil-drilling in Alaska) that I will not voluntarily support you with my hard earned cash for expressing an opinion to the contrary
> The average person isn't likely to have the opportunity to write an editoral for the Wall Street Journal
The average person isn't likely to write as well as that article was written.
> a small minority of anti-reform fanatics have made sure that it is impossible to have an actual dialog in town hall meetings.
Those things are just marketing events, anyway. The "debate" is going to happen elsewhere.
> Debate would be great, but where is it going to happen?
. . . the same place it always happens: where it isn't televised. It happens in online discussions like this, and it happens in discussions amongst friends, families, and co-workers.
> At the end of the day, people want to feel that they're being heard. And if they believe a boycott is the best option they have to get their opinion out, then we should support their right to do so.
I support that right, even when I think it's being poorly used.
At the end of the day, people want to feel that they're being heard. And if they believe a boycott is the best option they have to get their opinion out, then we should support their right to do so.