Should they be getting government funding is the question. And the answer is no.
But you must believe in some government or else you are a full on anarchist retard. You're therefore still making "The Libertarian Case for the State Disallowing Boycotts."
The state's not disallowing boycotts. The state's just not funding companies that are participating in them. The state isn't required to give people money.
That's the state doing as much as it can get away with to stop them. It's blacklisting companies for ideological reasons. It's the state enforcing a particular viewpoint by favoritism. Would you support the state blacklisting companies unless they give money to say, pro-tranny organizations?
It's blacklisting companies for ideological reasons.
No, it's blacklisting companies participating in enemy action. BDS is not an organic campaign, but a specifically hostile action using the domestic population of the US as a weapon against an ally, fostered, funded, and organized by both terrorist organizations and hostile governments.
If the BDS movement was targeting Canada instead of Israel, with everything else the same, then I would remain completely comfortable with stopping the US governments from funding enemy action. Frankly, it would be more important to do that because Canada is a closer ally than Israel.
Would you support the state blacklisting companies unless they give money to say, pro-tranny organizations?
Different issue. This is, again, about refusing to give state funds. Not black-listing. No one is entitled to state funding (of which funding should be severely reduced). Anti-BDS isn't compelling anyone to actually make a transaction, your example is.
Boycotting Israel within the US is not "enemy action." If BDS as an organization is an enemy than it can be outlawed. These laws will affect anyone who wants to boycott Israel for any reason, not just someone affiliated with BDS.
Anti-BDS isn't compelling anyone to actually make a transaction
And what if it was just someone who boycotted Bud Lite, for example? Should the state refuse to award contracts to someone who does that?
But you must believe in some government or else you are a full on anarchist retard. You're therefore still making "The Libertarian Case for the State Disallowing Boycotts."
Sure for the military to repel boarders.
The state's not disallowing boycotts. The state's just not funding companies that are participating in them. The state isn't required to give people money.
That's the state doing as much as it can get away with to stop them. It's blacklisting companies for ideological reasons. It's the state enforcing a particular viewpoint by favoritism. Would you support the state blacklisting companies unless they give money to say, pro-tranny organizations?
No, it's blacklisting companies participating in enemy action. BDS is not an organic campaign, but a specifically hostile action using the domestic population of the US as a weapon against an ally, fostered, funded, and organized by both terrorist organizations and hostile governments.
If the BDS movement was targeting Canada instead of Israel, with everything else the same, then I would remain completely comfortable with stopping the US governments from funding enemy action. Frankly, it would be more important to do that because Canada is a closer ally than Israel.
Different issue. This is, again, about refusing to give state funds. Not black-listing. No one is entitled to state funding (of which funding should be severely reduced). Anti-BDS isn't compelling anyone to actually make a transaction, your example is.
Boycotting Israel within the US is not "enemy action." If BDS as an organization is an enemy than it can be outlawed. These laws will affect anyone who wants to boycott Israel for any reason, not just someone affiliated with BDS.
And what if it was just someone who boycotted Bud Lite, for example? Should the state refuse to award contracts to someone who does that?