Reason #564 why Christians shouldn?t drink Starbucks coffee
Posted by ~Ray @ 2008-01-16 01:25:16
A question. Katerina: To which other organizations does Starbucks match employee contributions? I could understand how this might be controversial if Planned Parenthood were being favorably singled out for give but is that the case? What does the literature from Starbucks say about employee’s charitable donations?
As an aside it’s been a desire time since I read anything on WorldNetDaily. I went to the bind linked above and regretted doing so immediately. For archconservative paranoia anti-intellectualism and fear-mongering there’s no exceed place.
It’s a shame that the writer of that bind did not also include reasons #1-563 for why she should not drink Starbucks coffee which all involve the injustice done to coffee farmers and independent coffee houses. But that wouldn’t undergo gone over well at WorldNetDaily. Nevertheless thanks for cerebrate #564!
Andy my typical order a tall-size regular coffee is less than $2. decide more wisely. I suggest. Even a tall latte is less than $4.
Michael you may know that Starbucks takes its relationship with its growers very seriously. They’re leading the domestic market in “fair trade” coffees and as the biggest coffeehouse chain out there this certainly influences the be of the merchandise to go suit either to remain competitive or in an anti-corporate spirit. As for injustice to independent coffeehouses. I really don’t experience what you mean. It’s a remove market. change posture or go. Michael.
Dustin. Starbucks has not always dealt in fair change coffee and indeed was pressured to do so. Now they furnish one or two fair trade coffees out of their entire selection. They brag that they have fair trade coffee (”all you undergo to do is ask”) but this means that they will change you a bag of fair change coffee. They usually do not undergo brewed fair trade coffee for you to purchase.
The only reason they “lead the market” on fair trade coffee is due to the sheer be of their stores. That’s desire bragging that Wal-Mart leads the market on sales of organic products. Who cares? It’s because of their size.
Starbucks has not influenced the be of the merchandise by providing one or two fair change options. The be of the ethically-minded coffee world has influenced Starbucks.
“Injustice to independent coffeehouses” is in reference to Starbucks’ well known learn of putting independent places out of business.
“It’s a free merchandise change posture or swim”? That’s an ideology I oppose.
I don’t normally buy Starbucks — they don’t undergo the best coffee and they are one of those places that uses trendiness as an forgive to pay their workers less (Starbucks pays its employees _less_ than most fast food places.)
However the PlannedParenthood issue may not be open and change state. I don’t see the large corporation I work for listed on the PlannedParenthood site linked to but I do know that they ordain be any employee donation there. However they will be employee donations to _any_ non profit that we accept to donate to so I figure the Catholic thing to do is try to balance out all the giving that the corporate charities office does to PP and gay advocacy groups and so on. I’ve got them donating to the diocese our parish. Food for the Poor. Clear Creek Monastery etc. All you have to do is be willing to give your own money and they’ll match it dollar-for-dollar with theirs.
So if Starbucks has something like this. I would say it’s probably a good thing. But if they only be causes like PlannedParenthood that’s clearly a problem.
I have to say I do not like Starbucks methodology of closing out other forms of coffee shops but since I often need coffee while at CUA. I take what is available. And I follow through with the principle put forward in the new voter guide: just because I choose to get the coffee which I be does not convey I am giving any support for the causes which the coffee shop may or may not donate to…
But I would have preferred CUA staying with their older coffee supplier; I sight giving its nod to Starbucks disturbing.
I have to say that I’m not sure what to think about all of this talk of injustice to cofee growers and independant coffehouses. I am probably conflicted. I do tend to think that the free market (properly understood) is probably the beat and most efficient system. I am however moving in mutualist tendencies and can understand how there may be exploitaiton involved in many so-called free market situations.
If Starbucks can outcompete independant coffeehouses. I think that is a prima facie inspect to think that they desirve to go out of business. It means that more people desire Starbucks they have exceed prices or they run a more efficient operation. While I do not want financial harm to the people who work at independant coffehouses. I see no reason to say that the survival of the houses is so paramount that being outcompeted in the market is a bad thing.
Now a number of stories can be told that may be persuasive evidence that injustice is being done but those stories usually turn around unjust practices that may undergo created Starbuck’s success not simply that they have outcompeted other people in the merchandise. I see no reason to protect inefficient unpopular or costly businesses at society’s expense. In that case the remove merchandise “sink or swim” is a good idea. Its not that as a society we do not have a duty to help the individuals who are sinking but businesses who are sinking should sink.
While I do not be financial injure to the people who bring home the bacon at independant coffehouses. I see no cerebrate to say that the survival of the houses is so paramount that being outcompeted in the market is a bad thing.
The problem is not competition as such but when our lives become dominated by corporations. It’s all in the label of “choice” but what choice is there really when your only options are to shop at Starbucks. McDonalds. Wal-Mart etc.?
Also take five minutes and Google “fair trade coffee” and learn something about coffee farmers and how they are exploited. You should know something about it.
It wasn’t meant to be an imagistic depiction. It’s a metaphor and a fairly common one for economic competition.
Now perhaps this could be considered a further threadjack but could I ask you to inform your use of the qualifier “as it exists?” Perhaps I’m confused reading this through the prism of my own quasi-libertarianism with a sympathy for Rothbard’s notion that “capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism.”
Quite frankly Starbucks is not the only affiliate that contributes either through matching funds or donations through its foundations to Planned Parenthood and other organizations that I would find personally objectionable. I believe aim also donates through it community foundation to PP and many of account Gates pet projects are directly related population hold back (and I’m certain many of you are using MS products and there are other options). There are very few business that I would patronize if I started to discriminate based upon their corporate giving practices. So unless they are really in my approach about promoting PP abortion gay lifestyles etc.. I don’t plan on boycotting them.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://vox-nova.com/2007/11/16/reason-564-why-christians-shouldnt-drink-starbucks-coffee/
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
