A choice NOT to buy something is just as important to liberty as a choice TO buy something that you like, for whatever reason.
Correct. But being free to buy or not buy something isn't a defining attribute of capitalism. It's something which may be present under capitalism (or any of a number of other economic systems), but isn't itself "capitalism".
So a boycott is totally a capitalist maneuver, no matter why you are boycotting a product or a store.
No, it's not. I'm just not sure how much more clearly I can state this. What you're doing (several of you actually) is confusing a component of something with the thing itself. It's like saying that because a brick house is made out of bricks, that a brick is therefor a brick house. It's not. It's a brick. It can be used to build a brick house, or it could be used for something else.
It might be because the service is bad there. Or their stuff is awful/breaks a lot/is not good value for money. Or it may be any other number of consumer discontents with the product, like you don't want to buy garlic from China that has been bleached white, or diamonds from Africa that are funding a civil war, or it's from a company that has been caught illegally dumping asbestos.
Sure, which is why it's far more relevant to look at the motivation for the boycott than to declare that a boycott is an application of capitalism and thus anyone who likes capitalism shouldn't have a problem with the boycott. The boycott is in support of a socialist mandate, thus anyone participating in said boycott is promoting socialism, not capitalism. The motivation matters. It's arguably all that matters in this case. Edited, Mar 22nd 2013 6:57pm by gbaji