[simonh]

If it is immoral for Apple to do business in China, then why is it moral for Mr. Lai or anyone in Hong Kong to do business in China? This smacks as a pretty partisan double standard, and I have to wonder what you have against Apple that you would single them out in this way.

Hong Kong and people like Mr. Lai has always done business in China and there's nothing reprehensible about that, nor is it reprehensible for any other business to legally carry on it's business in the same way. This is about individual freedom, free speech and political liberties, of which trade is one and criticising others for exercising their freedoms is the antithesis of that. Mr Lai made his fortune exercising those freedoms and I very much doubt he would say doing so now is in any way wrong. The way to fight this is by arguing and fighting for freedoms, not against them.

[JimDabell]

> If it is immoral for Apple to do business in China, then why is it moral for Mr. Lai or anyone in Hong Kong to do business in China?

Why is it moral for Jimmy Lai – who was born there, grew up there, and lives there – to do business there? Are his only moral choices to be unemployed or emigrate? He needs to be economically active somewhere and that’s his home.

You don’t have to have a "partisan double standard" or bias against Apple to see the clear difference between a corporation expanding to a foreign territory and a local working in his home country.

[simonh]

If it's moral for those workers in China to take employment working on Apple products, I don't see why it's immoral for Apple to make the deals that create that employment. So no, I don't really see a difference.

Business that especially benefits the Chinese government in particular, or that supports their oppressive activities, sure I can see that. I think Google took a principled moral stance in refusing to provide search services in China when it was clear those services would have to enable surveillance. I don't think they did anything wrong having their Pixel phones manufactured in China.

For context my wife in mainland Chinese, though now a British citizen, we go there regularly and have family there. I spend money in China, and don't think there's anything wrong with myself, businesses, or 'corporations' doing so either whatever we think of the CCP. So this sort of selective virtue posturing really rubs me up the wrong way.

[JimDabell]

> If it's moral for those workers in China to take employment working on Apple products, I don't see why it's immoral for Apple to make the deals that create that employment. So no, I don't really see a difference.

One of these is an economic necessity and one is not. People generally don’t have a choice but to participate in their local economy. Apple has a choice to participate in the Chinese economy. That’s the difference.

> This smacks as a pretty partisan double standard

> I have to wonder what you have against Apple

> this sort of selective virtue posturing

Can you make your point without being insulting and accusatory? It’s possible for people to disagree about this without one side being a bad actor.

[simonh]

It’s not a matter of necessary or not, it’s a matter of freedom or not. Mr Lai clearly gets this. He said he fights for freedom because it’s those freedoms that enabled his success. Those arguing against people exercising those rights are anti-freedom.

Now trade boycotts and restrictions can be justified in some circumstances. I’m not a fundamentalist, but pushing the responsibility on individuals, and doing so in a blatantly asymmetrical and partisan way to push a clearly unrelated agenda (why Apple in particular, really?) is reprehensible and I make no apology for saying so.

[asimpletune]

I, for one, would like the down voters to address the merit of the commentators argument, if it’s not too much trouble.