Media Release - Quashing Consumer Sovereignty

The Australian Government is considering making laws to restrict the right of consumers to boycott goods and services they have ethical problems with. What is a boycott but some consumers telling other consumers what they think of a product? This shows that the current government has left behind its heritage as a 'mass party' and become a 'class party'.

Sorry for the political lingo but Me First! has studied politics at uni. A mass party is one that advocates a political ideology that anyone of any background or status can adhere to. In contrast a class party represents a particular group within society. Every thing the current government does shows that it has abandoned its interest in liberty for all and now exists just for the enrichment and aggrandisement of a select patronage - profit-seeking limited liability corporations who have never come across the notion of enlightened self-interest let alone human compassion.

This is fine with Me First! as it helps us distinguish our political brand but we have some advice for the government on how to truly be what they are. One way to do that is for them to better understand the nature of dissent so as to better quash it. The rest of this media release takes the form of a letter to the Australian Government (so the rest of you can bugger off now).

* * * * *

If you change the law so that consumers in the form of lobby groups cannot openly advise other consumers to boycott products they deem to be detrimental to environmental and human needs then they will simply get sly on your arses. Consider the following statements...

"I never buy Benny Wareman furniture because it lacks the tasteful designs my home environment deserves."

This quote is only expressing an opinion of personal tastes. Or is it? Note the italicised word "environment". What if this is some sort of code among consumers for concern for the environmentally degrading practice of using timber from old growth forests? How can an oppressive corporate state ever tell just by looking at this?

"I always buy my clothes from Hippy Hut Eco Emporium because they provide good conditions and award wages to the clothes-makers."

In this quote the consumer is actively promoting a company. This looks pro-industry but such statements imply by omission that other stores fall short of the ethical standards that many consumers desire. What if they then published long lists of recommended providers of ethical products? Are they in effect putting a dent in the profits of those absent from the lists?

"I have ethical problems with Mon Tinto International but I cannot express them in public due to government laws restricting my free speech. I can however tell you one-to-one if you contact me at [contact info]..."

Ouch! This one generates suspicion towards a particular corporation while at the same time blaming your draconian policy for generating such suspicion. It also shows that with modern communications technology private conversations can happen rapidly and propagate far-and-wide.

These three statements show just how much more work you have to do if you are to convert Australia into a homogenous flock of credulous force-fed consumers. In order to prevent such statements from working as a substitute for open boycotts you will have to:

* Get access to the content of the private communications of all Australians to determine if any further action needs to be taken to defend corporate profits from clandestine 'private boycotts'.

* Prevent consumers from saying complimentary things of an ethical nature that references only some companies as 'selective consumer promotions'.

* Prevent consumers from criticizing any aspect of a good or service on the off-chance that it may be some coded message masquerading as a 'personal preference non-purchase'.

This will be a legal quagmire of epic proportions. We have an even better suggestion for you - remove consumer sovereignty entirely! Charge all Australians compulsory fees for baskets of goods and services that they must accept. These can be contingent upon the income levels and demographics of consumers.

"You must be home on Saturday to receive the 'working class young parents furniture package' that we have charged to your bank account."

Is this ludicrous? Come on! This is what you secretly want and it makes you hot!

We will send you our bill in the morning for this advice from Me First!