I'm not sure how to add my thoughts to this thread without being misconstrued.
First, money or lack of money makes one neither good nor evil - just rich or poor. If this weren't the case, we should turn away the interest and allegiance of celebrities like Daryl Hannah. Also, wealth is relative. To folks I know who's family home is a one room shack in a field without electricity or running water folks with cars and computers and coffee makers seem rich.
Second - the need for profits is a concession to reality. When the county tax assessor asks for property taxes, I can't reply, but we are doing permaculture. When the well breaks and you need to pay for a new pump, you usually can't barter with a corporation. Profits are like food, you need enough to survive, but too much isn't good for you.
Third - one can be interested and committed to the notion of permanent agriculture, but derive their ethics and moral guidance from a differnt philosophical, religious, or spiritual tradition. Persoally I don't believe a moral monoculture helps us anymore than agricultural monoculture.
Finally, if one chooses to believe in the ethics of fair share and redistribution of surplus, isn't it people with the good fortune to have surplus that we'd hope would embrace that ethic? I say give them an opportunity to embrace it.
