mead berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
Pension Crisis
California Has a Weird Definition of “Social Responsibility”
Features Icon
show comments
  • FriendlyGoat

    There was a time when churches would have been agreeing with anyone who said “don’t be investing and profiting from such things as tobacco (and liquor and gambling, as well)”. Today you basically have the churches on the political side saying “You’re chumps if you don’t.”

    • Jim__L

      Was that about the same time that many Puritan fortunes in Boston were based on slave-trade money?

      • FriendlyGoat

        Maybe. But I had something more recent and relevant in my own life in mind. I had a grandfather, a father-in-law and a business boss who, as role models to me, all knew that it was not right to be profiting off of activities which become stumbling blocks to other people. Maybe they had been exposed to pastors who told them that, or maybe they just knew. If one thinks it important not to drink, smoke and gamble, then it is all the more important to not sell those activities for profit, no?

        • Jim__L

          I have a good deal of sympathy for that point of view, but would offer the observation that drinking (and perhaps even smoking) in moderation is not really a vice. I agree with CS Lewis — a modest amount of social lubricant is useful.

          As for the rest of what the Left figures is “sinful” — oil companies and the like — I think making fun of that is fair game.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I actually agree with you that a little (LITTLE) drinking, smoking and gambling is not a dire sin problem. What people in those businesses know, however, is that the totally addicted folks are the ones consuming the large majority of the cigarettes, liquor and casino offerings. Many people get really hooked on these things. And some of them have their lives ruined as a result. The “moral” men I knew as a younger fellow were not confused about whether they should run taverns or package stores on the side just because such enterprises can turn a profit.

          • Jim__L

            The cynical part of me is actually rather amused at the idea that Indians in California are now big casino-keepers — making money off of white folks’ vices. Again, though, I agree that limits are a good thing.

            Still… I don’t trust the Politically Correct keepers of CalPERS to know where vice ends and public benefits begin. Divestment from companies involved with guns or fossil fuels is just crazy, if prudent investment dictates investment.

  • Andrew Allison

    You seem surprised that the lunatics running the California asylum made the irresponsible choice. If the trial bar were not an appendage of the DNC, we might expect a class-action suit on behalf of the current and prospective “beneficiaries” of CalPERS for malfeasance

  • Tom_Holsinger

    Plus the nasty fiduciary responsibility requirement in California’s state constitution inhibits so many other interesting investment opportunities …

  • ——————————

    “California Has a Weird Definition of “Social Responsibility””

    Cali has a weird definition of everything….

    • Jim__L

      Actually, the population of California has the right idea of how to define words, for example “marriage”.

      It’s California’s ruling class that’s bats**t crazy.

  • seattleoutcast

    It’s easy to be socially responsible when someone else pays your bills.

  • Disappeared4x

    Would the USA have won WW2 without Lucky Strikes, a tobacco cigarette?

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service