Here we go... Atherton writes:
"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." I found your previous post less a call for introspection and more a call for those who wish to reduce their impact on the world to move to China. In fact, the types of action you criticized Wendy for engaging in - proactive, intelligent choices about consumption - are the result of the very process of introspection you here advocating. The dominant cultural forces working on each of us every day argue *against* spending money with any kind of moral strings attached, or for any purpose other than self-interest. Unless you think "liberalism" is so rampant - indeed, omnipresent - in Minneapolis that it drowns out the chorus from the television, radio, billboards, etc. that scream at us: "thirst is everything - obey your thirst." If that is what you think, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. I believe it's hard to counterbalance 3000+ ads a day. "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." Please give an example of how *individual* decisions to consume sustainably can "do more harm to the intended beneficiaries than good." The examples you gave - welfare and "liberal" education, your same old bugaboos - are obviously government programs, and therefore miss the point entirely. Neither Wendy nor I advocated that Minneapolis city gummint ban dirty old Cub foods from operating in our fair city. We supported the decisions of those who care about the environment and workers' rights to shop elsewhere of their own volition. I'd think someone so critical of "liberal" collectivization would applaud our approach, rather than attempting to paint us with that tired old "pinko" brush. "Why do we have such a responsibility?" Because, put simply, we are the beneficiaries of systems of dominance that effect others' lives in negative ways. And because we are the only group of people with the access to the sheer economic power that can change those systems of dominance. Now, it's a waste of my time to try to convince someone who does not share my belief in either of these two points. I thought I was pretty clear that I was speaking to and for the converted, on that front. If someone doesn't care what happens to the guy who picked her/his bananas, and will look for the cheapest price per bunch, world-be-damned, then my exhortations aren't worth the carbon dioxide exhaled. But if someone shares my values, I will simply not allow you to steamroll her/him with cynicism without a response. My purpose in the last post was not so much to prove that we have a responsibility to the other people in the world (as you seem to agree, based on your avowed little acts to "change the world"), but to argue that actions supporting values are not meaningless, as you stipulated, if not total. "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." Red herring (pun intended). First of all, my purpose was not to convince you to be involved in social justice. My purpose was to defend Wendy's decision to be involved in social justice. I personally wish to be involved because I think it's morally correct. I think there are plenty of people who agree with me, and I was writing to counter your claim that they should take their good will and stifle it, sit on it, choke it back, because they can't change the world by themselves. Now, this may alienate some members of the strict-reading set, but I believe the Constitution is a piece of paper, written by men, some of whom owned other human beings as property, who believed that the franchise should not be extended to women or the poor. Are there good ideas in it? Absolutely. But the lack of a given phrase should not prevent us from talking or thinking about said phrase - or even acting upon it. I try to buy sustainably produced products which were manufactured by people who were being paid a livable wage. I do this because I think it's the right thing to do, and because I believe it's in my best interest, in the long term, to do so. I think the city of Minneapolis should do likewise, for the same reasons. I realize fully that there are those who disagree with me, and I'm fine with their choice to consume as I wouldn't. I also accept that they will try to push city policy in the opposite direction from where I'd like it to go. But that's the role of the electoral process; to mediate disputes. "Why do liberals always have to stigmatize others viewpoints?" Says the guy who follows the old Reagan-era make-"liberal"-a-dirty-word-to-win-debates rhetorical strategy. I don't try to pigeonhole you politically, Michael. I could come back categorizing you as a "reactionary conservative" - but I understand that your views are more nuanced than that. Can you really not tell that mine are as well? Do you really believe that "Green", "welfare liberal", "democratic socialist" and "communist" are interchangeable terms? (Keep in mind that adherents of a few of those labels fought wars with each other...) "Sure[,] all of us can change our conception of our standard of living to be dirt floors, mud huts, and subsistence farming." No. You missed my point entirely. This is an example of an entirely discredited line of social thought: the idea of cultural evolution. The idea that the West is the apex (good word, Michael!) of human achievement, and every other culture represents an "old" or "backward" way of organizing a society. Societal change is not "up" or "down" some mythological ladder. That belief system assumes that the only way to increase standard of living is through American-style corporate capitalism, an entirely unworkable argument. "Misery loves company, and forced economic equality creates misery." Michael, tell me: who advocated "forced economic equality"? I spoke to support individual sustainable consumption choices. Your argument is so communist-reactive that it misses the whole point of the discussion. No one raised the possibility of bolshevizing the Minneapolis economy. The one city-government-related proposal I did make was to change our buying practices. I notice no one has directly responded to that idea. I'd love to hear from folks on that. But first, I'd like to point out that, much as the taxpayer's league "caution - social engineering ahead" billboards fail to reflect that roads are social engineering as well, the argument that my proposal is a bad idea because it represents the city engaging in "social action" does not hold water. The city is already - and inescapably - involved in social action. We support the logging of forests and the use of toxic chemicals with our paper purchases. I'd be surprised if we didn't support sweatshops somewhere with our uniform purchases. We certainly support the burning of coal in the Riverside coal plant, which provides carcinogens for north Minneapolis and the surrounding metro. The question is, should we as a city strive to understand the social effects of our collective actions, and attempt to bring these effects into line with a world we'd like to live in? Or not? "Through a series of fortunate historical twists we have become the most powerful country in the world." That is the most frighteningly sanitized version of world history I've seen in a long time. We weren't lucky. We were ruthless. We still are ruthless. See the film "Life and Debt" to see what we did to the Jamaican economy under Clinton. The American people have given our (usually not-so-informed, but that's not an excuse) consent to appalling behavior on the part of our government and, more importantly, our corporations. Those who do not agree with this behavior have a moral obligation to withhold their consent, in whatever form they can. We may not all be willing to go to prison for refusing to pay our poll tax, but I have hope that many of us will be willing to spend a little bit more on groceries. "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." No, we can't bring our standard of living to everyone. But we may well be able to bring a standard of living BETTER THAN OURS to everyone. The idea that our standard of living is the pinnacle of human achievement is a *conservative* myth. For proof, see Europe, where they live longer than we do by and large, their infants die less often, they work fewer hours per week, they're stuck in automobiles for far fewer hours a year, etc. To try to bring the "American" lifestyle to six billion people would be nightmarish... but it isn't even sustainable for a few hundred million people to live this way! Rather than holding our gross consumption up as some sort of model for the rest of the world, we could be trying make our own lives healthier and less destructive, something to which the poor of the world can legitimately aspire. "You think you can rationalize your guilt by not shopping at Cub Foods?" I'm not interested in rationalizing my guilt. I'm interested in using it as an inspiration to change my behavior to better reflect my values. I'm interested in reducing or eliminating the things I do for which I feel guilty (including paying my taxes - that's why I feel a responsibility to affect the policies of my government). I can't help what happened before I was born - I can't take back my good fortune - but I can reduce the amount of additional damage I do. Or even - and this is a high goal - become net-positive. I think we all have that possibility. Individually and collectively. I suppose the central disagreement between us is on this question: dare we hope? Robin Garwood Seward _______________________________________ 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
