I should have been more explicit that I was using boycott as an analogy to an embargo, in contrast to a blockade which unilaterally prevents countries from trading through military force.

An embargo is analogous to a boycott: you and your friends decide not to shop at a given store. But people who disagree and still want to shop have the ability to do so.

A blockade is like people standing around the store with batons and pepper spray, promising to apprehend anyone who tries to shop at the store.

The latter is obviously a much more forceful move. In fact, it's an act of war.

▲

kyboren 3 hours ago | parent [-]

But the US also limits their patronage of other businesses whose owners shop at the store. And because the US is such a rich and great customer, while Cuba is broke and their shop has empty shelves, other business owners generally avoid going to CubaMart.

It's not a blockade, and everyone involved is simply exercising their sovereign rights. But it is mildly coercive. Which, obviously, is the whole point.

	▲	Manuel_D 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Right, but the point is, it's not a blockade. Loads of people are calling it a blockade, and correcting that piece of misinformation is the root of this whole thread. If people want to say that the embargo is coercive and bad, that's fine.