2ndRateMind

Yes, I think that is fair comment. I would far prefer our richest 225 to come together, and use their undoubted skills, contacts, experience and resources voluntarily to end hunger, and people dieing out of poverty. But, failing that, I would not rule out a levy. And, failing that, it's for the rest of us to step up to the challenge, ideally voluntarily. But I think the world, as it is currently constituted, is skewed towards the interests of the richest 1 billion. Failing all voluntary resolutions, I would not be averse to seeing a legal reorientation towards the interests of the poorest 1 billion. Best wishes, 2RM.

So, we have two reasons not to save the world, by making the 225 richest of us 4% less rich than they were before. @Funkytown, if I may paraphrase. It just wouldn't work. There are wars, and corruption, that would destroy the project before it could effect it's goals. Well, yes, there are wars. And yes, there is corruption. But, also, there are places where there are no wars, and corruption is not a major issue, and still poverty is rife. Why shouldn't we work with these places first, while we wait for the wars to end, and corruption to fail, as end and fail they must, if only because God has stamped on all our hearts 'I want justice'? @Anatess. if I may paraphrase. It's because this world doesn't matter. The spirit world, pre and post mortem, matters more, and this world matters only as it affects the spirit world. Well, I admit this doesn't fit with my world view. So far as I am concerned, the spirit world matters only insofar as it affects this world. For me, this world is the world were good and evil conduct their campaigns, and what happens here determines whether good or evil will eventually triumph. We have the deciding factor, called love, those of us know it. But that love must be universal and impartial, or it is not love, just sentiment. @Skalenfehl. I will get hold of a book of Mormon, when my budget allows! Best wishes, 2RM

Thanks, all of you, with kind comments for me. I'm not at all sure I deserve them! But, I didn't say I was gone forever! You may have to put up with this particular piece of grit in the wheel for some time to come, even if I'm down in frequency. Specifically @ Leah: I am sure you are right; that LDS people fulfill the commandments to love God, and love each other. My issue is: what extra do Joseph Smith's writings add to this? How is it that (to judge by the responses I have had here) the debilitating effects of poverty are acceptable, indeed, preferable, to, say, an affordable levy* on the rich to eradicate them forever? What does the book of Mormon have to say about this? Best wishes, 2RM. *The UN estimates 4% of the world's 225 largest fortunes

I'm sure some of you will be glad to hear that! But I've discovered what I need to know. Let me say first, that I admire many things about the LDS faith. Particularly, I admire your sense of community. And, I admire the way you send your youngsters out into the world to challenge it's ways and beliefs, armed with nothing but their enthusiasm and a nameplate, incongruously titling them as 'elder'. But I don't think I would make a good Mormon. The reason is this. Let us suppose X is things all Christians believe. Let us suppose Y is things only LDS people believe. Let us suppose Z is things only enlightened people believe. If I had the impression that X+Y=Z, then I would be inclined to lend more weight to your beliefs. But I don't get that impression. What I was looking for was a sense of universal compassion, of the requirement for sacrifice to resolve the worlds ills, however 'unfair' that sacrifice might be. I was looking for some notion that all of us, however undeserving, have a stake in this enterprise called life, and all of us, however unbelieving, are brothers and sisters beloved by God, and beloved by each other. I say to you now, I haven't had that sense. So, I will continue to seek, elsewhere, though I may drop in from time to time, to see how you all are getting along. With love, 2RM.

Vort, my friend. I have never felt the need to insult you, call you names, show anything other than respect for you. And that goes for everyone on this forum. If we have a difference of views, and if we have cultural perspectives that conflict, and if I am robust in defending my views, and attacking those that seem to me to be less than good, I have never felt the need to resort to personal attacks. If you do, well, I feel, that reflects worse on you and your position, than it does on me and mine. Best wishes, 2RM. PS: By the way, the argument: X doesn't agree with me about Y; therefore X must be wrong, rigid, hidebound, inflexible, biased and prejudiced, is clearly an argument that won't win you the 'philosopher of the year 2014' award. Address yourself to the point at issue, Y, and you might find me more inclined to alter my stances. Or you might find that you are the one who needs to alter yours. As for the thread, I suggest you review it again. There is little in it about a shared national project to make goodness manifest, it is all about my right to keep my property irrespective of communal needs, not to mention communal benefits, that, might just, have had some impact on the heft of my bill-fold.

Guys, I'm not sure you're going to like what I have to say. In fact, I'm pretty sure you won't. But what I get from scanning this thread is an overwhelming sense of selfishness, of greed, and total lack of compassion for others who might, through no fault of their own, be unable to compete in the race for wealth, and need to rely on the government to sustain them. In short, I get no sense of community, of joint effort, of love for one's fellow compatriots. Now I know this isn't an LDS thing, because I know you have many worthy projects that look after your poor and disadvantaged. And I know it isn't an American thing, because I know Americans to be amongst the most generous of those who benefact charities. So, I'm a quite a loss to explain it. Whence this distrust of national collaboration, this sense of wrongful activity of a rightful government, when it affects your wallet? Why this idea that I have the sole right to my earnings, when the nation as a whole, in a myriad ways, has contributed to what and who you are, and the extent of your earning power? Best wishes, 2RM.

No, not really. Taxation, believe it or not, is a general concern. Despite your parochial comment, the US isn't the only place where people pay taxes, only the richest country in the world, and where (some) people think tax = theft. Best wishes, 2RM.

That's ok. Count me as ignorant about the specifics of US politics, just partisan about social justice. I'm quite happy just to sit back, and see where this thread goes. Best wishes, 2RM.

I'm listening. I'm just waiting for the tax = theft brigade to poke their heads above the parapet. They are here, to be sure. Question is, can they justify their position, when the spotlight is on it? Best wishes, 2RM.

But do you not have a democracy? Do you you not decide, every four years, what sort of government you will have? Do you not have the right to throw that government out of power, if it decides on a taxation policy you disagree with? How, in this scenario, can tax = theft? Best wishes, 2RM.

So, every so often, as I frequent this forum, I have come across this idea. I'm a European, and, though I'm sure some hard right european extremists would go along with the concept, most of us know that our taxes pay for defence, legal systems and the rule of law, civil infrastructure such as roads and railways, medical care, education, 'soft power' in the world, libraries, adoption services, and such myriad of facilities, and many other public goods as well. Mostly, we do not regard tax as theft, but as the government sequestering the money it needs to run itself, and provide civil goods no individual could supply for themselves at an economic rate, and, mostly, we regard ourselves to be privileged if we are in a higher tax bracket than the majority of our compatriots. So, how does the idea that tax = theft enter into the American consciousness? Best wishes, 2RM

Vort, my dear chap, I always respect your opinions, but have to differ with you on this. Firstly that utopia is impossible, (anything is impossible if you believe it to be impossible) and secondly that westerners live in a society as close to utopia as possible. As long as we consider our own desires more important than our fellows' needs, we are nowhere near. But we could be, if we only put aside the free-market ideology of private selfish greed = public good. Best wishes, 2RM

Utopia is not a myth. Utopia is a real possibility, if we all build it, not for ourselves, but each for each other. Best wishes, 2RM.

I think this is a perceptive comment, and have been trying to figure out why it should be. Maybe because those who grow or rear things are confident in their skills of mind and body, and know they can rely on them, and mother Gaia, for future production. Whereas those who need 'the next deal' to supplement that bonus, can never be sure that that deal will happen. Best wishes, 2RM.

Looking forward to seeing how your hand plays out, friend. I tend to a less subtle, less political, approach to truth, and other people. I tell them how it is, and let them react as they may. Best wishes, 2RM.

If the truth is offensive, then my contention would be that the problem lies with the offended, and not the truth. Best wishes, 2RM.

Thanks, Anatess, for that testimony. I cannot claim ever to have have been absolutely poor, only relatively poor. But that is enough to persuade me that absolutely poor should never happen, in a moral world. Best wishes, 2RM.

Yes, I think the Baroness in question was talking about the English poor. As such, she was talking about people who, generally, have televisions, a warm, dry place to live, a mobile phone, maybe even a computer. These people are the relatively poor. They are relatively poor because they fall considerably below the prosperity of their average countryman contemporary. I would like them all better off, but feel that is a matter for them, and the extent of their enterprise. What bothers me, globally, is the problem of the absolutely poor; the people without enough wealth to sustain their own lives, and that of their families. In this sense, absolute poverty is a real concept. If you can't survive on what you own, and can realistically expect to earn, then you are, by any measure, absolutely poor. Best wishes, 2RM.

Well, I just don't think some of you 'get' poverty, at all. It is a mind-numbing, soul-destroying, body-rotting condition. It's taking the risk of drinking sewer water, because you can't afford expensive bottled water. It's being unable to work, not because you don't want to, but because you haven't eaten yesterday, or the day before, and your stamina is gone. It's watching your children die of some condition as simple as diarrhoea, because you can't afford the medications that would save their lives. And it's entirely socially constructed, by those who put about the message that the poor are poor because they don't deserve wealth, and rich people do. And entirely within the grasp of this generation to end, if we have the will and grace to do that. Best wishes, 2RM.

Yup. Sure do. The world GDP per capita is around $10,500.00 The total world wealth is $241,000,000,000,000, which, divided by the world's population of 7.125 billion, would give each person $33,800 if distributed equally. No one would starve, if they had a net worth of $33800 and an income of $10500 per year. But the world's wealth is not distributed equally. Instead, we find the top 1% of the world own nearly half it's assets, and the 85 richest people in the world own as much as the bottom 3.500,000,000, who are expected to eke out meagre lives on less than $2.00 per day. Google it, you may discover facts that surprise you, and will, I hope, appall you. Best wishes, 2RM.

Actually, Intra, I had noodles for supper tonight! (just didn't feel like cooking) I am sorry food is so expensive with you. I just took what it would cost me to buy, and the current £ to $ exchange rate, to come up with that figure. For a breakdown; 2 onions; 20p each. Cloves (not bulbs) of garlic, say 4p each. Cans of tomatoes, 30p each. cooking oil, say 3p; grated cheese, say 10p; salt and pepper, say 2p: total £1.31, divided by 4 servings = £0.33p I didn't include the cost of electricity/gas/whatever powers your cooker. I didn't include the cost of the pasta, either. But I find I can buy enough pasta to feed four for around 60p, max. Best wishes, 2RM.

So, here we have it. The reason why poor people starve. It's not that the poor can't afford food, it's that they don't know what to do with it, when they have it. Clearly starvation is the fault of the poor, and down to their own ignorance, and nothing to do with the wealthy hogging the resources the poor need to stay alive with. 2RM's poverty pasta sauce. Serves 4. Price per serving £0.30p. Maybe $0.50, with you. 2 medium onions, chopped 4 Garlic cloves, crushed 2 400g cans of chopped tomatoes. A good dash of cooking oil. optional extras; bacon, mushrooms, haricot beans. Fry the onions and garlic in the oil 'til fragrant and translucent. Add the tomatoes, and simmer for quarter of an hour. Taste, and salt to taste. Meanwhile cook your pasta - conchiglie, spaghetti, tagliattelli, penne, whatever, according to the packet instructions. Serve with grated cheese (doesn't necessarily need to be parmesan) and fresh ground black pepper. Hope you try it, hope you like it. Best wishes, 2RM.

Well, in a sense, of course, the random distribution of souls to bodies is fair, in the same way the selection of a lottery winner is fair. What I don't get is how the deliberate allocation of some to wealth, and some to poverty, could be fair. Truly, if God does this, His ways are not as mine, and won't become so, until He explains Himself. Best wishes, 2RM.

Yes, I think you have a point. If one regards the 10 commandments as adamantine rules that should govern our lives, then clearly that individual should not steal, and feel the better for his/her forbearance. But, two issues concern me here. The first is the idea that any moral rule can be regarded as absolute. The second is the notion that societies have not progressed since these commandments were issued to a bunch of wandering Jews some 4000 years ago. So, let's take this step by step. Take 'thou shalt not kill'. As far as society is concerned, this commandment is obsolete (and rightly so, in my opinion). One can kill animals, to eat them. One can kill in self-defence. One can kill if one is a soldier at war. In some places, one can even kill just to protect one's property. In short, this most absolute of absolute commandments has been found wanting, and been adapted, to make society workable. And it will be adapted more, doubtless, to accommodate societies eventual conclusions concerning abortion and euthanasia. I see no reason why the prohibition of theft should not be similarly adapted, as we eventually realise that life is always more sacred than property. As for the idea of the ancients governing my behaviour, well, I think they provided a basis for moral discussion, a foundation, a good, solid, first attempt at morality. But, I do not think that they are the last word, and I am quite persuaded that more recent thinkers are closer to ethical perfection than they were, if only because that foundation was there for them to build on. As for God's word, well, I think His will is that we live moral lives. Indeed, I don't find any difference between His will for us and what is moral. If there is a conflict between scripture and morality, then I have no hesitation in choosing morality, as best we have discerned it, to date. Best wishes, 2RM.

Yes, all. I agree that stealing is a bad idea. I have already said as much. And I agree that property laws are necessary to underpin a stable society. We just cannot have a situation where anybody thinks it is everybody's right to help themselves to whatever they want, regardless of who has made it, bought it, or otherwise legally come by it. Nevertheless, I am enough of a radical to observe that property laws were, generally speaking, enacted by rich people, for rich people, and (surprise, surprise) favour rich people. If property laws distributed property more equitably, I would be less inclined to advocate breaking them when a life is at stake. What's more, if wealth were so distributed, perhaps that life wouldn't have been at stake, in the first place. Best wishes, 2RM.