I don't think this is true:

>>>the fact remains that there are lawmakers in Berkeley who hold a political philosophy that they believe gives them the right to make it a crime--a punishable crime--for a private business to sell coffee that the politician personally does not approve of.

Because, from the piece: "Young went around with petitions and got enough valid signatures to put the proposed ordinance on the November ballot"

If the Berkeley general public votes this in, then I guess that's them excercising their freedom of choice. If you think it's constitutionally incorrect, then you and Newsmax should quit whining and challange it!

I don't see how this is different from the govt. telling us we can or can't sell wheat to USSR or buy tea from China, or that we should buy tin toys from Japan, or fruit from Central America. Or the various Buy American campaigns. Or the whole MFN game. Are these leftist plots too?

The fact of the matter is that consumers rarely *have* the choice that the rightists claim is our right. Left to their own devices, companies like Starbucks usually buy from whoever has the lower price. They typically do not provide side-by-side products: one - a penny more expensive, but doesn't support dictatorships x, y and z, or whatever; and the other - a tiny bit cheaper, but you don't know where it's been.

Additional limits to choice that should be considered:

- our very own government can decide to a large degree, who can provide a foreign commodity (like coffee) for the lowest price, by setting trade policy.

- Large companies often drive smaller ones from the market (with the ultimate goal of raising prices when the smalls are gone).