2ndRateMind

I agree with you, that, ideally, the world should be saved by the voluntary efforts of those with resources excessive to their immediate requirements. But, there are three points that prevent me from agreeing with you, entirely. Firstly, the rich have the resources, but have not yet saved the world, voluntarily. Should we just wait for them to turn charitable, while people starve of hunger and sicken and die from entirely preventable disease? There is an urgency imperative at operation, here. Secondly, Governments have powers to do things that individuals, however rich, do not. Sometimes it is just a better solution to consolidate resources, and social, economic and political power, to get the things done that need to be done. Collective leverage is often more powerful than the sum of individual efforts. It's a synergy thing. Thirdly, there is this idea that charity should be beneficient to the charitable. I am a little more austere than this, in attitude. I do not care all that much whether rich people derive benefits from their donations. I only care that good is done, that might otherwise not be done. If the charitable earn merit and well-being by their charity, for me, that is a by-product, not the purpose of the giving. So, I take your point. I do not entirely disagree with it. But I think we would be foolish to overlook the advantages of working together, even through government, to make of this world the paradise it ought to be by now, 2000 years since Christ. Best wishes, and happy new year, 2RM.

I'm up for this. I just see it a Christendom-wide project, rather than purely an LDS one. Happy New Year, all. 2RM.

We don't know the counter-factual. What the world would have been like, and how ignorant we might be in respect of effective, workable strategies, had that money not been spent. Best wishes, and have a great new year! 2RM.

Not quite sure what a hairflip is, but I never said I was leaving you all forever, just that my frequency of posting would be down. Meanwhile, think of me as Jiminy Cricket to your Pinocchio - a friendly, neighbourhood, and annoying conscience. Happy new year, 2RM.

Well, there is much I agree with, here. I too, was brought up around guns. At age 12, I was shooting for my school at Bisley. By age 18, I was at Sandhurst, training to be an army officer. But I have renounced firearms. In respect of meat, there are often more humane ways to dispatch an animal. In respect of war; well, I now rely on the army in which I once served. In respect of self-defence, I think our police do a better job than we could expect from an armed populace, with all the risks of weaponry in wrong hands that entails. As for the morality of weaponry. This is often trotted out as a defence by pro-gun lobby, as if a semi-automatic assault rifle were just a tool, like a hammer. The truth is, tools are made for a purpose. The purpose of a hammer is neutral, maybe even morally positive; to drive in nails and construct things. The purpose of an assault rifle is wholly destructive, wholly negative, being designed to kill, and only kill. The fewer assault rifles inhabiting the world, the fewer deaths there would be. But someone has to take a stand, find the guts to say 'I would rather die than kill', live by that creed, and provide that example. Then, we might start to see a reduction in entirely gratuitous deaths by small arms fire in the civilian sphere; a result for all concerned. Best wishes, 2RM.

I agree with you, wholeheartedly. We can't just hand out cash willy-nilly. We have tried it, and we know it doesn't work. But I think philanthropy, government and private, and charitable organisations generally, are considerably more sophisticated in their operations these days. By all means hold them responsible for social progress; that is their objective, and they need to judge their effectiveness (doing the right things) and their efficiency (doing things right) against every dollar they spend. Should you decide to donate, or pay your taxes, you will want to know, and deserve to know, that your dollars have been spent wisely and well. Accountability is a key part of the transaction. Best wishes, 2RM.

No, you're missing nothing. I think somewhere between these ideas, that Christians ought not be rich while others starve, and that, for Christians, charitable giving, through taxation or otherwise, ought to be a pleasure, you will find my stance. Best wishes, 2RM.

Hmmm. For me, there is an obvious hierarchy. Human, animal, vegetable, mineral. Vegetables are different to minerals, because they are alive, and we do well to nurture this precious, rare commodity we call life. Animals are different to vegetables, because they are conscious, and know the difference between pleasure and pain. Consciousness is even rarer than life, and we do better to make the utmost of our efforts an attempt to maximise the occurrences of a consciousness in a state of pleasure. Humans have the capacity of self-awareness. We are not only conscious, but aware of our consciousness. Self awareness is even rarer than consciousness, and carries with it a moral sense, insofar as we are not only conscious, but capable of reflecting on our own consciousness, and assessing it's quality. That moral sense also implies a moral duty, to make the world as close as possible to paradise for ourselves, each other, and the other animal consciousnesses we share our planet, and fate, with. Where does this leave me, in terms of respect for life? Firstly that one should eat lower, more common, vegetable forms of life, in preference to higher and rarer animals, as a rule of thumb. Secondly, that if one is going to eat animals, (and many animals would never even know life if we did not eat them) that life should be as pain free and pleasure filled as possible. Not, perhaps, revolutionary sentiments, but they suit me, and I can justify them rationally, which is a step beyond the emotional response of many who take an exception to eating meat. Best wishes, 2RM.

I'm from the UK. We may moan about our politicians and rate them somewhere below intestinal worms and leeches but above real estate agents in the scale of parasite offensiveness, but, on the whole, we recognise they are generally in the job to make our country a better place. And we know, as in any democracy, we get the government we deserve. So, we adopt the cold war disarmament policy towards them - trust, but verify. Best wishes, 2RM.

It amuses me, this American fashion for guns. To about the same extent it distresses me. The reason you all need guns is because you all have guns. If some movement - say a religious one, perhaps even a whole church - chose to disarm, and started a disarmament movement, then eventually you might end up in a much better place. A place where no-one needs guns, because no one has guns. Who knows, you might even arrive at a place where innocent school kids are safe from massacres. If guns were limited to legitimate law enforcers, and civilians carrying weapons were illegal, you might all gain some peace of mind. But then again, to get to that place, you would need to trust your government. Best wishes, 2RM

It may be interesting, given the context of the thread, to talk about the 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor. It's a Victorian - say 1800 to 1900AD - distinction that has fallen out of favour in my country, the UK. The distinction is between those who do, and do not, merit charitable help.The idea was that there are some poor people who are poor through no fault of their own, and other poor people who are poor because they gamble, drink alcohol, do drugs, smoke tobacco, and generally have no one to blame but themselves for their impoverishment. I have to say that my sympathies are with the poor, irrespective of whether they might deserve or might not deserve charitable assistance. Before we cast judgement, we would do well to walk a mile in the boots of the accused; and it seems to me that a modern economy has some very sophisticated methods of extracting cash from poor people with a low level of educational achievement. Best wishes, 2RM

Dear Earljibbs To begin with, let me wish you, and anyone reading this, all the usual season's greetings, and all the manifold blessings they encompass. Now, the reason why I pick on redistribution of wealth is that it is necessary, to save the world in any temporal sense. And because it demands of rich Christians the need to sacrifice. Not their lives, as Jesus did, but some little thing less hard than that; the thickness of their wallets. And yet, this little thing seems hard enough, for many. Yes, I am poor. But I am not so poor that I am in want. I eat regularly, at least once a day, and I have most of the things I need and want. To be honest, I am not sure what I would do with more money than I have; most likely give it away. Your question: at what point do we stop taking personal liberties from people, in respect of the liberty to accrue wealth other people need to stay alive? When everybody has enough to eat, clean water to drink, secure shelter and sufficient clothing, access to sanitation, primary healthcare and education. After that, what the poor make of their lives is up to them; without that, they are competing in a dog-eat-dog world with an unfair disadvantage. And after that, I am entirely happy for the rich to be as greedy as they like. I haven't visited an LDS chapel. I am not your ordinary church-going sort of Christian. As for missionaries, well, I am happy to discuss with them next time they stop me in the street. The Book of Mormon? Santa was kind, this year, and I now have the funds to invest in one. I will be purchasing, shortly*. All the best, 2RM. * I just discovered the Kindle version was free. So that was a no-brainer!

Well, if you all insist it is so, despite the lack of evidence for this in your replies to my posts, I am quite prepared to believe that you do perceive the injustice in the economic order of the world, and do care about it. If this is the case, might I ask for your preferred solutions? I have provided one, tentative direction to take, a levy of 4% on the world's 225 largest fortunes. But, for some reason, it does not seem popular. I guess you all have better ideas. What are they? Best wishes, 2RM.

Well, I just meant that if one regards the succour of the poor as a requirement, as a duty, as a necessary and irksome chore, then one is bound to have a fairly jaundiced view of philanthropy. On the other hand, if you love the people, as Jesus wants, then providing for their needs is no less a pleasure than providing for one's family. It's a question of attitude, not external imperative. Cheers, 2RM.

I'm not sure 'requirement' is quite the right term. Caring for the poor and needy, to me at least, is a natural corollary to Jesus' two great commandments, the sum of the Law, that we should 'love God', and 'love each other'. I cannot see how we might fulfill these commandments, and not care for the poor and needy. That said, I have no particular church, and see all Christianity as my fiefdom. From my perspective, from which I view many rich Christians in an age of hunger, I consider that Christendom as a whole does reasonably well in this regard, but has room for improvement. And will continue to have room for improvement, so long as there is still left a solitary malnourished child. Best wishes, 2RM.

So, I need to get out more. I'm quite sure that's true! But as regards freedom of choice v social justice. Well, I'm a great believer in both. We just need to find a way to reconcile the two, it seems, to arrive at some agreement. Right now, we have a situation where the freedom for the pike is death for the minnow, and I find myself wholly in support of the minnow, and you find yourself wholly in support of the pike. Best wishes, 2RM.

Thanks, Dravin. I'm not arguing with your c), yet. I just feel there is a point of principle, to establish, first. c) is about how to make change, not whether that change is necessary, and seems to me to belong to a later point in the discourse. Best wishes, 2RM.

Well, thanks for your history of economics (Weimar republic) crash course 101. Truth is, of course it is quite irrelevant to the topic under discussion, which is, why should the rich not succour the poor, and, if they won't, why should they not be encouraged to, and, if that doesn't work, why should they not be made to? I'm quite relaxed about rich people being rich. As I have said elsewhere, I am completely in favour of wealth; so much so, I want everyone to have some. Wealth, is, of course, nothing to do with the tons of concrete or wheat you have stored up in your garage; it is a matter of purchasing power. It is your capacity to exchange goods, services or currency for the things you need or want for yourself and your family. When the distribution of wealth is so skewed that some people can get hold of an excess of luxury goods, to the detriment of the ability of others to provide their children even with nutritious and safe food and drink, well, I am inclined to think we need look critically at the economic system that produces this result. None of this involves 'hyperinflation' or 'skyrocketing of costs'. A redistribution of wealth merely involves switching economic demand of part (4% of superfluous production) of the economy from luxury goods for a few to essential items for all. Best wishes, 2RM.

OK, people. So, my new year's resolution, which I am starting today, is to be nicer to you all. Nevertheless, I am guessing that the reason you don't want the rich tapped for the wherewithall to prevent the poor from dieing of malnutrition, is because you all are already rich, or you all want to become rich. I might be wrong, but behind your arguments I perceive self-interest. Now, self-interest is not necessarily a bad thing. Under certain circumstances, it can be considered prudence, which is a Christian virtue. But the overwhelming opposition I have received on this forum to any idea of the redistribution of wealth from rich to poor inclines me to one of two conclusions: a: You do not perceive the injustice in the way wealth is currently distributed, or b: You do perceive it, but do not care, or care sufficiently to do anything about it. Neither conclusion leads me to a positive view of your church. But I don't see how I might alter your opinions. If you can't see the social injustice inherent in the capacity to own a private jet, or gin-palace yacht, on the one hand, and being unable to feed your family, on the other, nothing I can say will persuade you of that injustice. Worse than this, if you can see the injustice, but want the upside for you and yours to the necessary exclusion of others and theirs, and don't really care what happens to those others, then nothing I can say will make you care. Nevertheless, I'm interested to know, which it is; whether you do not understand social injustice, or just do not care about it? Best wishes, 2RM.

Get real Vort. I'm highlighting a global problem, and proposing a raft of global solutions. You guys debating with me, are all just suggesting why the solutions won't work. Well, that's fair enough. But there is no need to mount personal attacks, as opposed to debating the issue at hand. Or, am I to suppose that y'all would rather be rich, than save insignificant lives in the developing world? Best wishes, 2RM.

I'm open to that possibility. If you can justify it! Best wishes, 2RM.

FunkyTown, now you are just being silly. As I said before, if you have an argument, state it. Best wishes, 2RM,

Sorry FunkyTown. I don't have the time or inclination to pander to this kind of game. If you have an argument, state it, and I will reply as seems appropriate, when the spirit moves me to do so. As for ad hominem, you suggested that I was disposed to the least costly for me, as against the most effective, option. Best wishes, 2RM

Dear FunkyTown. Be assured, that believing as I do, I am not doing nothing. But being poor, that not nothing is pretty marginal. Hence my frustration. The world has the resources to eradicate poverty. Forever. But, it refuses to deploy them to do that, preferring, as you do, to suggest that those who advocate this are somehow hypocritical. I have to observe that an ad hominem argument is not a sound refutation, just an excuse. If you can supply a real reason why the 225 richest people in the world should not forego 4% of their wealth in an effort to avoid starvation, bring shelter, power, clean water and sanitation to those that lack it, provide primary education and healthcare to those without, well, I would be interested to hear it. Furthermore, I even suspect that such an effort would be sound economics. People who are not on the edge of starvation and want are a market for all sorts of goods and services, of the kind that anyone who has an excess wealth might have investments in. Best wishes, 2RM

I agree that we have we have freedom, God given. And that must involve the freedom to sin, if that is what we prefer, or our freedom is in name, only. I just feel that, in a civilised society, that freedom extends precisely up to the point where we harm someone else. And if I have an excess of wealth, and some child in Africa or Bangladesh or Colombia has none, and if the legal system upholds my right to that wealth, beyond that child's need for one square meal a day, then I think society has a right, indeed, a duty, to limit my freedom to sin, and uphold that child's best interests, and that legal system needs reform. Best wishes, 2RM.