Case 2. Boycotting

Julius, who applies himself to the study of moral theology, recently read in a certain newspaper an article which seems to defend the lawfulness of the action called “boycotting,” in order to prevent another from renting lands from which a previous tenant had been expelled by the landlord. For those who apply a “boycott” in the case do nothing violent; each indeed, as a result of a conspiracy, abstains from all association, except in a case of extreme necessity, with those who rent the lands, in which manner of acting nothing is discovered which is not conceded to physicians and others who do not associate with brethren who do not observe the rules of the profession. Hence it is asked:

1. What is a right, and how are rights divided?

2. What is the foundation of a right, or whence do human beings possess rights?

3. Is the saying true—It is lawful for several persons as a result of a conspiracy to do what is lawful for individuals?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What is a right and how are rights divided?

A right is a moral power of having, doing, or exacting something. Rights may be divided in a great many ways, but for the purposes of this case it will be sufficient to mention natural rights, such as the right to live and to hold property, rights due to positive law, such as the right of prescription, and rights arising out of contract.

2. What is the foundation of right, or whence do men get their rights?

The foundation of natural rights is man’s rational nature, which is ordered by God his Creator to eternal blessedness with God. The duty is imposed upon man by his Creator of working toward the attainment of the end for which he was created; he has consequently the right to fulfil his destiny unhindered by any one else. This is the ultimate foundation for all man’s natural rights. Positive law is the foundation of rights derived from that source; and voluntary agreement that of rights arising from contract.

3. Is the saying true: Whatever individuals are allowed to do may be done by many in conspiracy with one another?

In general it is, but sometimes it becomes unlawful because the very fact of numbers acting together in conspiracy causes hardship to others, or interferes with their rights. Thus individuals have a right to walk through a crowded thoroughfare, but it does not follow that a large number of people may form themselves into a compact body and march, so as to interfere with the traffic.

4. The case. Those who boycott another abstain from all intercourse with him and prevent others from having any intercourse with him with a view to compelling him to leave a place or occupation to which he has a legal right. Thus they violate his natural right of liberty to settle and employ himself as he chooses, provided that he does not violate just laws nor the rights of others. They also violate the right that he had acquired by contract with the owner of the property which he hired. Boycotting is also against charity on account of the hardship which it causes and the practical exclusion of the boycotted party from human society. It also interferes seriously with public order and peace. Doctors, lawyers, and others belonging to like voluntary associations have a right to make rules for their mutual protection, and any one who enters such profession may be required to conform to the established rules. If they will not do so, they may be professionally ostracized. Such ostracism, however, is only partial; it is applied for good reason to compel uniformity for the common good; it is very different from the ordinary boycott, which takes away rights, the enjoyment of which is necessary for human life.