[I just posted this on LewRockwell.com]
Lew, I agree completely with you (and Rozeff). As detailed in posts by S.M. Oliva and Glenn Greenwald, it seems clear Amazon is just a victim of the state, and as a libertarian I make it a policy never to blame the victim. And who can blame them for capitulating any more than taxpayers are to be blamed for coughing up the dough? Amazon is skating on thin ice as it is in heroically helping people avoid sales tax. Of course it’s rational to fear the state. Thus I disagree with condemnations of Amazon by libertarians and Antiwar.com’s call for a boycott of Amazon.
Further, Amazon’s managers have an obligation to the shareholders; they have no right to risk or waste shareholder money for political grandstanding. It’s not their money they would be risking. I also think that in addition to the anti-war libertarian activists who are up in arms about Amazon’s pursuit of profits instead of activism, a number of left-libertarians are using this as an excuse to pile on Amazon because it’s big, a corporation, and profitable.
And I, like you, have always disliked boycotts. That said, libertarians can disagree on this tactical issue; and I of course regard antiwar.com as heroic. Thus, to bolster my dislike of boycotting, and even though I disagree with antiwar.com’s stance on Amazon and their intentional rejection of Amazon revenues, I’ve just donated $100 to Antiwar.com (and $200 to LRC).
Update: PayPal has also refused to deal with Wikileaks.
Clarification: In some of my online writings about the Amazon boycott, I’ve apparently given an impression to some that I do not wish to give. Some of my comments have been construed as more than just friendly disagreement. Let me be crystal clear: I am a strong supporter of antiwar.com. They are one of the most heroic libertarian institutions on the planet, and I greatly respect, admire and appreciate everyone who works for and supports it. I love what they do and remain a strong supporter.