Human rights won over greed.

I’m a big fan of boycotts, but leftists always feel some inner need to personalize what is essentially just collective bargaining. All businesses are “greedy.” If a business doesn’t have the lowest profitable costs, it will fail. How that helps its workers isn’t clear.

It is the public’s job to say which cost-savings are unacceptable. When people boycott grapes, they drive up the cost of producing grapes and the price of grapes. Assuming that people will go back to buying grapes once the battle is won, they are actually putting human rights ahead of their own greed (a desire for cheap grapes), not the greed of the businesses. Boycotting (or legislating, which is the same thing in another form), is essentially self-denial; the market always sets the ethical limits of what businesses can do.

Economics is not a zero-sum game. Labor gains tend to permeate the economy, resulting in greater demand for many commodities. Wealth thus “trickles up” to many employers who are “forced” to provide better wages and working conditions. The real victory is not over “greed” but over the pernicious nature of uncoordinated competition. If the people, through boycotts or laws, effectively stock the lake with more customers, human rights can “harness” greed rather than “win” over it. The rich will get richer even if the poor get richer, too.