"Garwood, Robin" wrote: > I hate when people criticize those who're trying to do *something* because > they can't do *everything*.
I think that its fine to do the many small things we feel will change the world (I do mine as well), but I also think that we need to introspect a little about how much these actions will affect the lives of others and the extent to which they are our own emotional conveniences. Otherwise, our selfish rationalizations may actually do more harm to the intended beneficiaries than good. The welfare and educational systems are just two examples liberal good intentions gone bad. > But those of us who do have power - however limited - have a responsibility > to wield it responsibly. And make no mistake: even those of us on this list > who make the least money each year (full disclosure: I'm at about 27K right > now - not a lot, but enough) have vastly greater economic power than those > who sew our underwear. So we must do whatever we can, even if we are left > with small, incomplete forms of resistance to aiding in others' oppression. Why do we have such a responsibility? > Those of you who value capitalism as a system for positive growth should > recognize that it requires - and can reward - informed, compassionate > decisions from those in a position of power who care the slightest bit about > their fellow human beings. Organic agriculture has the fastest-growing > market share and profit margin of our forms of food production. The Domini > 400 consistently outperforms the S&P 500. If you don't want the government > getting involved in social justice then you must be, through your decisions > about where you write your checks. How do you define social justice and why should I, or our government be involved in it? The Constitution states that government should provide for justice and the general welfare, I don't recall it saying anything about "social" justice. If I recall correctly that's the foundation of Communism, not American Democracy. > A couple more silly Atherton quotes: (Respectful discourse? Why do liberals always have to stigmatize others viewpoints?) > "To equalize the standard of living we enjoy with the rest of the world > would mean reducing ours significantly." > > No. There are other options, the best of which is for us to change our > conception of a high standard of living. What is a high standard of living? > Being forced into a car every time we want to go somewhere? Spending more > time than the workers of any other industrialized nation away from our > families, working, to afford to spend huge amounts of money on frivolous > junk the TV says we need? Making sure everything we buy is ensconced in as > much plastic packaging as possible? The rapacious appetite we have equated > with a good life need not be, and its rejection will enable Malays, Chinese, > and Minneapolitans to live better. Sure all of us can change our conception of our standard of living to be dirt floors, mud huts, and subsistence farming. An economic policy that came close to being implemented in China by Mao. Misery loves company, and forced economic equality creates misery. Through a series of fortunate historical twists we have become the most powerful country in the world. Those of us who reside here enjoy the benefits. And, no matter what you say, there are not enough resources to bring our standard of living to every human being on the planet. It's a liberal myth that such a possibility exists. > Guilt and suffering do no good if they don't inspire personal change for the > better. To learn to live with legitimate guilt - as Atherton defends and > espouses - is the foundation of an immoral life. Why? Then everyone in the U.S. must be living in sin. You think you can rationalize your guilt by not shopping at Cub Foods? > What Wendy and I both > choose to exercise is a Thoreau-style "civil disobedience" - but instead of > resisting the domination of our consciences by government (in this instance) > we resist the domination and silencing of our conscience by economic elites. > Can we live our American lives without occasional tinglings of guilt? No, > at least I can't. But I'd prefer that tingle to excising or ignoring my > conscience altogether. To attack someone like Wendy for trying to do > whatever she can to reduce her "responsibility for exploitation by the U.S." > is the height of absolutist silliness. Well it's good to know that I'm at the apex of something. Michael Atherton Prospect Park _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@;mnforum.org Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
