Flashback During a Whole Foods Protest: CEO John Mackey on Corporate Social Responsibility
There's a demonstration against Whole Foods going on now in Washington, D.C., mostly because CEO John Mackey recently penned an anti-government health care op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. (Full disclosure: Mackey has contributed to Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes this website.) And instead of simply standing athwart ObamaCare, he actually offered up a series of sensible, market-oriented reforms that should be given a shot.
As the protesters protest, take a moment to read the great 2005 roundtable debate Reason staged with Mackey, economist Milton Friedman, and Cypress Semiconductor CEO T.J. Rodgers. Since its publication, it's been one of our most widely read and discussed stories. A snippet from Mackey's opening salvo:
The most successful businesses put the customer first, ahead of the investors. In the profit-centered business, customer happiness is merely a means to an end: maximizing profits. In the customer-centered business, customer happiness is an end in itself, and will be pursued with greater interest, passion, and empathy than the profit-centered business is capable of.
Not that we're only concerned with customers. At Whole Foods, we measure our success by how much value we can create for all six of our most important stakeholders: customers, team members (employees), investors, vendors, communities, and the environment. Our philosophy is graphically represented in the opposite column.
There is, of course, no magical formula to calculate how much value each stakeholder should receive from the company. It is a dynamic process that evolves with the competitive marketplace. No stakeholder remains satisfied for long. It is the function of company leadership to develop solutions that continually work for the common good.
Whole thing, with responses by Friedman and Rodgers and a final wrap-up by Mackey, here.
Read Mackey's recent WSJ col here. And read Reason's Radley Balko's wrap-up of anti-Whole Foods hate here.
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
I know this thread is mostly going to be people agreeing with this and each other, and I love the first paragraph quoted there, but I really wish I understood why people hate freedom enough to protest against it.
[Paul Craney, executive director of the D.C. Republican Committee,] says he regularly drives his Jeep Grand Cherokee, bearing John McCain and Rudy Giuliani bumper stickers, to the Tenleytown [Whole Foods] location. "I can't tell you how many times I get stuff put on my car that says something?snide."
You'd think lefties would like bumper stickers for two of the most liberal, pro-government GOP presidential candidates of 2008.
The whole foods boycott really shows how creepy some people on the Left are. You boycott a business because you want them to do something. You want them to divest from South Africa or unionize or not expand in your neighborhood or whatever. There is a way for the company to meet your demands and end the boycott.
What do these people want from Whole Foods? They want Mackey to stop thinking as he does and apologize for ever thinking that way. They are boycotting over unacceptable opinions not actions. That is very creepy.
They know it's a lost cause to change his mind.
They're trying to drive him out of business because he dared to question the Annointed One's plan for Universal slavery health care plan. They want to destroy him because he dared disagree.
Honestly, that's just scary.
What do these people want from Whole Foods? They want Mackey to stop thinking as he does and apologize for ever thinking that way.
He's the Dixie Chicks of libertarianism!
There was a good thread at the Seattle Times about this same topic. Pretty good stuff. Based on the comments from crunchy Seattle I would say that Whole Foods will gain as many customers as they'll lose over this whole thing.
Jesse Walker,
I am going to borrow that. 🙂
It's just moronic to protest against Whole Foods if you are a liberal. Mackie is not some far out libertarian madman, he just doesn't like the freaking health care plan. The guy stood up for corporate responsiblity to the community in the pages of Reason not long ago. But such nuance is lost by many on the fringes of my side I have to admit.
But it is even wierder than that Jesse. The Dixie Chicks are one group of people Whole Foods is a company. If MAckey were a performer and said X, not buying his records at least goes after him. But Mackey is a CEO of an entire company. Suppose the boycott works and Whole Foods goes bellie up. What the hell did some clerk who loses their job have to do with it?
MNG,
His last name is Mackey.
For many modern liberals the idea of nationalized healthcare (indeed, single payer healthcare) is something of a touchstone of what it means to be "civilized." It something to take "pride" in one's nation over. That is a concept that a lot of libertarians just do not get; taking "pride" in one's nation that is.
Can you define the phrase "libertarian madman?"
I'd stopped going because of location-I could handle most of my grocery wants/needs at the closer chain store and closer Trader Joe's.
Well, I went out of may to shop at Whole Foods last night and will make sure at least some of my grocery trip goes there.
I seem to remember some people on the left criticizing this very same idiotic with-us-or-against-us position when conservatives were doing it to people who didn't wholeheartedly agree with everything George Bush was doing/proposing.
I'm sure the idea is to hurt the CEO by hurting the bottom line of the company which pays his salary. If your point is that third parties could be hit then I mean, people make the Dixie Chick records too you know...
Cue some dumbass to say that we don't think they should be allowed to protest: 3...2...1...
Great, great article. I just read it the other day.
I think these protesters are just frustrated and looking for someone to bash. Forgive them, they know not what they do.
But these protests and town halls are indicative of a nation of people who weren't smart enough to convert to the metric system.
Take, for example, this woman, who I guess, didn't realize Barney Frank is Jewish.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8
And where else could a mixed race president and a gay Jew qualify as Nazis?
People, you've got to do much better than this. On both sides.
The Dixie Chicks employ (or is it employed) roadies and stage technicians.
People make the CDs, the packaging, etc.
Tricky Prickears,
It is in the interests of the political class that mass ignorance exists.
I have a lefty co-worker who plans to boycott Whole Foods based on vague awareness of the WSJ piece and because she thinks Mackey's a "wacko". This characterization, too, comes from what somebody told her about what he might have written about Obama's health care plan. I would forward the column to her and ask her to find the crazy among the objection to massive debt and the reasonable alternatives being offered, but what's the point?
don't know WTF happened there
"I seem to remember some people on the left criticizing this very same idiotic with-us-or-against-us position when conservatives were doing it to people who didn't wholeheartedly agree with everything George Bush was doing/proposing."
Yeah, it's pretty typical to argue that kind of crap. Both sides to it. Calls for bipartisanship that every President makes are really calls for the other side to STFU and go along to get along.
It is in the interests of the political class that mass ignorance exists.
Agreed.
"I'm sure the idea is to hurt the CEO by hurting the bottom line of the company which pays his salary. If your point is that third parties could be hit then I mean, people make the Dixie Chick records too you know..."
A modern band is kind of a corporation. So that is a good point. But, how many people who are now boycotting WF, thought the Dixie Chicks were martyrs to free speech back then? Both sides are pretty hypocritical on this.
In the end, people are free not to buy their organic lettuce at WF just like they were free not to buy bad country records from the Dixie Chicks. The only difference between the two situations is that Mackey and whole foods seem to be a model of progressive corporatism. All of the good things they have done is totally ignored because of one essay. It would be as if rather than the Dixie Chicks, Ted Nugent had said something bad about Bush and people refused to buy his records. It is a bit of an overreaction if nothing else.
they're not going to actually fucking boycott Whole Foods. People are way too lazy for an actual boycott. They'll join some stupid fucking facebook group and be in Whole Foods next week, you know, because where the fuck else can you arugula on such short notice?
A lot of bluster from Generation Retard.
You are probably right AO. These people don't have the attention spans to do a good boycott. Actually no one ever does. The Dixie Chicks 15 minutes of fame were about to run out as it was. I don't think many people thought hard enough to stop buying their records because of the Bush comment. They stopped buying them because they sucked.
I will agree with you there, John - The Dixie Chicks 'scandal' was manufactured by the band in a desperate bid to remain relevant.
"They stopped buying them because they sucked."
I ain't buying that...
" how many people who are now boycotting WF, thought the Dixie Chicks were martyrs to free speech back then?"
You want the exact count?
I'm sure the idea is to hurt the CEO by hurting the bottom line of the company which pays his salary.
His salary is one dollar.
Stupid hippies like their choice in grocery stores, but don't like others to have choice in health care.
Move to Canada or France while you still have a choice, fools.
They just stopped playing their records on country stations, and the stations DJ's made a big deal about how they weren't. I remember it. And they didn't say "we are chucking this band's stuff because they suck" either.
Sage
The man survives off of one dollar a year? Or does he have a part time gig at Starbucks?
Just as a thought experiment AO imagine if Ted Nugent had come out against the War in Iraq and said Bush was an embarrassment. Yeah, a lot of people would have been pissed at him. But I think a lot of other people would have said, "I don't know Ted is a pretty good guy. He is not a liberal. Maybe he has a point". They might not have been won over but I think it would have gotten a few people thinking.
Now contrast that with the reaction to Mackey. Why aren't liberals going "you know Whole Foods is a great company and Mackey is usually right about things, maybe we should think about this"? Instead they are launching a jihad against the guy.
Maybe they want poor people to have the same choices you do JB.
Move to Hong Kong, fool!
"They just stopped playing their records on country stations, and the stations DJ's made a big deal about how they weren't. I remember it. And they didn't say "we are chucking this band's stuff because they suck" either."
Yeah because all that happened in 1975 when radio determined what was popular. It didn't happen in 2003 when everyone was buying their music off of the internet. No one cares enough to ever boycott anything. The Chicks had one okay record. The one they were supporting when they made the comment was a lousy record and going nowhere at the time. They were on their downward arc.
John
How many liberals do you think are upset at this guy?
I mean, he wasn't even discussed at our Secret Sunday meeting to my knowledge...
I remember the DJ's bashing them, nice try.
mmm - the south had more labor choices pre-Civil War.
Man, forced "choice" is awesome.
He's the Dixie Chicks of libertarianism!
I'd go with "the Natalie Maines of libertarianism."
Obscurantism = funny
"John
How many liberals do you think are upset at this guy?
I mean, he wasn't even discussed at our Secret Sunday meeting to my knowledge..."
Enough to demonstrate. I don't know. There are enough to get an article in the NYT and get the guy pilloried in all the liberal blogs. So certainly some.
Since most people who want health reform are worried about those who cannot afford health care, it's pretty stupid to toss out "choice" to stymie them AO.
"He's the Dixie Chicks of libertarianism!
I'd go with "the Natalie Maines of libertarianism."
Obscurantism = funny"
So he is a fat blond with a narrow vocal range?
Maybe they want poor people to have the same choices you do JB.
Move to Hong Kong, fool!
They do have those choices you stupid fuck. They could choose to work harder, get a new job, etc. just as I could choose not to work as hard, etc. and end up like them.
Oh and Hong Kong run the by communist Chinese is an option? Please.
There is nowhere for freedom-loving people to go. You socialist fucks have all sorts of places like Canada or France or China. We will make our stand here and I suggest any little bitch scared of one guy with an AR-15 should get out now.
Dudes, trust me, getting Whole Food's CEO is probably pretty low on most liberals to do list...So maybe ease up on the "liberals want to blah blah blah"
You've got several liberal regulars here. Anyone of us bad-mouthing the guy?
JB
By your logic if a big dude walks up a little guy and orders him to do something or else, one could say "hey, that guy wasn't forced, he could join a gym, work out, get real big, bigger than that guy, and kick the guy's ass."
"You've got several liberal regulars here. Anyone of us bad-mouthing the guy?"
No you are not. But, at least admit some of your fellow travellers are douschebags.
"We will make our stand here and I suggest any little bitch scared of one guy with an AR-15 should get out now."
Thanks for the input Travis Bickle!
Mackey has a right to say what he said. Folks have a right to boycott WF because of what Mackey said. Folks have a right to counter boycott the folks who're boycotting WF because of what Mackey said by shopping at WF when they normally wouldn't. Folks can boycott Wal-Mart because they bailed on Glenn Beck. Folks can counter boycott by shopping at Wal-Mart when they normally wouldn't. Etc.
I called them morons upthread John.
de stijl getting all libertarian on us!
"Maybe they want poor people to have the same choices you do JB."
In MNG World, once something is invented or a service becomes available, everyone is instantly entitled to it free of charge.
So he is a fat blond with a narrow vocal range?
He also enjoys wide open spaces.
Unlike Hemingway who preferred a clean, well-lit place. The light is very good.
TAO
As someone who often decries people who are quick to call their opponents racists, will you be joining me of my boycott of your boy Glenn Beck and his sponsors for saying that Obama is a racist and "hates white people?"
Yes B.P., that's what I want, everything for everyone for free.
And ice cream!
Come on, Kevin. She's obviously easily manipulated. This should be an easy sell to get her to back off Obamacare by telling her the Whole Foods guy makes sense and make her RTFA.
And ice cream!
I like pie.
Three things I hate about Whole Foods: the prices, the creepy help, the creepy customers.
The help and the customers are creepy at just about any store. That is why I shop at the Polish grocery - the help and the customers are less creepy because I can't understand them.
*eyebrow raise*
Since when has Glenn Beck been "my boy"?
As far as I am concerned, I already de facto 'boycott' glenn beck.
Wrong. That's your logic, SlaveDriver.
as someone said above. the president of whole foods only takes $1 in salary and he gives the rest to charity. he has said he has more money than he will ever need in his lifetime. he pays all his 50,000 employees healthcare as well as their families AND same sex domestic partners. Just who do you think you will be hurting by trying to bring whole foods down?? not the president, just your fellow americans who would then be without their healthcare and on unemployment. WOW...that's really intelligent thinking.
I especially like pie I have not yet eaten.
They both have a choice in JB's world. The poor guy doesn't have money to presently purchase coverage, but he could just go get a job, work hard, save up and then do so. The weak guy currently doesn't have the strength to resist the thug, but he could just go get a gym membership, work hard, eat right and then do so.
I was just curious, as I know how mad you hate people who charge racism too readily.
those are not the same things, SlaveDriver.
I am sure you already know why.
you were so curious that you called him "my boy"?
Right.
Frankly, the threat right now is not coming from glenn beck, though it amuses how unimportant he is in reality and how important he is on Your Team.
If he doesn't have the money right now, then right now he has no more choice to buy insurance than he has a choice whether to turn into a jet and bomb the Russians.
It's never a good thing to martyr someone who embodies all or many of your values.
This will backfire. The left is doing what the left does best. Eating itself. Which is great. We have the GOP wandering around like a drunken roofied college chick wondering who fucked her and the DNC going full scale cannibal on each other. It makes for a good show for the people who can't stand either party.
"those are not the same things"
No two things are the same thing. But both examples are of someone who can be said to have "no choice" presently, though in theory the person could, through their own actions be in a position to have that choice. Thus the choice of those two hypos 😉
no, you did that deliberately, and you also know why.
"This will backfire."
Nope, because very few people on the left give any shit about this.
Some morons on the left are mad at the guy, a smaller subset are going to protest. Trust me, this is no big deal.
MNG, why should he be able to buy medical care now? The big guy attacking a weaker person is using FORCE and we all agree that is wrong. The poor guy NOT buying health care or insurance is not being forced to do anything except go without. I'm sure there is something somewhere that would care for the person who really has no money or options. Oh yeah, there's Medicaid. WTF?
That is why I shop at the Polish grocery - the help and the customers are less creepy because I can't understand them.
Do you ever ask them if they want to buy a vowel?
Both men have the choices I detailed, right?
Is something stopping that guy from joining the gym and doing the hard work getting stronger than his assailant? Nope.
Just as JB noted there is nothing stopping the guy who can't afford insurance from getting a job and doing the hard work getting wealthy enough to do so.
you know what you did, MNG. I am not stupid so stop treating me like I am a fucking moron.
"go without"
All of "us" think that is wrong...
But look, you think, like TAO, I'm making another argument. I'm just saying that that both are presently not in a position to choose an option, but could be in the future.
It undercuts JB's dumb comment.
They both have a choice in JB's world. The poor guy doesn't have money to presently purchase coverage, but he could just go get a job, work hard, save up and then do so. The weak guy currently doesn't have the strength to resist the thug, but he could just go get a gym membership, work hard, eat right and then do so.
You don't see the difference? It's called force. If you can't understand that, you are one sick fuck.
Sick fucks like you aren't worth debating at any level. Just wait until one day people get tired of you using force and fight back.
C'mon TAO, point it out.
Oh I get it, this is one of those self-evident things, huh?
Besides, read my last post, I'm not trying to do what you think I'm doing. I've already whipped you and others on that.
Maybe during your masturbatory fantasies. Reality, however, grinds on without you.
Te most successful businesses put the customer first, ahead of the investors.
I thought it was supposed to be spelled "teh". 😉
What does force have to do with whether they have a choice?
Both could choose to do the things I mention and get themselves out of their pickle. Both are not in a position when faced with the pickle to do anything about it.
TAO is like a girl who says "you know what you did wrong."
And you reply "what?"
And they throw up their hands "you just know!"
TAO, it's you that don't know. That is a defensible, articulable underpinning for the foundations of your wacky worldview.
Nick, the reason they don't want to discuss his policy proposals is because they would result in benefits for people who don't consume a lot of health insurance resources either because they are healthy or because they choose high deductible plans and pay their day-to-day costs out of pocket.
Designing policies that benefit that class of people makes you unspeakably evil to the left, because as far as they are concerned all health care proposals must be designed to force that group of people to pay more in order to deliver benefits to people who consume a lot of health care resources.
But as to the topic at hand:
1. Dumb for liberals to hate on Mackey, dumber to demonstrate or try to boycott against the man
2. Dumb for people to think most liberals do or will
Huh? Try to be a little clearer, Sally.
Both could choose to do the things I mention and get themselves out of their pickle. Both are not in a position when faced with the pickle to do anything about it.
Well, MNG, if you were selling a used car, and I didn't have enough money to buy it, I could do one of two things:
I could go make more money, and then I could come back and buy the car.
Or, I could crash your fucking face in with a lead pipe, take the keys out of your hand as you breathe your last breath, and drive the car away laughing.
If you are intellectually and morally honest, as you lay dying the last thoughts that run through your head would be, "What happened to me today was no different from Fluffy going out of earning more money to buy the car...He was just exercising choice..."
2. Dumb for people to think most liberals do or will
I'm not to sure about that. The independentish people I know are laughing along with me at theses tards. The liberals I know seem honestly upset, god knows why, but they are not happy.
This is of course anecdotal.
no no no Fluffy, MNG's choice of hypothetical was purely coincidental. You're "overreading" his conflation of force and choice, even though he does it every. fucking. day., we're supposed to ignore it today.
They both have a choice in JB's world. The poor guy doesn't have money to presently purchase coverage, but he could just go get a job, work hard, save up and then do so. The weak guy currently doesn't have the strength to resist the thug, but he could just go get a gym membership, work hard, eat right and then do so.
That paragraph does it for me. MNG is nothing but a troll to be ignored. It would be more productive engaging my shit in debates; it has more brain cells.
I just went to the Westlake Whole Foods yesterday. They had the ancho chiles I wanted, but $5 for about 5 of them? Fuck that. If I find a Mexican place I can get that for about 30 cents. And I did.
I admit that I love Whole Foods. I can't even go in there without buying something--Mackey is a genius. Plus they validate parking.
See, Epi, in real America, the stores have Parking Lots. you know, for free.
MNG,
Since most people who want health reform are worried about those who cannot afford health care...
Since that is supposedly the case, then why exactly are they trying to overhaul the entire government determined system that we have today? Because that really isn't the primary concern; if it were, we'd be talking about addressing the truly small number of people who cannot afford health insurance. There is a lot more going on here, and very little of it has to do with the uninsured who actually want to be insured.
Maybe Charles Atlas could help the 98 pound weakling.
Episiarch,
Don't get all Seattlely on us.
The preferred spelling is "de"
To springboard of off Seward, is it not amusing that statists use "recission" as a cause to take over the health care system, instead of, you know, trying to just fix recission?
It's because the sob stories serve a purpose: they provide the statists a bloody shirt to wave.
YES.
Anyone who decries the lack of health care options for a small segment of Americans has to basically address all the barriers to entry placed by the government in the way of that small small segment of Americans. This of course includes very limited number of health care plans that insurance companies can issue (in some states there is only type of health care plan that can be offered - which gets us some distance to understanding what the problem is).
See, Epi, in real America, the stores have Parking Lots. you know, for free.
The Westlake Whole Foods validates your parking, dude! It's free! This is a big Seattle deal. Plus, as a former New Yorker, this makes my head spin. You have no idea, you Ohio douchebag.
Don't get all Seattlely on us.
Too late, my man, I am a Belltown douchebag now.
Of course, I am pretty sure that some segment of health insurance companies like that sort of limit on plans; it keeps down the competition, which is what regulation in any industry is about.
I know what "validating parking" means, but you know I just pull into the Whole Foods parking lot, right? I mean, no stamps...no tickets. nothing.
well, sometimes I put my fake handicapped sign on the dash when I am in a hurry.
Episiarch,
Well, the main problem is that cities and well all governments generally have uniform pricing (meaning $0.00 out of pocket dollars) for the use of roads. Which is just stupid on multiple levels.
a gasoline tax is zero out-of-pocket dollars?
Not all of us live in such enlightened places, TAO. I can go to Metropolitan or QFC or Whole Foods and park for free. That's pretty excellent. Shit, I pay about $100/month to park under my building, and it's worth every penny.
We've seen MNG make many, many idiotic comments throughout the years, but in this thread he is taking the cake.
TAO,
Well, sure it costs money, but it isn't a very good way to cut down overuse of a resource. It is a pretty blunt instrument in other words. If it were a finely tuned instrument there would be no traffic jams in Europe. Given today's technology it would rather simple to charge people based on the time of the day they use a particular road.
Of course there is also the idea of private roads; where the road owner would actually have an incentive to make sure traffic didn't get clogged up.
It's official, you guys are making a bigger deal out of this than the I heart Hugo crowd. No big suprise considering how pedantic this site has become. I will say my respect for the CEO of whole foods has gone through the roof. And no question jb's shit has brain cells he's always talking to it and about it
Lurkers,
Nope, his argument that there was no moral difference between a thief and the person trying to stop the thief from stealing from them is the dumbest corner he ever painted himself into.
The poor have thousands of choices, stealing from others shouldn't be one of them.
"Fairness!" cries the redistributionist, knowing that he will be able to forever elide the question: Fair for whom?
Where is the CEO of Trade Joe's on this important issue?
Look, I'll try to be a little fair to MNG and say that I understand what he was saying.
He was trying to lead us by the nose to say that the person who can't afford health insurance has the "choice" of making more money OR getting the government to buy his health insurance, the same way the weakling has the "choice" of getting stronger by working out OR getting the government to make assault a crime.
He was trying to say that since we don't complain that the weakling gets to call in the state rather than fixing his situation for himself, we shouldn't object if the guy without health insurance calls in the state rather than fixing his situation for himself.
I still think my post back to him was appropriate, because he is asserting that there is no moral difference between not being able to afford to buy things as a result of your personal characteristics or life choices, and being the victim of an assault.
"Suppose the boycott works and Whole Foods goes bellie up. What the hell did some clerk who loses their job have to do with it?"
It's his fault for not joining a union shop.
"Can you define the phrase "libertarian madman?""
Peter Suderman popped into my head instantly, but then I though - but he's not a libertarian.
Fluffy,
Well, the argument proves too much because that would mean anything and everything that a person is deficient in - including of course things like musical talent - would be appropriate for a person to seek redress from the government for. This is why libertarians make distinctions from positive and negative rights.
Anyway, in theory the state doesn't protect from assault (in reality, it very rarely ever does so - the state is a very pathetic protector of one's physical well being) because one person is more powerful than another, since that is far too slippery a standard on which to base government action. No, the state is supposed to do this for either reasons related to natural law or utility.
I love how when it suits your rhetoric you drop the no one is entitled to a job bull shit
"Sage
The man survives off of one dollar a year? Or does he have a part time gig at Starbucks?"
I think he just grazes the store and sleeps in the breakroom.
I mean, he wasn't even discussed at our Secret Sunday meeting to my knowledge...
That meeting isn't secret, MNG. Everyone knows about it. And we missed you last Sunday.
It's no surprise at all to me that liberals the the most conformist, orthodox political group in the country. hasn't it been that way since "politicall correctness" in the early 90s? When it became acceptable among liberals to suppress speech they didn't agree with instead of arguing with it?
Anyway, the progressive left is the modern "bien pensant" class. The "right-thinking" people, who display their moral rectitude publicly, wag their fingers at the violators, and ostracize those who fail to live up to the moral code.
They are basically the modern equivalent of the 18th century biddies who used to ostracize women that had illegitimate children, forcing them out of society and into poverty.
The really sad thing is though is that they actually think they can "win" the debate by silencing their opposinion, not with arguments, but with social ostracism.
I took a shit in Whole Foods once.
I mean, he wasn't even discussed at our Secret Sunday meeting to my knowledge...
Given the level of domestic spying the federal and state governments now engage in - and by now, I mean that in a multi-decade sense - if such a meeting actually occurred I assure you it would not be secret.
MNG | August 21, 2009, 12:44pm | #
I'm sure the idea is to hurt the CEO by hurting the bottom line of the company which pays his salary. If your point is that third parties could be hit then I mean, people make the Dixie Chick records too you know...
i thought MNG was getting ready to tell us how supply side ec works, but i must have missed it.
"as someone said above. the president of whole foods only takes $1 in salary and he gives the rest to charity. he has said he has more money than he will ever need in his lifetime. "
I have a feeling he's forgetting to factor in inflation.
Who dropped it? No one is entitled to a job. You'll never hear me saying otherwise.
"I just went to the Westlake Whole Foods yesterday. They had the ancho chiles I wanted, but $5 for about 5 of them?"
That's why I like my local Middle Eastern Market. A full pound of fresh Greek feta for about 5 bucks. A pound of pitted Kalamata olives, about five bucks. That's a lot of exceptional cheese and Kalamatas for 10 bucks. What does a person pay for the same items at WF?
"Since that is supposedly the case, then why exactly are they trying to overhaul the entire government determined system that we have today? Because that really isn't the primary concern; if it were, we'd be talking about addressing the truly small number of people who cannot afford health insurance. There is a lot more going on here, and very little of it has to do with the uninsured who actually want to be insured."
Hmmmmm.....
Hazel:
"The really sad thing is though is that they actually think they can "win" the debate by silencing their opposinion, not with arguments, but with social ostracism."
you're right, but it's ironic that social ostracism is the non-coercive way to change behavior. unfortunately, they want to back it up w/ rule of law.
I am oh boy this again!
I am oh boy this again!
I am oh boy this again!
I am oh boy this again!
I am oh boy this again!
I took a shit on oh boy this again's neck once.
"hate freedom enough to protest against it"???
he speaks, and his freedom of speech is intact. people boycott and their freedom of association is intact. BOTH sides are exercising their freedom here, folks. this is how it's supposed to work.
But these protests and town halls are indicative of a nation of people who weren't smart enough to convert to the metric system.
commie.
The metric system units are as arbitrary as any other. One ten millionth the surface distance from the geographic north pole to the equator, passing through Paris? Oh yeah, that's real sciency. The frogs just didn't want to use limey units, so they invented one that just happened to be about a yard. The powers of ten thing is nice for us dummies, but smarter people have no problems with any standardized system.
you're right, but it's ironic that social ostracism is the non-coercive way to change behavior. unfortunately, they want to back it up w/ rule of law.
True, but I don't feel it has a place in enforcing political orthodoxy or party loyalty. In a democracy, the cultural norm should permit as free a debate as possible. Creating social norms designed to suppress political dissent in order to "win" the argument (or the election) interferes with the ability of voters to make informed choices.
Hazel:
all unsavory, but w/out force it is acceptable jackassery.
i will leave the "democracy" part alone, as we've all slipped up before.
What does a person pay for the same items at WF?
I got 6 ounces of quality feta at WF for about $3.50. Cheaper than SafeWay.
$5 a lb is a good deal, but don't think I will find that anywhere I can walk to.
ITT:
1.MNG and TAO argue about positive and negative liberty, without admitting that was the topic.
2. Everyone issues the Standard Libertarian Discalaimer.
3.Everyone is amazed by how expensive Whole Foods is.
4. I am oh boy this again!
5. The Dixie Chicks suck.
Everyone wants to be me better than the Dixie chicks I suppose
Sucks to be you IMHO.
"Threadkillah"? More like "Threadwinnah"!
You guys are reading to much into this.
I simply meant that someone who does not have the asking price of something doesn't have a choice of whether to buy it or not. At the present time he does not have the money and therefore he cannot choose to buy it. He could maybe in the future be in a position to buy it, a position he might could reach through voluntary actions for himself, but he has no choice at the present time.
And so to make that point I posited a man who is getting ready to get a beat down and said "well I guess this guy has the choice to go work out and fend off the beat down." See, he has no choice about the beat down threatened at time x. Maybe he should have put himself in a position where he could do something about it. But he didn't so right now there is no choice.
The guy who is to poor to pay the price of insurance at time x is, at time x, also in a position of no choice.
Epi, my local Walmart has Ancho chiles in the bulk bin for $5/lb. Even better, because of the thriving hispanic community buying the shit out of them, they are always fresh. That's nearly a whole...er..."Walmart sack" full of them.
I have no intention of boycotting them, regardless of my feelings inre their politics because, well, I fucking like Ancho chiles at that price.
BTW, I understand your preference for Spanish olive oil, but apparently you haven't tried a good Greek brand. It's even fruitier and more intense than the Spanish. ;^)
Do you ever ask them if they want to buy a vowel?
Does a big O count?
Sorry, MNG. Backpedal all you want, the stench of sophistry is heavy in the room.
no choice over hobson's choice?
i'll take the one with room for a remedy.
"BTW, I understand your preference for Spanish olive oil, but apparently you haven't tried a good Greek brand. It's even fruitier and more intense than the Spanish. ;^)"
Gaeta. Best. Fruitiest. Olive Oil. Ever.
I think we should boycott Whole Foods until the workers organize into a union. How about that? Let those Blue Dogs and other righties shop there. I'll be shopping at Trader's Joe's and the New Leaf. If I'm being screwed there at least they are not likely to brag about it as Mackey did!
The guy who is to poor to pay the price of insurance a 4,000 foot mansion/a 72" TV/a Mercedes E-class/etc. ad pukum at time x is, at time x, also in a position of no choice.
Yeah, and?
And so to make that point I posited a man who is getting ready to get a beat down and said "well I guess this guy has the choice to go work out and fend off the beat down." See, he has no choice about the beat down threatened at time x.
But you have a right not to get assaulted. You don't have a right to insurance/a 4,000 foot mansion/a 72" TV/a Mercedes E-class/etc. ad pukum.
So its kind of different.
I think we should boycott Whole Foods until the workers organize into a union.
I, personally, would pay good money to watch union goons bust up a picket line of Whole Foods boycotters.
Where is the CEO of Trade Joe's on this important issue?
In Germany, where he lives.
Germany? Don't they have Internet service there, yet? Can't the guy blog or something? America needs to know!
There's no backpedaling at all Kant. I thought I made it clear the point of my analogy was to emphasize the nature of the "choice." Go back and look at my 1:27 or 1:29 post for example. It's all about how JB's reasoning must lead to the conclusion that the weak man threatened had a "choice." But that's not true, we ALL agree on that. But for the same reasons the poor guy has no choice to buy income at the point in time in which he is too poor to buy it. Jesus, that's by DEFINITION.
TAO was just having a flashback to a different analogy I made in which I said that using force to make a doctor save a dying man was as legitimate as using force to prevent an attacker from murdering a man (rather I said that both were moral, not equally moral, but that may not be important).
I've made no attempt to back off either point, in fact I've consistently defended them against all attacks. Of course, I do clarify when I'm making which point if people can't tell.
no choice to buy insurance, not income...
things you should all know about Mackey before you boycott the man. After reading this I want to shop there to even if it is more expensive.
* Mackey lectures at Universities about the horrors of factory farming
* He says "Right now, Americans have to pretend factory farms don't exist. They turn their eyes away, because there's no alternative, there's no choice. Once there is a choice, we will allow ourselves to be outraged."
* He makes $1 a year and donates his stock portfolio to charity.
* He set up a $100,00 fund to help his employees with personal problems.
* He's a vegetarian and his company will not buy from producers that treat their animals unethically.
* He flies commercial, rents the smallest cars, and stays in the cheapest hotel rooms - not because he's cheap, but because he has no need for largesse
* He and his wife participate in yoga
* He gives over $1 million a year to animal welfare groups, education, relief work, and spiritual movements.
* Employees have full say in who they work with - a new employee must receive a 2/3 vote in order to make it past probation.
* Employees also vote on all company-wide initiatives
* There's a salary book in every store - "no secrets" management believes everyone should know how much everyone else is making
* Executive salaries are capped at 14 times the lowest workers salary - If they want more money, everyone else has to get more money first
* Non-executive employees hold 94% of company stock options
* Pay is linked to team performance - profit sharing
* At least 5% of annual profits go to local charities
* Full-timers get 100% of their health care costs paid for - under plans the employees have selected
* "They just have a lot more respect for you as a person here" says an employee
Bravo to the CEO for speaking and not being afraid to speak his opinion! He is trying to offer and be part of the solution as opposed to these insane liberals who want to intimidate and shut up any of us who dare to express our beliefs! I heard some of his employees took offense to his oppinion-well there are plenty of us who believe this is a horrifc plan for our country and would be HAPPY to take over their jobs!!!! I will go out of my way to shop more at Whole Foods!!
TAO was just having a flashback to a different analogy I made in which I said that using force to make a doctor save a dying man was as legitimate as using force to prevent an attacker from murdering a man (rather I said that both were moral, not equally moral, but that may not be important).
OK, fair enough. I withdraw the backpedaling comment, and replace it with a humble....FUCK YOU!
Forcing someone to do do something positive vs defending against the initiation of force is on an equal moral footing?
Sophistry for the sake of sophistry is just douchebaggery. Sophistry for the sake of advancing an evil agenda is just.....EVIL.
"Forcing someone to do do something positive vs defending against the initiation of force is on an equal moral footing?"
When the first will as surely result in an equally serious immediate harm to a human being that the latter would then yes, they are on equal moral footing. I'm a utilitarian if you didn't know...Frankly I think any moral philosophy which would hold that it is morally permissible to let a human person be seriously harmed based on some magical thinking about how special force is, now THAT is an evil, anti-human philosophy.
And btw, they don't even have to be on an "equal" moral footing, for me to win the day it just has to be the case that there is some moral footing for the former (that is, that it would be moral to force the person to positively save the third person)
Go to Previous message | Go to Next message | Back to MessagesMark as Unread | Print ReplyReply AllMove...Filed
Flag this message[ No Subject ]Friday, August 21, 2009 6:16 PM
From: "Jerry Dziki" View contact detailsTo: jerrydziki@yahoo.com
Mr. Mackey is critical of Medicare and prefers that market forces set health care insurance policy. What about senior citizens? Would he send them to private insurers? Pure market forces in that scenario would result in millions of uninsurable = uninsured senior citizens. He's against gov't mandates for what insurers must offer?.what about pre-existing conditions or people who lose their private insurance because they get sick, or lose their jobs? But he says most illnesses, including cancer, are preventable through good diet and exercise. Tell that one to the kids in pediatric cancer centers. But alas, Mr. Mackey has the solution for those unfortunate ones who've had their insurance cancelled because they got sick, or lost their jobs - change the tax forms so that all of us, who don't want to pay more for our own health care, will suddenly start generously contributing to a fund for the uninsured. Is he serious? The problem with this whole health care debate is that both the liberal left and conservative right seem more interested in moving forward their own, ideological agendas, rather than finding a pragmatic compromise between a purely market based system, and a purely government run system. We can achieve that, but not when all the extreme right and left winger out there are doing all the talking/shouting/writing to the Wall Street Journal.
My wife and I visited a Whole Foods store today in California and gave them some decent business. The store was way out of our way but we were sickened by the thought of a CEO catching grief for stating an opinion. I talked with the manager, store personnel and people visiting the store. Most felt this had nothing to do with healthcare but rather unions. They said people handing out pamphlets had no clue about the issues and were paid by the unions to hand them out. If people truly read and understood Mackey's view point, why not counter his stance with a strong argument? While people have a right to protest, other people have a right to label these protestors as uninformed, stupid, hate-mongers, looney, left-wing, blind-to-anything-Obama, etc and if they are doing it to push an alternative agenda then they are, at a minimum, dishonest.
As far as the healthcare debate goes, if the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee says it is too complicated to read w/o two lawyers, then why should the rest of America trust the 1200 pages of lawyer speak? Especially after suspect stimulus, child healthcare, omnibus, $3.5T budget, Crao & Tax, and other bills were passed w/o being read or understood. Make it 40 pages and put it in English and then we can have an honest debate. Until then, I don't trust either party to represent our best interests. Have a nice day.