You make a good point. Making a living is a pressing issue, and I feel that we do have a responsibility to aid those that can't take care of themselves. Furth

You make a good point. Making a living is a pressing issue, and I feel that we do have a responsibility to aid those that can't take care of themselves. Further, you point out correctly, that I was harsh in my dismissal of those supporting Seattle's policy. Most people that support Seattle's policy probably do it in the belief that it will help the people that need help. Nevertheless, I believe that there are likely to be unanticipated negative consequences and a further eroding of our freedoms. I must disagree with you that simply because the people of Seattle have had a democratic vote for a particular policy that we must respect it and refrain from criticizing it. The majority isn't always right and there is a long tradition in my country (the USA) of speaking out against policies that are either morally wrong (in some way) or wasteful despite the positions taken by majorities. I'm old enough to have demonstrated for civil rights at a time when there were states still refusing civil rights to their racial minority populations. While I was in college, there was a minority in this country demonstrating against a war being waged by conscripts that didn't want to fight. Today, there are states that don't allow gays the rights that the rest of us have. Do you dismiss criticism of these (sometimes majority held) positions as condescending and anti-democratic? Our cherished Bill of Rights is fundamentally anti-democratic, protecting us from simple democratic majorities. I'm curious, although not hopeful, about the outcome of Seattle's experiment. I share your wish that it will help (the difference is I believe it won't). You can say to me "I told you so" if it really does help the people of Seattle, that would be a good thing.