More Than 40 Radio Stations Might Drop Limbaugh and Hannity

[Toro]

People will decide on their own whether or not they will buy the product. That's free exchange. It doesn't matter how much bluster some pressure group spews. It's up to the individual buyer.

 

[Pogo]

If people decide they want to buy American because its American even if the foreign product is better and cheaper in every way, that's the free market.

Yup. Not all that rational in purely economic terms, but quite true all the same.

If someone wants to buy organic food even if it isn't healthier for them, that's the free market.

So far, so good.



Completely true, so far.

If people don't want to buy goods from Russia because they've granted Snowden asylum, that's the free market.

Again, not exactly a coherent economic decision, but absolutely a free one.

And if people don't want to buy products from companies that advertise on shows where the host calls a woman a slut, that's the free market.

Not exactly the same thing. But more importantly, it's a false premise.

The CORRECT premise would be "IF ADVERTISERS elect not to purchase ad time on shows where the host calls a woman a slut, that's a free market decision."

But that is not necessarily the case where ADVERTISERS are COERCED into not buying ad time on shows where the host calls a woman a slut by threat of economic sanctions.

That takes the "free" out of "free market."

The coercion is made explicit in the way the "request" for ADVERTISERS to boycott Rush's show is made. "You companies are hereby 'requested' not to buy ad time on Rush's show. IF you fail to comply with this very civil and polite request, THEN WE WILL PROCEED TO HAVE LOTS OF PEOPLE 'decide' to boycott the purchase of your products."

As I noted earlier, this is not a simple discussion about one "level" of "boycott."

Moron.org asks merchants to boycott the purchase of AD TIME on Rush's show. The THREAT is that if the merchants fail to comply, lots of folks will engage in a boycott of the merchant's products.

No matter how often you make the claim, it will still always be false to pretend that this is an example of the FREE market. It simply and clearly is not. It is a matter of coercion. Extortion. Blackmail.

Bolshoi.

We quoted the actual definition of blackmail earlier; it hasn't changed in four days. And an ad buyer purchasing a block on a radio program IS a purchase of a service, just as walking into Mal-Wart and buying a box of Kleenex -- or going out of your way to buy that box somewhere else because you won't support Mal-Wart -- is.

What you're doing is agreeing on the principle and then making an exception when it comes to your chosen thought control. You want it both ways.

I've heard that about you too.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

If people decide they want to buy American because its American even if the foreign product is better and cheaper in every way, that's the free market.

Yup. Not all that rational in purely economic terms, but quite true all the same.



So far, so good.



Completely true, so far.



Again, not exactly a coherent economic decision, but absolutely a free one.

And if people don't want to buy products from companies that advertise on shows where the host calls a woman a slut, that's the free market.

Not exactly the same thing. But more importantly, it's a false premise.

The CORRECT premise would be "IF ADVERTISERS elect not to purchase ad time on shows where the host calls a woman a slut, that's a free market decision."

But that is not necessarily the case where ADVERTISERS are COERCED into not buying ad time on shows where the host calls a woman a slut by threat of economic sanctions.

That takes the "free" out of "free market."

The coercion is made explicit in the way the "request" for ADVERTISERS to boycott Rush's show is made. "You companies are hereby 'requested' not to buy ad time on Rush's show. IF you fail to comply with this very civil and polite request, THEN WE WILL PROCEED TO HAVE LOTS OF PEOPLE 'decide' to boycott the purchase of your products."

As I noted earlier, this is not a simple discussion about one "level" of "boycott."

Moron.org asks merchants to boycott the purchase of AD TIME on Rush's show. The THREAT is that if the merchants fail to comply, lots of folks will engage in a boycott of the merchant's products.

No matter how often you make the claim, it will still always be false to pretend that this is an example of the FREE market. It simply and clearly is not. It is a matter of coercion. Extortion. Blackmail.

Bolshoi.

We quoted the actual definition of blackmail earlier; it hasn't changed in four days. And an ad buyer purchasing a block on a radio program IS a purchase of a service, just as walking into Mal-Wart and buying a box of Kleenex -- or going out of your way to buy that box somewhere else because you won't support Mal-Wart -- is.

What you're doing is agreeing on the principle and then making an exception when it comes to your chosen thought control. You want it both ways.

I've heard that about you too.

^ another sterling example of ploddo's inability to debate.

Meanwhile, if Merchant "A" is "persuaded" to "boycott airing ads on Rush by a THREAT of a boycott of his product or service, then "A" might very well make the "decision" to engage in the advertising boycott of Rush's program. But the decision is STILL not a free market choice. It is capitulation to coercion.

Oh, and "blackmail" ALSO means

2. to attempt to influence the actions of (a person), esp by unfair pressure or threats

-- blackmail - definition of blackmail by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. (see the second set of definitions).

Yup. Ploddo is flatly wrong again. No surprise.