Bill wrote: "If we choose to patronize companies based on the political beliefs of the owner, that will push our most successful people out of politics. Who (in their right mind) would take a public stand and risk loosing all they built solely because they spoke out?
"I prefer to believe that we WANT our most successful people to voice their opinions as they are often the superstars of society. I applaud Brian Sullivan, Mark Dayton and stars like Barbara Streisand for trying to improve the world. I don't agree with all of them, but I believe their efforts to be noble." I think it is a misconception to equate personal wealth with value as a political candidate, just as it would be less than true to say that the wealthy are the worst people to have in public office as they've proven they're thieves by stealing their wealth from the rest of society. Both points assign a value judgement to having heaps of money. Neither is reliable. Take Dayton, for instance. Did he actually do anything to earn all that money? How does being born with the right name make him a "superstar of society"? For the record, (and perhaps unsurprisingly) I tend towards the latter value judgement about wealth. Great wealth seems to be correlated with a certain cutthroat nature or learned behavior which I find disturbing and destructive in the political field. Like Bill, I also applaud those with full bank accounts and stars with name recognition for wanting to improve the world. However, there are many, many others out there who want to improve the world. People of good character, intelligence, and compassion. The assets of the former crowd out the participation of the latter in many cases. I don't believe that's healthy for our democracy on any level, as I think it's reasonable to assume certain similarities between those with lots and lots of money. They're like natural incumbents; they've benefited from the system as it stands, and therefore have no personal incentive to change it. And perhaps radical change is what will improve the world. Is it really such a leap to believe that the reason we so seldom hear the words "poor" and "poverty" out of our elected officials mouths is that none of them have been poor? That homelessness is not a priority because elected officials have never been homeless? I do want our "most successful people" involved in the political process. But not to the exclusion of others. Robin Garwood SE Como P.S. If Brian Sullivan is worried about my lack of patronage due to political belief, he needn't fret: I would not order from Simon Delivers on other grounds - why get food delivered by car when Spokes will deliver me a delicious vegan pesto pizza by bicycle? REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
