Recent commentary, it would appear by so called 'freedom restricting' advocates actually reminded as of an age old problem and likely easy source for hypocrisy accusation, namely pointing out the often times muddled ethical stance given by businesses in their typified dealings. As Tim Cook recently spoke out against the passage of laws in Indiana, 'discrimination rights' defenders on the right spoke out against Apples transnational practices in dealing with big human rights offenders on this very issue. Of course, I recall the quandary given by IKEA in an given radio article piece on NPR so many months ago, in discussing the at times tension given matter having an open shop in Russia as the status of gay rights were in decline while IKEA were so much openly promoting to tolerance in their own work place. Of course, in doing business, it always raises the question when is enough enough in doing business, or as likened to strategic change in foreign policy when does suffering others economically by not doing business actually work counter intuitively to the process of promoting social change. On the other hand, the stick punishing approach to business says if you want opportunity then maybe considerations of change with respect to social policy promotes advocacy, while on the other hand, neither fully removing carrots seem promotes relation and exchange, and something certainly defining a natural inter dependencies exchange. On the other hand, I don't know that, despite potential hypocrisy, that I fault Tim Cook as much either in speaking out as an advocate here against Indiana laws. After all, Indiana is more so on Tim Cooks doorstep as is Indiana for us all whom call ourselves Americans, and at times feel passionate in speaking our piece or given to what ever activism that we compels us, and it seems while progress is made in advancing and asserting an ever changing awareness with respect to the nature of law and ethics in defining what must have seemed un imaginable decades prior defines a new world believed more strongly to the notions that each and everyone should have a fair opportunity at life, and be given fair opportunities in life to participate in a given marketplace. Its hard to see that a 'freedom' again is so if it is restricting the rights of others...after all those 'killing' in the name of God might in some warped manner define their 'right' as 'freedom'.
I can't prognosticate what the laws in Indiana might do in so far as its own business and economy in general, but likely I imagine relative to all other states in this country neither having defined such laws, and neither as of recent history having enacted or defining such laws, would likely any feel exactly comforted by the situation of 'freedom restricting' measures existing, or in other words, business in some ways I imagine may continue in the state of Indiana in so ways and decline I imagine in other ways. I, for one, do feel less personally comfortable by the formalized existence of legal discrimination, one because it is more clearly defined and given legal shelter in so far as social practices are concerned, even if naturally legally unchallenged cases had emerged prior in any number of instances. On the other hand, Indiana, like Kansas and any number of states, particularly in the South, appear to be a case of any number of states that one should imagine are less desirable by those only from the other states where social tolerances for people are greater not less so. At least overtly when laws are in place and slated towards the application of discrimination, its hard to see this as a good sign. Whether this were a growing generational cultural trend, or whether the state of Indiana signals something of a potential growing rift in the GOP in the future I imagine remains to be seen. Although likely one should imagine this country isn't the same country relative to decades prior, at least revivalism to discrimination movements, anti immigration, and anything else that has managed to wind up in GOP present populism trend may actually end hurting the party in the long run, if not with potentially some generation of younger voter but also those having felt even more so alienated by its hijacking for the hoodwink culture wars. Sure Indiana is not alone by itself but maybe only another step likely towards a newly defined civil rights stand off in the future.
I can't prognosticate what the laws in Indiana might do in so far as its own business and economy in general, but likely I imagine relative to all other states in this country neither having defined such laws, and neither as of recent history having enacted or defining such laws, would likely any feel exactly comforted by the situation of 'freedom restricting' measures existing, or in other words, business in some ways I imagine may continue in the state of Indiana in so ways and decline I imagine in other ways. I, for one, do feel less personally comfortable by the formalized existence of legal discrimination, one because it is more clearly defined and given legal shelter in so far as social practices are concerned, even if naturally legally unchallenged cases had emerged prior in any number of instances. On the other hand, Indiana, like Kansas and any number of states, particularly in the South, appear to be a case of any number of states that one should imagine are less desirable by those only from the other states where social tolerances for people are greater not less so. At least overtly when laws are in place and slated towards the application of discrimination, its hard to see this as a good sign. Whether this were a growing generational cultural trend, or whether the state of Indiana signals something of a potential growing rift in the GOP in the future I imagine remains to be seen. Although likely one should imagine this country isn't the same country relative to decades prior, at least revivalism to discrimination movements, anti immigration, and anything else that has managed to wind up in GOP present populism trend may actually end hurting the party in the long run, if not with potentially some generation of younger voter but also those having felt even more so alienated by its hijacking for the hoodwink culture wars. Sure Indiana is not alone by itself but maybe only another step likely towards a newly defined civil rights stand off in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment