Ok so Lamont has stock in a managed fund that happens to own wal-mart stock (
link). It seems the usual MSM suspects think this means that despite Lamont's invectives against Wal-Mart's less-than-responsible business practices, Lamont is actually a whip-wielding sweatshop foreman in Indonesia when he's not campaigning.
Didn't you hear any contribution to an enterprise, whether or not its final destination is intended, is a wild-eyed endorsement of that money's destiny? That means that by paying my taxes I'm a wholehearted supporter of the Iraq war and anything Dear Leader does in my name. By paying taxes, Rick Santorum is secretly endorsing all of the buttfucking that the supreme court and law enforcement make possible. By giving a dollar to a beggar, I showed my dyed-in-the-woll support for meth manufacturing community.
Yeah right.
Obviously that line of reasoning is a bunch of BS. "Fine", you say. "Ned voluntarily chose to invest" you say. Well, I guess, but by that standard pretty much every participant in a 401K is giving their heart and/or mind to corporate America.
The underlying point is that if money leaves my hand with an innocuous purpose, I cannot be held responsible for its effects, especially when the system is rigged so that its almost impossible to tell exactly things go once the money's left your wallet. It's true at the pump. It's true at the grocery store. And it's true at the brokerage.
If I were more idealistic, I'd say that perhaps all of us, Lamont included, need to be more dilligent in tracking the life-cycle of goods and currency. However, the rules of finance and corporation preclude this so much that it's almost impossible to make any kind of in road. Furthermore, even if transparency does exist there are any number of goods and services for which there are no/few viable alternatives that are "warm-and-fuzzy" from the extraction/production of raw goods to the cash register (gasoline, automobiles, agriculture, insurance).
So, in conclusion I would say that Lamont's accidental ownership of Wal-Mart stock is just that, an accident. However, there's a meta-ethical question that emerges that isn't about this or that candidate's possible hypocrasy. Simply put, can/should one be responsible for any and all enabling, support of malfeasance etc that one's money begets. We talk about voting with our pocketbooks. Is there a moral imperative to vote that way with the all possible dilligence?
I'd like to think so, but shit if I don't end up at Wal-Mart 1 or 2 times a year.