By, Chris Rossini
Email | Twitter
My post from earlier today has received some fiery comments, so I want clarify my argument so that it's not misunderstood.
First, I'm well aware that a petition is not the same as using the government. I never stated that petitions should be abolished because of any type of aggression.
All 500,000 people that signed the petition have the option of never buying a Trump product, and never shopping at Macy's again.
However, that doesn't seem to be good enough.
The signers want Macy's to cut ties with Trump because of his political beliefs. In other words, the signers want to disrupt trade that would take place between Macy's and people that could care less what Trump thinks politically.
Can you imagine what would happen to the division of labor if we had to check with every merchant where they stood politically?
Should I ask my deli where each employee stands on abortion?
What if my plumber supports the Iraq war?
I disagree politically with just about every Hollywood actor, but yet I go to the movies.
I could start petitions all day long.
America has already morphed into a politically correct society. But that political correctness, and tying politics into everything, is now spreading into the area where peaceful trade occurs.
Whether it's companies plastering on their websites how "green" they are....to where Chik Fil A stands on gay marriage...to whether or not Donald Trump thinks that Obama is a foreigner....
The destructiveness is not in the petition itself, but in the disruption to the division of labor and to the satisfaction of customers, who can care less about the political positions of their trading partners.