GOP defense of Boy Scouts draws hypocrisy charge

[SaintCad]

"I have trouble identifying the right principle here"

 

So do I. What is the state trying to say?

a) It will not do any business with a corporation unless it supports Boy Scouts? (sounds like Fascism)

b) Once you start supporting Boy Scouts, you must do so in perpetuity? (don't policies change. can't someone change their mind?)

c) You cannot support some youth groups and not others? (again - what if BofA chooses not to support Ku Klux Junior Klans? Is that discrimination?)

d) We are whores and will write any legislation to get re-elected even if it is poorly thought out, unenforcable, will never pass, and/or unConstitutional? (BINGO!!!!)

 

[yellow_hammer]

SaintCad said,

 

"a) It will not do any business with a corporation unless it supports Boy Scouts? (sounds like Fascism)"

 

I got tired of the silly Fascist charges years ago. Please, you can do better.

 

Fascists took control of all means of production, dismissed democratically elected parliaments, and forced children to join the Hitler Youth and Italian Fascist Youth organizations or face punishment. The differences between that and what we are discussing are light years apart.

[SaintCad]

While I'm not comparing these legislators to Hitler or Mousallini, I think there are some comparisons:

 

"Fascists took control of all means of production"

How different is forcing corporations to support private agendas? It all comes down to a philosophy of "You support our causes or we'll MAKE support our causes!"

 

"dismissed democratically elected parliaments"

Legislation by pursestrings to get around the Constitution. Sounds like an endrun around democracy to me.

 

"forced children to join the Hitler Youth and Italian Fascist Youth organizations or face punishment."

Force companies to support Boy Scouts or face punishment. Hmmmmmmmm . . .

 

[GernBlansten]

Wikipedia (Ya I know)

Fascism is typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic. The fascist state regulates and controls (as opposed to nationalizing) the means of production. Fascism exalts the nation, state, or race as superior to the individuals, institutions, or groups composing it. Fascism uses explicit populist rhetoric; calls for a heroic mass effort to restore past greatness; and demands loyalty to a single leader, often to the point of a cult of personality.

[SaintCad]

"Fascism is typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic."

 

So the government punishing a private corporation for not supporting a private organization is not a form of state control? And the original post had Fascism as a sidenote to the discussion.

[Hunt]

Would it be fascism if a Democratic administration refused to do business with companies that only donated money to conservative causes? This is my problem--on the one hand, I'm troubled by governments using their contracting power to pressure companies into making or not making donations to particular organizations. On the other hand, should a government do business with companies that are ethically challenged in other ways? What if, say, a state said that it wouldn't buy products from companies offer benefits to same-sex couples, or to the contrary, wouldn't buy products from companies that didn't offer such benefits?

[stlscouter]

Hunt

 

The Federal Government already does do this in the form of "set-asides" in government contracts to benefit minorities and women etc.

It "could" be argued and has that affirmative action programs fit into this government "pressure" discussion.

 

[Hunt]

Perhaps what makes people more uncomfortable about this situation is the government telling businesses what to think. You can easily imagine some governments refusing to do business with companies that DO donate to scouting.

But remember, we're talking about a situation in which the government is a customer--the issue is what criteria we think it's OK for the government to apply in deciding who to do business with. Is it OK for the government to decide whether the "values" of the business are acceptable? It seems to me that looked at this way, liberals and conservatives should have the same concerns about this.