The following is a hypothetical conversation between A and B, two random people from two different countries.

A: Your government recently banned the sales of some companies from my country. What do you think about that?

B: They deserve it. Their employees made some very bad public statements that hurt us.

A: Bad statements? But those statements are more or less aligned with the core principles that I value, and shared by many others.

B: Maybe for you. We, in our country, have a slightly different set of values. To us, those statements were very insulting, and attacked what we care about deeply. Are you a moral absolutist, and think that your values are the “correct” ones, standing above everyone else’s for some reason?

A: Well, no, although I don’t believe in complete moral relativism either. I think some values are fairly universal, including the ones expressed in some of those statements. But okay, I’ll acknowledge that you may not share the same values as me. But still, where I’m from, where the statements were made, there is freedom of expression.

B: They are free to say what they want, just as we are free to choose who to buy, or not buy, products from.

A: But now you are using your country’s economic power to coerce the behavior of foreign citizens!

B: That’s exactly how global trade works. Suppose people from our country really like red shirts, while people in yours really like blue shirts. A manufacturer in our country that wants to sell shirts successfully in your country would have to make blue shirts. Aren’t you “coercing” our citizens into making shirts that they clearly don’t like themselves?

A: No. That hypothetical example is very different, because it is directly related to the production of the product. Companies of course should produce different products for people with different preferences. Those “bad statements” we are talking about, on the other hand, have nothing to do with what the companies make and sell. They were said by the employees in their personal lives, and do not affect the product one bit.

B: But some really important values extend beyond just the product itself. Would you willingly buy products made by a person who commits murders in his own “personal life”?

A: No, but…

B: His spare-time murders don’t affect the product at all.

A: It’s very disingenuous to compare making public statements to murder. Plus, those statements made were not even that bad. Controversial perhaps, but honestly, I think they were pretty harmless.

B: Harmless to you, maybe. And sure, comparing them to murder is a bit extreme, but you don’t get to decide how much those statements hurt us, we do! They may seem harmless to you, within your value system, but to us, they were very disrespectful, repulsive even. We have every right to boycott the products made by those who said them.

A: Yeah, okay. Boycotting out of principle is fine, even if when the principle differs from mine, and doesn’t affect the product. But still, it should be left up to the individual to decide for themselves. Collective boycotting dictated by the government is the real problem.

B: First of all, it comes down to different values again. You think collective decisions are bad, but we may not think so. But even forgetting that for now, why is collective action bad?

A: Because it takes freedom away from the individual. The people in your country that still want to buy these banned companies’ products are now out of luck. There are bound to be plenty of such people that disagree with the forced collective preference of the government.

B: Actually not really. Yes it does technically take away freedom from the individual, but it only affects a very small portion of the population. Almost everyone agrees with the government’s preference in this case, and would boycott these companies anyway.

A: If the majority of the people would boycott voluntarily like you said, why the need to impose the nation-wide ban at all? It would still hurt these companies just as badly.

B: …

A: Plus, even if most people do agree, that’s probably because your government is using rampant propaganda and brainwashing to steer the public preference towards the desired direction. It doesn’t represent what the people truly want.

B: What does “what the people truly want” even mean? Nobody lives in a vacuum, of course people are constantly influenced by their environment, peers, and society. Do you think this kind of “rampant propaganda and brainwashing” doesn’t happen where you are from? Don’t be delusional, it happens everywhere. It’s just that in other places it might be done more subtly, via more hidden means, by a combination of government, big corporations, and media conglomerates. Arguably this more subtle way is more dangerous, because it fools the people into a false sense of independence. Like you, believing that your thoughts and preferences are entirely your own.

A: I am not delusional. I am well aware of the fact that propaganda exists in my country, as it does everywhere. Other people, usually rich and powerful, try to push their thoughts into my head every day. But here, where I’m from, there are multiple diverging groups doing this simultaneously, and their effects, in a sense, keep each other in check. Sure, there are probably just a few large groups powerful enough to disseminate their narratives at the national scale, and that’s always dangerous, but there is a big difference between a few parties doing it and a single entity doing it.

B: Do you not realize how inefficient that system is? Several groups working against each other, wasting resources and energy. No wonder your country is often so messy and divided in comparison, people from within are actively working against each other! Our system, with a single unified point of view, is much more harmonious and efficient. In fact, we are so efficient, that in a matter of days, through our nation-wide sales ban, we’ve managed to cause direct policy changes in companies in your country! That’s the power of top-down collective coordination.

A: Yes, I have no doubt that government forced coordinated action is effective. And sure, when viewed at the system level, my country may not look as attractive as yours. But at the individual level, the story is most likely different. If you compared the relative wellbeing of individuals, systems that are more de-centralized will almost assuredly do better than top-down collectively coordinated systems.

B: That is quite a groundless statement, and doesn’t even make much sense to begin with. Individuals are but pieces within the whole. It is only through elevating the whole that the individuals end up better off. And if in that process, some individuals are not able to get what they want, like buying the products of some banned companies, then it is a small price to pay for the overall improvement of the collective group.

A: No. The whole should be subservient to the individual, and I say that as a realist, not some delusional idealist. I understand that the individual is not completely outside the influence of certain power groups. And that as a whole, the system may appear chaotic and inefficient at times. But ultimately for the individual to be better off, they should be given the freedom to choose. And the collective should improve as a result.

B: Hmm, there is no definitive answer, so it seems like we’d just have to agree to disagree. At the end of the day though, no one is forcing these companies to do business with us. If they want to sell products to us, they’ll have to adhere to our collective preferences. Don’t like that? Then they can simply stop dealing with us.

A: … Maybe they really should consider it.

B: Yeah. And if they don’t end up stopping, then perhaps these differences in our value systems are not that important after all…