Boycott

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Stephen J Kenny

unread,
Sep 1, 1992, 8:59:26 AM9/1/92
to
I hereby encourage all individuals thinking of boycotting
the F-S re-match to do the following:

Boycott oil companies dur to ozone depletion from auto emmisions...
Boycott comsmetic companies for unethical treatment of animals...
Boycott your parents for the emotional scars suffered during
the horrors of childhood..

Get the idea?
Have a nice day.
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Away..we go...so fast...." | s...@kepler.unh.edu
- Autosexual | s_k...@unhh.unh.edu
Be Bop Deluxe | Stephen J. Kenny
-------------------------------------------------------------

Ron Birnbaum

unread,
Sep 1, 1992, 11:02:22 AM9/1/92
to
In article <1992Sep1.1...@newshost.unh.edu>, s...@kepler.unh.edu (Stephen J Kenny) writes:
|> I hereby encourage all individuals thinking of boycotting
|> the F-S re-match to do the following:
|>
|> Boycott oil companies dur to ozone depletion from auto emmisions...
|> Boycott comsmetic companies for unethical treatment of animals...
|> Boycott your parents for the emotional scars suffered during
|> the horrors of childhood..
|>
|> Get the idea?

I don't believe any of the above have any sanctions against them from the U.N.
or any other body. I don't believe that of the above have set up concentration
camps to murder their opposition races.

Get the idea?

|> Have a nice day.

You too.

-Ron

Paul Hager

unread,
Sep 1, 1992, 3:20:11 PM9/1/92
to
r...@osf.org (Ron Birnbaum) writes:

>In article <1992Sep1.1...@newshost.unh.edu>, s...@kepler.unh.edu (Stephen J Kenny) writes:
>|> I hereby encourage all individuals thinking of boycotting
>|> the F-S re-match to do the following:
>|>
>|> Boycott oil companies dur to ozone depletion from auto emmisions...
>|> Boycott comsmetic companies for unethical treatment of animals...
>|> Boycott your parents for the emotional scars suffered during
>|> the horrors of childhood..
>|>
>|> Get the idea?

> I don't believe any of the above have any sanctions against them from the U.N.
> or any other body. I don't believe that of the above have set up concentration
> camps to murder their opposition races.

> Get the idea?

>|> Have a nice day.

>You too.

>-Ron

I thought the agreement on this match predated the U.N. embargo.
Shouldn't there have been a grandfather clause exempting it?

More to the point, boycotts that involve coercing large companies
and multinationals seems appropriate but using that coercive
power on individuals violates basic principles of human rights.

This situation is reminiscent of what happened to Zola Budd.
Budd was an extraordinary runner from South Africa who gave every
indication that she might be a quantum improvment over other
women runners. However, the boycott was on and Budd had to go
through some incredible political rigamarole so that she could
be declared a British citizen and thus be allowed to compete in
international tournaments. Budd's career was effectively destroyed
when she returned to SA to visit parents and relatives and attended
a forbidden sports event -- she was barred from international
competition.

Followers of Fisher's career will recall that he was forbidden from
going to Cuba to play in the international tournament there but
the expedient of using a telex to relay the moves was used. From
Fischer's standpoint, I'm sure this is just a matter of the government
interferring with something that should be above politics -- i.e.,
chess -- just as they did before with the Cuban tournament.

Remember Carter's Olympic boycott?

A final thought. Chess is an entertainment. What was once Yugoslavia
was a nation of chessplayers. My guess is that if a poll were taken,
the combatants would want to see the games take place as a way of
gaining a moment of diversion from all the misery surrounding them.
--
paul hager hag...@moose.cs.indiana.edu

"I would give the Devil benefit of the law for my own safety's sake."
--from _A_Man_for_All_Seasons_ by Robert Bolt

Will Bralick

unread,
Sep 1, 1992, 4:48:26 PM9/1/92
to
In article <1992Sep1.1...@news.cs.indiana.edu> "Paul Hager" <hag...@moose.cs.indiana.edu> writes:
| I thought the agreement on this match predated the U.N. embargo.
| Shouldn't there have been a grandfather clause exempting it?

If there was no grandfather clause written into the agreement then there
is no grandfather clause. Whether there _should_ be is a question for
diplomats.

| More to the point, boycotts that involve coercing large companies
| and multinationals seems appropriate but using that coercive
| power on individuals violates basic principles of human rights.

Which _basic principles_ of human rights have been violated in this case
and where are they defined and agreed to by the nations participating
in the UN sanctions? Mr. Fischer has no _right_ to play chess wherever
he pleases.

Don't get me wrong -- I'd like to see him play, too -- anywhere but
Serbia.

| . ...


| Followers of Fisher's career will recall that he was forbidden from
| going to Cuba to play in the international tournament there but
| the expedient of using a telex to relay the moves was used. From
| Fischer's standpoint, I'm sure this is just a matter of the government
| interferring with something that should be above politics -- i.e.,
| chess -- just as they did before with the Cuban tournament.

Well, Fischer's ``standpoint'' isn't what makes foreign policy.

Chess has never been above politics during Fischer's career ... or
did he think that the big, bad Soviets (you know, the reason he doesn't
have any fillings) were all out to get him just because he was a good
chess player and not that he was a good non-Soviet chess player.

| A final thought. Chess is an entertainment. What was once Yugoslavia
| was a nation of chessplayers. My guess is that if a poll were taken,
| the combatants would want to see the games take place as a way of
| gaining a moment of diversion from all the misery surrounding them.

My guess is that if the Bosnians and Croatians were polled and under-
stood that this match might lend the slightest legitimacy to the Serbian
state then they might rather send snipers to the match than listen to it
on the radio between shellings.


Regards,

--
Will Bralick | If we desire to defeat the enemy,
wbra...@afit.af.mil | we must proportion our efforts to
bra...@cs.psu.edu | his powers of resistance.
with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Carl von Clauswitz

Andrew Markiel

unread,
Sep 1, 1992, 8:13:23 PM9/1/92
to
I'm not going to argue about whether the match is illegal or not, or what
Fischer should or shouldn't be doing. But I don't see why I should boycott the
match. I don't have any control or influence on wether the match goes ahead or
not, there's nothing I can do to affect the outcome. But, if something happens
in the world, I don't see what's wrong with me trying to find out about it. If
Fischer does end up playing the match, it's news, it's information. There's
nothing illegal about gathering information about things that are happening in
the world.
To put it another way, watching someone doing something illegal is not illegal.
You could argue that not trying to stop them is illegal, but in this case there
isn't really any way for me to stop the match, so that doesn't apply.
As far as moral arguments go, you can try to convince it's wrong to watch the
match, but I don't believe this is true, and this is getting into philosophical
arguments that probably don't belong on rec.chess.

-Andrew

Jeffrey A Golds

unread,
Sep 1, 1992, 8:23:02 PM9/1/92
to

It seems to me that people who are opposed to the Fischer-Spassky match
are opposed simply because of the U.N. sanctions... That's kinda like
saying I'm opposed to speeding because it's illegal. Look, just because
something is illegal does not make it wrong. I can think of many things
that are illegal for no real reason. Even some police officers think
this way. For example, recently in California there was a drug bust
and a reporter asked a cop what he thought of the situation, he said
something to the effect that he couldn't see anything wrong with
marijuana except for the fact that it is illegal. See what I mean?

Look, I'm not trying to put anyone down, but illegality does not imply
incorrectness.

And now, bacj to our regularly scheduled program...

Jeff

Steven L Harrington

unread,
Sep 1, 1992, 9:31:57 PM9/1/92
to
In article <1992Sep1.2...@afit.af.mil> wbra...@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.1...@news.cs.indiana.edu> "Paul Hager" <hag...@moose.cs.indiana.edu> writes:

>Which _basic principles_ of human rights have been violated in this case
>and where are they defined and agreed to by the nations participating
>in the UN sanctions? Mr. Fischer has no _right_ to play chess wherever

>he pleases. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>^^^^^^^^^^

This is so laughable to a libertarian like myself, that I hesitate to
respond... What are governments for? Clearly, according to Will Bralick,
they exist to dictate what (supposedly) free-thinking individuals like
Fischer, you, and I can do. This reeks of totalitarianism - except in cases
where there is a defenseless victim [rape, murder, theft, et. al.].
It's at this point in the argument that the well meaning Bralick's of the
world respond passionately, "Yes, but there _are_ victims here...".
NOT... If you can show causality between Fischer playing chess and the
atrocities being perpetrated (or conversely, and more to the pt -
show that Fischer not playing will stop said acts) then sure. If you can't,
then let's go back to the question: "What were govt's organized for?"
I, like many libertarians, believe that whether this match is played or not
is _noone's_ decision but Fischer's and Spassky's.

--Steve Harrington
"Live Free or Die"

"They that can give up essential liberty in order to obtain
a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
----Benjamin Franklin

Will Bralick

unread,
Sep 1, 1992, 10:20:42 PM9/1/92
to
In article <1811h6...@function.mps.ohio-state.edu> jgo...@function.mps.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey A Golds) writes:
|
| It seems to me that people who are opposed to the Fischer-Spassky match
| are opposed simply because of the U.N. sanctions... That's kinda like
| saying I'm opposed to speeding because it's illegal.

Well, no it isn't. Without falling into yet another non-chess quagmire
of disputation, I would merely like to point out that these issues fall
within the purview of foreign policy. Foreign policy is one of the areas
of responsibility of the federal government.

| Look, just because something is illegal does not make it wrong.

And just because something is legal doesn't make it right. Should
everybody take the law into their own hands or should we (in general)
allow established authority to act in accordance with our constitutional
principles of government? In principle, if one wants to live in a civil
society then one should generally abide by the law or work to change it
if one disagrees with it.

| I can think of many things
| that are illegal for no real reason.

That is, things that are illegal for no reason with which you agree.

| Even some police officers think this way...

Well, it looks like the perspicacity of government officials only seems
to be suspect when their conclusions differ from our own. Why am I not
surprised? ;-)

Will Bralick

unread,
Sep 1, 1992, 11:06:38 PM9/1/92
to
In article <1992Sep2.0...@tamsun.tamu.edu> shar...@cs.tamu.edu (Steven L Harrington) writes:
| In article <1992Sep1.2...@afit.af.mil> wbra...@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:
|
| >Which _basic principles_ of human rights have been violated in this case
| >and where are they defined and agreed to by the nations participating
| >in the UN sanctions? Mr. Fischer has no _right_ to play chess wherever
| >he pleases. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| >^^^^^^^^^^
|
| This is so laughable to a libertarian like myself, that I hesitate to
| respond... What are governments for? Clearly, according to Will Bralick,
| they exist to dictate what (supposedly) free-thinking individuals like
| Fischer, you, and I can do...

Et cetera. Yawn. The only thing more tiresome (and predictable) than
a ``free-thinking'' libertarian is an Objectivist ;-). I am sure that
nobody is interested in yet another round of the libertarian-conservative
debates so I will keep it short.

If one argues that chessplayers have the Right to Play Chess _wherever
they want_ then one has to assert whether the Right is conditional or
unconditional. If one asserts that the Right is unconditional (and thus
more important than, e.g. suffrage) then one must demonstrate the mechanisms
which should be established by Government to ensure that this Right can
be exercised without restraint. If the Right is conditional then there
must be a mechanism for determining the extent of this Right. This
mechanism is politics. Why it seems that the exercise of politics has
resulted in Mr. Fischer not enjoying the Right to Play Chess in Serbia.

| This reeks of totalitarianism - except in cases

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Extremism in the rhetoric of libertarianism is no surprise.

So you argue that Mr. Fischer has the Right to Play Chess _wherever he
pleases_. For example, at my house -- with or without my permission.
Don't I have any private property rights? Mr. Fischer does not have the
Right to Play Chess _wherever he pleases_ because it may please him to
Play Chess at my house. It is tyrants like Mr. Harrington who seek to
deprive us of our private property rights.


Trivia question: which American president was the first to send
American troops into a conflict on foreign soil?

answer: Thomas Jefferson in 1801 (Tripolitan-American War).


Best regards,

Steven L Harrington

unread,
Sep 2, 1992, 1:39:02 AM9/2/92
to
In article <1992Sep2.0...@afit.af.mil> wbra...@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.0...@tamsun.tamu.edu> shar...@cs.tamu.edu (Steven L Harrington) writes:
>| In article <1992Sep1.2...@afit.af.mil> wbra...@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:
>|
>| >Which _basic principles_ of human rights have been violated in this case
>| >and where are they defined and agreed to by the nations participating
>| >in the UN sanctions? Mr. Fischer has no _right_ to play chess wherever
>| >he pleases. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>| >^^^^^^^^^^
>|
>| This is so laughable to a libertarian like myself, that I hesitate to
>| respond... What are governments for? Clearly, according to Will Bralick,
>| they exist to dictate what (supposedly) free-thinking individuals like
>| Fischer, you, and I can do...
>

>So you argue that Mr. Fischer has the Right to Play Chess _wherever he


>pleases_. For example, at my house -- with or without my permission.
>Don't I have any private property rights? Mr. Fischer does not have the
>Right to Play Chess _wherever he pleases_ because it may please him to
>Play Chess at my house. It is tyrants like Mr. Harrington who seek to
>deprive us of our private property rights.

I thought it was quite clear that the "wherever he pleases" clause
in question was in regards to geographical location. Isn't the whole
crux of the idealistic boycott advocates' argument that this is taking
place in Yugoslavia? Thus, your introduction of private property
and the "in my house" analogy is a non-sequiter. We're not debating
whether Fischer should be allowed to hold a chess match in someone's
house without consent of the property owner. Those, you among them,
that claim he hasn't the right to play are stating that he cannot
play in an _entire_ country AND in a public locale (or otherwise
a private locale _with_ consent of property owners). If this distinction
isn't clear, then I suppose I'm wasting my breath...

Now that I've (hopefully) cleared that up, I stand by my previous
post completely and I see nothing in your followup that answers
my question(s) concerning just _who_ should determine what
Fischer is allowed to do [#include <standard disclamer.h> i.e.
barring the victimization of others].

--muchisimas gracias, Steve

>
>

Will Bralick

unread,
Sep 2, 1992, 11:55:00 AM9/2/92
to
In article <1992Sep2.1...@afit.af.mil> wbra...@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:
>
>My introduction of the "in my house" analogy wasn't so much a non sequitur
>as it was ridicule of the extremism of your first response. The first word
>out of libertarians' mouths always seems to be ``totalitarian'' and this
>renders discourse with them .
>
Duh ... ``renders discourse with them'' ... uninteresting.

Regards,

Will Bralick

unread,
Sep 2, 1992, 11:27:02 AM9/2/92
to
In article <1992Sep2.0...@tamsun.tamu.edu> shar...@cs.tamu.edu (Steven L Harrington) writes:
| In article <1992Sep2.0...@afit.af.mil> wbra...@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:
| >
| >So you argue that Mr. Fischer has the Right to Play Chess _wherever he
| >pleases_. For example, at my house -- with or without my permission.
| >Don't I have any private property rights? Mr. Fischer does not have the
| >Right to Play Chess _wherever he pleases_ because it may please him to
| >Play Chess at my house. It is tyrants like Mr. Harrington who seek to
| >deprive us of our private property rights.
|
| I thought it was quite clear that the "wherever he pleases" clause
| in question was in regards to geographical location.

I notice that instead of responding to the substantive point of whether
Mr. Fischer's Right to Play Chess _wherever he pleases_ is conditional
or unconditional you instead take a shot at the above. No matter.
My main objection is with the predictable puerile tantrum to be thrown
over yet another Right which the adepts can discern hidden within the
penumbra of what ``free-thinking individuals'' consider to be Important.

| Isn't the whole
| crux of the idealistic boycott advocates' argument that this is taking
| place in Yugoslavia?

I suppose that you would prefer every citizen conduct his own foreign
policy. Tsk, tsk, that totalitarian Constitution has denied ``free-
thinking individuals'' the right to conduct their own foreign policy.
Oh, that's right, according to my libertarian friends there should be
no foreign policy ... just a happy-go-lucky band of ``free-thinking
individuals'' pursuing their own rational interests.

There are many levels of hostility. A foreign policy decision might be
taken which restricts the freedom of an individual or a corporation to
trade or do business in a foreign country. Such a decision is taken
to gradually step up pressure on the foreign power. Mr. Fischer does
not have the Right to conduct his own foreign policy by granting himself
an exception to the embargo. Of course you will argue that the Government
has no Right to embargo another country. In which case I suggest that
you had better get busy because you have an entire constitution to rewrite.

| Thus, your introduction of private property
| and the "in my house" analogy is a non-sequiter.

My introduction of the "in my house" analogy wasn't so much a non sequitur

as it was ridicule of the extremism of your first response. The first word
out of libertarians' mouths always seems to be ``totalitarian'' and this
renders discourse with them .

| We're not debating


| whether Fischer should be allowed to hold a chess match in someone's
| house without consent of the property owner.

That is partially correct, we are not debating. This is my final post on
this subject (unless something new and interesting comes up ;-).

| Those, you among them,
| that claim he hasn't the right to play are stating that he cannot
| play in an _entire_ country AND in a public locale (or otherwise
| a private locale _with_ consent of property owners). If this distinction
| isn't clear, then I suppose I'm wasting my breath...

I said that he hasn't the Right to Play Chess _wherever he pleases_ if
you disagree then please delineate just precisely how this _right_ is
to be guaranteed. What if a foreign power tries to prevent Mr. Fischer
from exercising his Right to Play Chess _wherever he pleases_? Should
we send in the Marines to secure the desired venue? Well, no, we can't
have any ``foreign adventures,'' so you argue that as a practical matter
every governemnt save our own has the right to influence Mr. Fischer's
choice of venue in pursuit of their foreign policy.



| Now that I've (hopefully) cleared that up, I stand by my previous
| post completely and I see nothing in your followup that answers
| my question(s) concerning just _who_ should determine what
| Fischer is allowed to do [#include <standard disclamer.h> i.e.
| barring the victimization of others].

He who frames the question wins the debate. Don't worry, Mr. Fischer's
brain is so full of woolyboogers that he will have no trouble pleading
``not guilty by reason of having a brain so full of woolyboogers that
he will have no trouble pleading ``not guilty ...

Jon Binkley

unread,
Sep 2, 1992, 12:35:07 PM9/2/92
to
jgo...@function.mps.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey A Golds) writes:

>Look, I'm not trying to put anyone down, but illegality does not imply
>incorrectness.

Does a country sponsering thugs to throw women and children in
concentration camps based on their religion imply incorrectness to you?


Jeffrey N. Burch

unread,
Sep 2, 1992, 1:45:14 PM9/2/92
to

I presume you are speaking of the blatant anti-Semitism of the former
USSR, and their sending Jews to the gulags (among other places) for
trying to hold onto their religion. Or would it be the National
Socialists in Germany, who were throwing people into concentration
camps well before the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin?

I can't remember too many people calling for boycotts of the world
chess championship matches held in Moscow, and I don't think too many
(if any) countries boycotted the 1936 Olympics.

Let's give this a rest, folks. If you want to follow the Fischer-
Spassky match, fine. If you don't, fine. We all have our reasons
for doing one or the other, and there's no need to apologize for
them.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^ Dr. J(effrey Neil Burch) jb...@prism.gatech.edu ^
^ Georgia Tech Research Institute ^
^ Electro-Optics and Physical Sciences Laboratory ^
^ Atlanta, Ga. ^
^ 30332 Under capitalism, man exploits man. ^
^ 404-894-3628 Under communism, it's just the reverse. ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

M22...@mwvm.mitre.org

unread,
Sep 2, 1992, 2:50:41 PM9/2/92
to
In article <1992Sep2.0...@afit.af.mil>
wbra...@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:

>
>In article <1992Sep2.0...@tamsun.tamu.edu> shar...@cs.tamu.edu (Steven L Harrington) writes:
>| In article <1992Sep1.2...@afit.af.mil> wbra...@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:

I was following this thread with some interest until I got to the
following inane statement.


>
>So you argue that Mr. Fischer has the Right to Play Chess _wherever he
>pleases_. For example, at my house -- with or without my permission.
>Don't I have any private property rights? Mr. Fischer does not have the
>Right to Play Chess _wherever he pleases_ because it may please him to
>Play Chess at my house. It is tyrants like Mr. Harrington who seek to
>deprive us of our private property rights.
>
>
>--
>Will Bralick | If we desire to defeat the enemy,
> wbra...@afit.af.mil | we must proportion our efforts to
> bra...@cs.psu.edu | his powers of resistance.
>with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Carl von Clauswitz

Excuse me, but I don't think Fischer was planning on playing on somebody
else's property against their will. I believe he was invited to play.
As for whether he has a right to play chess wherever he pleases, sure he
does, so long as he doesn't encroach upon the rights of others. The
question then becomes, does the state have the right to restrict his
travel, and does Fisher's insistance on playing encroach upon that right.
I'm certain that the (in)Justice Department and the Supreme(assholes)
Court would suggest the state has such a right. Personally I think they
can eat me. Go Bobby!

****Swampy

Craig Presson

unread,
Sep 3, 1992, 2:41:24 PM9/3/92
to
In article <1992Sep2.1...@afit.af.mil> wbra...@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:
In article <1992Sep2.1...@afit.af.mil> wbra...@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) rewrites:
[...] The first word
>out of libertarians' mouths always seems to be ``totalitarian'' and this
>renders discourse with them .

Duh ... ``renders discourse with them'' ... uninteresting.

Gee, I liked the way you had it. ... renders discourse with them
(null). Combined with the tail-recursion in the last paragraph, it
stands as a sterling example of the effect of Too Much Computer
Science on the human nervous system :-)

-- Craig
We live in interesting times...

Owen Veenstra

unread,
Sep 8, 1992, 4:21:41 AM9/8/92
to


Howdi,


I must admit I am not a great chess player. However, even for someone
who is not a chess player it is obvious that a few people out there have
seemingly forgotted that this is a *chess* group. It is therefore ment
for discussing chess.

If you people seem intent on arguing whether about chess player
personalities and their implications, please do one of the following

(a) stop posting articiles that do no further that give your
opinion on some matter
(it is likely that you only cause your opposition to believe
more in whatever there opinion is anywhay, or

(b) if you're really intent on drumming your opinion home,
either mail the guy you're talking to, or organise
some more relevant group, such as alt.chess.opinions to
further such discussion.


PS : And before anyone decides to flame me for this article, take
a deep breath and count to 10. I am not arguing that you should
not give you opinion, I am simply saying that there are better
places to give it.


Many thanks... now back to chess.

Owen



Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages