One of the recurring themes on this blog is the exploration of small, often overlooked actions that can significantly improve one’s own life, the world or enhance the lives of those around us with minimal effort.
Recently, I’ve found myself in lots of conversations about the philosophy of boycotting. This surge of interest was sparked by a somewhat whimsical decision to create a custom shirt bearing the slogan “boycott cocaine”. While I’ve actually encouraged my friends to boycott cocaine since my teenage years, the idea for the shirt was born from realizing its a funny way to mock the similarly titled 2024 attempts to boycott Coca-Cola as a form of opposition to Israel (boycott coke vs boycott cocaine), and a coincidental offer for a free custom-made t-shirt the following day.
Cocaine, in my view, is particularly worthy of boycott due to its devastating impact on the supply chain. It’s the primary factor in destabilizing numerous countries, adversely affecting the lives of hundreds of millions of people. I genuinely believe that reduced cocaine consumption would lead to significantly less disorder in these nations, giving them a much greater shot at developing a more flourishing society and increased wellbeing for all those who live there (and of course, increased global productivity makes your life better too, irrespective of where you are). I genuinely believe consuming cocaine is one of the most harmful actions an individual can take.
Working in a white-collar industry and socializing with rich urbanites, I’m often around people who (not so secretly) indulge in cocaine. Many of these individuals consider themselves conscientious and moral, seemingly oblivious to the consequences of their drug use. I initially thought wearing my “boycott cocaine” shirt would serve as a subtle, non-confrontational way to prompt reflection on the far-reaching implications of their actions. Instead, it’s mostly served as nerd bait for people interested in economics and philosophy to start thinking about the consequences of minor actions in broad systems, which I still view as a win.
It’s important to understand that boycotting goes beyond simply abstaining from something you dislike or find personally detrimental. For an action to qualify as a boycott, there must be some holistic benefit you’d gain from indulging in the boycotted good or experience. Essentially, you genuinely want to consume or experience it, but refuse to do so because the negative externalities for others outweigh your personal benefit.
For those interested, I also boycott two other things:
- BlackRock Index Funds: BlackRock uses its significant influence over the companies in which its customer’s hold equity to push for social change, rather than focusing solely on improving these companies’ financial performance. This practice concerns me, minorly because I think in the short term, BlackRock’s conception of social change may not actually be a social improvement, but more critically, because of the slippery slope which creates a risk of future misuse. Fortunately, there are many other index fund providers, so even when BlackRock offers the best product, the cost of abstaining from their products is relatively low.
- North Korean State-Run Restaurants: In various countries, the North Korean government operates restaurants as a source of revenue to fund their oppressive regime. While these establishments offer a unique cultural experience, patronizing them seems to materially help embolden a regime responsible for significant harm. Despite my curiosity about these restaurants, I choose not to visit them, as doing so makes it less likely for North Korea to cease causing so much suffering in the world.
Boycotts, while they might seem like small gestures, can have a meaningful impact in shaping broader societal norms. More importantly, thinking about boycotts offers a useful prompt for helping people reflect on the consequential impact their small actions can have on making the world a much better (or worse) place, which I think is an important and underappreciated idea.