Jim Bernstein wrote: Consider this: A person (Brian Sullivan) runs for a high political office and runs a campaign that you believe is so far off base and whose positions on some major issues is, in your opinion, appalling, poorly thought out, and genuinely harmful to the people of Minnesota.
<snip> I have a choice to patronize his company or to use another. In my opinion, his public views on key issues are extreme, his solutions to problems are badly conceived, unfair and hostile, and his style of campaigning is offensive. Why should I ignore all of that in choosing who I will buy products from? <snip> We all make choices (thankfully, we still have some) about what products/services to buy and where we buy them. It may be price, service, convenience, value, quality, which typically dictate that decision but in some cases, I reserve the right as a consumer to exercise another level of judgment: to not buy products from a company whose leader or leadership (Sullivan was on their Board)who expresses views that I find very distasteful. Mark Anderson response: First of all, I am very glad you have the option to decline from buying products from whoever you want -- part of the benefit of the private sector is that it gives you such options. I think you have every right to do so. My argument is on the rationality of your decision. I'm hoping that most people will realize that selective buying based on the owner's politics is a bad idea, except in the most extreme of circumstances. In your original posting, Jim, you seemed to imply that you wouldn't buy from a Brian Sullivan business no matter how much you wanted his product. Sure, if you are indifferent in what company you buy from in terms of value of the product, then I agree it's perfectly reasonable to use the owner's politics as the tipping point to buy from one company instead of the other. The more difficult question is should you buy the worse value just because the owner has the better politics? That is apparently what you are thinking -- even if you thought home delivery was the cat's meow, you would never get it from Simon Delivers. And that is what I wish you and other would rethink. By not using Simon Delivers, even if it would improve your life, you have decided it is worth harming yourself in order to harm someone else. I think you would have to dislike someone pretty thoroughly in order make an effort just to hurt them. And that's where the polarization comes in. My impression is that Brian Sullivan is pretty much in the mainstream of the Republican Party, if a little bit to the right of it. I think about a third of Minnesota's population is Republican, and Republican sympathizers compose about half the population. So Sullivan's supporters comprise maybe 20% of MN population? To me the implication is that you would make an effort to hurt a large section of Minnesota's population, if you knew their politics, and had a way to do so. Am I correct, and if not, why not? It's this demonizing of those with different beliefs that worries me. I don't think that the left and right (even the far left and far right) have basic values that differ greatly from each other. They see the World differently, but both sides generally want the same thing. And yet the two sides often hate each other. They see harm to the other party as a benefit to themselves. Mark V Anderson Bancroft 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
