1 Bed, 1 Bath, No Meat
Prashant Kothari has some interesting comments on a Wall Street Journal article on vegetarians-only apartment buildings in Bombay [Mumbai]. Of course, libertarians will all say there's nothing wrong with this… but I'm wondering what a Green, for instance, would make of it. Is "economic coercion" less offensive in a good cause?
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Is "economic coercion" less offensive in a good cause?
Of course. Economic coercion, via boycotts, is one of the main weapons of the Greens. Regulation, another form of coercion, is another.
They have no problem with coercion, economic or otherwise. They are collectivists, and therefor statists. Without coercion, they would have nothing.
They have no problem with coercion, economic or otherwise.
No, no, no, don't be silly. Economic coercion is when you make a Green or green-favored identity group pay the actual cost to do something. Creating communities is when a Green does something they like to other people, preferably making you pay for it.
Do you think they'd mind my leather couch?