It's their money and they can do what they want, but i don't see how this promotes the general welfare.

that limiting the franchise to people who had served would result in better government -- for Bezos's reasons. Bezos is described as libertarian, supported by some behaviors. (I changed this from "describes himself." )

Heinlein didn't consider that an above-average share of those joining the military are authoritarian in personality, seeking leaders to obey, not exactly the best citizen material for a democratic republic Or that almost all who serve typically have many motivations for joining, some of them more gutless-wonder than noble. Our son was proud to serve on the carrier USS America during the First Gulf War, but he joined because he needed more time to grow up, and the military gave it to him.

Personally, not being a romantic, I don't want an inappropriately unrepresentative percentage of ex-military in office. Our founding fathers thought giving political power to the military was a very bad idea and made sure not to. Not that it's a problem, but we're already seeing a trend of more running for office without Bezos.

I didn't realize until later how libertarian and fascistic the societies he tended to promote in his stories were. Oh, and if his stories are any indication of his beliefs, he appeared to be an "open carry" proponent.



Oh, and as for military in government, we've had good and bad. Many of the veteran presidents we've had were pretty bad, but perhaps not as bad as the businessmen we seem to like to elect. As a veteran myself, I don't have a lot of reservations about veterans being elected, as long as their policies are not too extreme.

Also lied about what he actually did in Iraq. Once he got elected, his actual record ended up on his Wiki page. Convenient.

In this one move he out played Trump. Didn’t do anything for the betterment of society.

who has eschewed money from PACs.