One of the guys I mentioned was one very vocal business leader, Elon Musk. I think it would be fair to say that a lot of the time he's in the news more for what he says than what his businesses do. And it's caused some problems for him as well as some of his shareholders.
Whether it's right or wrong, businesses take hits for things the CEO's and owners say. Either the customers respond, or shareholders do.
Take Anheuser-Busch, Bud Light, and the Dylan Mulvaney can, or the My Pillow guy.
As I alluded to in my other post, it's not always necessarily about which side your position happens to be on. Chick-Fil-A, for example, has strong opinions against abortion and gay marriage, as does Hobby Lobby. Their businesses have soared with support from a like-minded clientele who agree with their stance.
The point is that, even though these are businesses separate of people, they are still run by people. And the people who run them have just as much of a right to express themselves as the rest of us do.
Should exercising our rights cost us?
In my post I said that it often does, but also suggested maybe it shouldn't. That at the end of the day perhaps it would be better to simply say of any CEO, "Hey, I disagree with what he's saying, but I like the product and can respect his right to say what he wants."
What has led me to revisit this train of thought has been things Elon Musk has recently said. Things that resonate with me and cause me to rethink my own stance a little bit.
I still think it is probably best, in this ever-heated world we live in when it comes to politics, to pipe it down as much as you can and keep the best interests of the business in mind. Because if the business is impacted, it hurts more people than just the one who holds a particular belief.
There are workers and shareholders at stake. They all have just as much invested in the business as the CEO's and owners do. At least in terms of the workers, it's their livelihoods on the line.
Take, for example, the other day as I was in the liquor aisle at my local grocery store. I drink Miller Lite because that's my beer of choice. But I have been hard on Anheuser-Busch for their Dylan Mulvaney can and have written several times saying that "we should bring the pain and let woke know what happens when you go there."
The Bud Light pain lives on, and rather than restocking the cold case, all that AB merchandiser could do was make note of what remained on the shelf that just won't sell. You have to think he wonders, if the boycott continues, what impact that could have on his job. And he may have the same opinion as the customers do.
There is another thing to appreciate here, and I think it's a bit of a message—albeit coming from Elon Musk. Right now, although it fluctuates a bit, the richest man in the world. What does the left always say? What's their sell?
That the rich care only about one thing. The money.
Elon Musk is quite literally spitting in the face of that idea. And he's come right out and said it. He doesn't care. "I'll say what I want to say. If the consequence of that is losing money, so be it."
What he is acknowledging is that there can be consequences from voicing certain opinions. People may foist their discontent and scorn on the businesses they are in charge of. That's the risk you take when you say something, especially things that may be controversial, or where there may be a deep division of opinion.
At the same time, he is also acknowledging that what he holds dearer than the money or the consequence of losing it, is his right to speak freely and openly. In other words, he is essentially saying he is not willing to give up himself and who he is just for the sake of making a buck.
That's profound when you think about it. Here is the richest man in the world saying that there are some things that are far more valuable, and far more important to hold onto, than money.
As much as I want to follow my own thoughts, that for the good of the business, business leaders simply clam up—his words lead me down a different path and a different train of thought. Should the objective of disagreeing with someone be to destroy them?
Moreover, isn't doing that a very dangerous path to go down? And is Elon Musk sort of alluding to that? Is his message partly to help people to understand it?
When you squash the freedoms of people to express themselves, you lose the value of who you are as a person. The world becomes shaped by a consensus rather than a discussion.
What does it say about the advertisers who decided to pull ads on Musk's X over some things he tweeted they felt uncomfortable with, or disagreed with? What are their thoughts on the Constitution, for example?
The whole idea of free speech is based on the premise of being able to freely express your opinions without fear of persecution. Yes, there are always going to be consequences depending on what you say. That has always been the case. And perhaps when it comes to business, that's as true there as it is anywhere else.
You can say what you want, but you have to accept some bad may come from it if a lot of people find it cringeworthy, frightening, or disgusting or ugly.
It's a double-edged sword is what I am saying. So, essentially, I am a bit on the fence. If I am a shareholder of a company, I don't want my investment to be negatively impacted by something my CEO says. At the same time can I still respect his right to do it? Can I be angry and tell him to shut up just because I shared in the consequences of what he said even if I may not agree with his position?
After all, I invested in the company. Not necessarily in the man who runs it. I value my investment. But I also value my rights more. And I have the same rights as the CEO does. In other words, I am understanding that I really can't have it both ways. And Musk is sort of saying that too.
It causes me to rethink, as well, my own reaction to certain things. Like the Bud Light controversy. Who exactly am I delivering pain to if I show my dislike of an opinion by not buying their products? The man who had the opinion I disagreed with? Or the potentially tens of thousands of people who will suffer the consequences along with him who may not also share his opinion? Who may also side with me.
If nothing else, I think what Elon Musk provides us with is a valuable insight into our own psyche and our own condition. Why are we so apt as a people to destroy someone who thinks differently than we do, and yet at the same time, consider our own opinions having a higher weight than other opinions?
When you attempt to silence one opinion through delivered pain, eventually the same will happen with one of your opinions, and if expression is silenced through fear, does it not eat away at the idea of freedom as a whole?
In other words, where's the line drawn?
I rather admire the idea that one is unwilling to change their mind or keep quiet simply because someone else thinks they should—or because, like the fate of Mike Lindell, you may well lose everything you've built by doing it.
What is ultimately being fired upon is not the business. It's the opinion. The business pain is simply the mechanism by which that pain is delivered. As a message. As a warning to others. Toe the line or else. Conform or else.
Isn't that what communist countries do?
Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with my latest posts from all the places I may write them.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment