For the same reasons any boycott is enstated. A boycott is nothing more than many people doing the homework and agreeing that a particular product is too damaging to be supported. There are thousands of products that should be boycotted, but since peoples' eyes would glaze over, only the worst are publicized heavily. Doesn't mean they are the only ones. Just the worst.
> Why in the world should I or anyone
> waste my time deciding whether Corporation A or Corporation B is
> the least evil?
Alot of the work has been done for you by others and its simply a matter of finding out. But if that is too much, common sense can do alot. Why buy the overly packaged product when another less packaged product is just as good? Why buy an item that was shipped from overseas when a locally created item is just as good that didn't require so much energy to ship and helps support local more independent commerce? These sort of considerations are what we can help each other figure out and can result in a much better kind of demand that business will respond to, if enough people can create the demand.
> I really don't understand why private consumption
> choices should be a topic of conversation at all.
It basicly comes down to the fact that the US with 4% of the people of the world consumes 25% of the world's resources. This greed is having a terrible impact around the world as multi-national corporations plunder from those least able to fight back around the world, often even on our own Indian reservations. It is now causing wars for oil. The battles over water are intensifying all over the world (including here), and its getting very serious now.
>> but it seems Tully is asking about
>> something a little different.
>
>I don't understand his/her use of the term "surplus." How in the
> world can one determine what is surplus and what is not in one's
> personal life. "Surplus" is intelligible only as referring to
> capital, not to wages (be they high or low).
Wages are very much something that can be surplus, especially when one has decided it is important to live well below their means. Just because the bank will loan you hundreds of thousands for a mortgage, doesn't mean you must sign such a mortgage. You could choose to sign a mortgage for 1/4 of what you qualify for and pay it off in 10 years or less. Its a win win situation, since the money that would have gone to payments on a mortgage can now be used for other things, or you can scale back on the work you do and live an easier life, comforted by the fact that you aren't contributing as much to the excess consumption in this country.
> We can argue about the
> proportion of a leftist's income which should go to left
> organizations, etc. but I at least have no interest in any
> discussion of what I should or shouldn't buy with my disposable
> income (and I suspect that is what Tully means by "surplus").
I'm not saying any needs to go to leftist organizations. You may choose your church or other charitable giving. Or to change your consumption to greener products. But if we are interested in ways to make the world better for all of us, we may want to rethink putting that surplus into a big screen TV.
>Tully also speaks of "liberals and conservatives" as though that
> were a significant division.
You don't see a difference? I sure do.
--tully