It's just not fair...


2ndRateMind
 Share

Recommended Posts

I heard on the radio today (BBC Radio 4) that 5 families, in the UK, own as much wealth as the bottom 12,000,000 of the population.

 

Well, I want to go three places with this post.

 

The first is to suggest that if there is a God, and if he is good, and therefore just, there will be a reckoning.

 

The second is to ask how Mormons might view this kind of inequality. The UK is, I would say, a fairly middling sort of nation. We have a Christian heritage, which tends to lead us to think that all our citizens are equal in the sight of God, and therefore of equal worth, and therefore due equal consideration. I dare say that among more politically right wing nations, less consideration is given to the sight of God, and more to the ideas that my income and net worth is down to my own hard work, and my own merit, and that those who aren't wealthy, well, quite frankly, don't deserve to be wealthy.

 

The third is to suggest that Francis Fukuyama's notion of the end of history was premature, not because he failed to see the dynamics involved in Islamic assertion, but because, until these kind of radical economic inequalities are resolved, history will never be over.

 

Considering the world, we have a choice. We can accept it as it is. Or we can make it a better place. I know which option I vote for, every time.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. My other post ran into sand. And I don't assume anything about Mormon views, beyond the responses I have had. If I put the same question in different ways, it is to get a holistic view of how the LDS thinks, before I become further engaged.

 

Frankly, I want to see you guys as outraged as I am by the idea that some can't afford to heat their house in winter, or adequately feed themselves, while others are stuck over the difficult choice of which champagne to enjoy, tonight. If you aren't, you are not the spiritual home I seek.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like what President Abraham Lincoln said.  "G-d must love poor people because he sure made a lot of them.”

 

Personally I have never liked the word fair because I believe it is misleading.  I believe the proper question would be just.  If we make broad judgments without understanding or considering the causes; then by definition we are pre judging or more commonly known as prejudice.  Prejudice is not justice.  We can no more justly condemn those that have wealth than we can justly condemn those that do not have wealth. 

 

One last point – the amount an individual has – has nothing to do with how kind compassionate or helpful they are.  In scripture it is the widow that was willing to give of what she had that made her gift great.  I can understand the idea that the wealthy should be more giving than the poor.  But at the same time – to expect the wealthy to give without expecting the poor to give would be wrong.  If we are all equal in the sight of G-d then that would mean that G-d expects all to give of whatever it is that we have.  Those that believe money is the only asset or measure of wealth a person can – they are of all men the most foolish.

 

What makes me sad about asking those at church to give is realizing the greatest giving will take place by those with the least to give.  I believe this is a sad fact of life.  Anytime we expect giving to be done; it will be on the back of the poor - not the rich simply because the rich can bare it more.  We should be very careful when we ask for such things – especially realizing that when we ask for ourselves often those that give are just as or more needy than we are.

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering the world, we have a choice. We can accept it as it is. Or we can make it a better place. I know which option I vote for, every time.

 

 

 

 

I see potential red flags with the bolded part.  Make how?  Rob/steal from those you think have more to give to those you think have less?  Criminalize the successful people??? Tax them into poverty because they did well?

 

The only real way I see this working is if the people choose to give it up.  Any other method comes up against the Rights to Life, Liberty and Property.

 

Let me put this another way...  2ndRate you are clearly from a 1st world country..  You have access to the internet and the time and energy to discuss highbrow questions.  Therefore it is safe to assume that you live like a king compared to your brothers and sisters in Africa or the Philippians or just about any other third world nation.  So being wealthy yourself answer the question of how you would like to make the World a better place.  How would you like to have your wealth and property taken from you to support the poor and needy?  Will you give it up voluntarily?  Do you want to be taxed so much your lifestyle degrades to third world status?  Do you want to be thrown in jail?  What is the method if redistrubition you want used against you?

 

If your answer is any form of leave me alone and don't touch my stuff then you aren't motived by social justice.  You are more likely motived by envy, greed, or jealously.  You want someone to give you a bigger piece of the financial pie but you aren't willing to share yours.  If this is true then you need to deal with your own hypocrisy rather then discuss social reform.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard on the radio today (BBC Radio 4) that 5 families, in the UK, own as much wealth as the bottom 12,000,000 of the population.

 

Well, I want to go three places with this post.

 

The first is to suggest that if there is a God, and if he is good, and therefore just, there will be a reckoning.

 

The second is to ask how Mormons might view this kind of inequality. The UK is, I would say, a fairly middling sort of nation. We have a Christian heritage, which tends to lead us to think that all our citizens are equal in the sight of God, and therefore of equal worth, and therefore due equal consideration. I dare say that among more politically right wing nations, less consideration is given to the sight of God, and more to the ideas that my income and net worth is down to my own hard work, and my own merit, and that those who aren't wealthy, well, quite frankly, don't deserve to be wealthy.

 

The third is to suggest that Francis Fukuyama's notion of the end of history was premature, not because he failed to see the dynamics involved in Islamic assertion, but because, until these kind of radical economic inequalities are resolved, history will never be over.

 

Considering the world, we have a choice. We can accept it as it is. Or we can make it a better place. I know which option I vote for, every time.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

yes there will one day be a reckoning.

we are to share (actually in the end we have to be able to sacrfice everything)... however if that is forced upon us by the government then it is unjust.

I don't have much to say about income inequality itself, as long as all parties haven't been engaged in illegal or sinful means of acquiring it.

How the wealth is used after it is acquired can be very concerning however, again depending on how its used.

Edited by Blackmarch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Estradling75, in polite (highbrow, as you put it) conversation, your line of questioning would be seen as ad hominem, against the proponent, rather than the argument. I might be as rich as Croesus, and have the Midas touch, but none of that would make any difference to the quality of any argument I might put for social justice. Such arguments should be assessed on their own quality, quite aside from the poverty of virtue I represent.

 

Yet, I have enjoyed, and been educated by, your contributions elsewhere, and suspect others may be thinking along the same lines as you. So, I will entertain your line of enquiry. Yes, I am rich compared to third world contemporaries. And yes, I am poor compared to my compatriots. I am prevented from working for medical reasons, and have little income, and few assets. I do not own a house, or a car, or have a wife, or children, or own most other goods and chattels most other people would assume to be a fundamental desert by reason of existing. However, nor do I ask for any of these things by right, or for me.

 

What concerns me directly is that some 2 billion people, who eke out meagre lives on less that $2.00 per day, who have little access to clean  water, food, shelter, sanitation, primary healthcare, primary education, etc, should coexist with a wealthy (allegedly Christian) west. I just do not see how these occurrences are compatible. If by giving up some of my assets (such as they are!) and some of my benefits (such as they are!) I could alter this imbalance of wealth, I would do so without hesitation. As it is, I give what I can, when I can. Why this desire for social justice seems less urgent among the wealthy, and whether this lack should be assuaged by government action - well, that is the topic for this thread. And the place to start, surely, is why we tolerate such severe economic imbalances even within our own nations.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so I read the OP & the only thought that really sticks with me with all 3 points ...

 

Can we ever really be happy & joyful for our own riches (however big or small they may be) if we can not be happy & joyful for others when they are able to accumulate such riches?

If we can not experience happiness & joy for others then how can we ever expect to find happiness & joy (& in turn peace) with what all that we have?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is good summary of how I feel - 

 

 

……………….

It is the responsibility of every Latter-day Saint to work and so impart of his substance, regardless of the shifting standards of this world. We must uphold these principles and oppose every derogation of them. We must be careful not to adopt the commonly accepted practice of expecting the government or anyone other than ourselves to supply us with the necessities of life.

The practice of coveting and receiving unearned benefits has now become so fixed in our society that even men of great wealth, and possessing the means to produce more wealth, are expecting the government to guarantee them a profit. Elections often turn on what the candidates promise to do for voters from government funds. This practice, if universally accepted and implemented in any society, will make slaves of its citizens.

We cannot afford to become wards of the government, even though we have a legal right to do so. It requires too great a sacrifice in self-respect and in political, temporal, and spiritual independence.

Let us work for what we need. Let us be self-reliant and independent. Salvation can be obtained on no other principle. Salvation is an individual matter, and we must work out our own salvation, in temporal as well as in spiritual things.

 

…………….

Since that eventful day in Eden, the Lord has frequently reemphasized the fact that individual effort is the basic principle in His economy—both spiritual and temporal. Let us never forget that the Lord’s way to provide for His saints is “that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.” (D&C 104:16.)

The poor can be exalted when and only when they are enabled to obtain independence and self-respect through their own industry and thrift. Our duty is to enable them to do this.

“The rich are made low” when they evidence their obedience to the second great commandment—“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Matt. 22:39)—by imparting of their substance “according to the law of [the] gospel, unto the poor and the needy.” (D&C 104:18.)

 

“In Mine Own Way”

MARION G. ROMNEY 1976

 

 

I also think the warnings the Savior gave to those who are blessed with wealth are real and all of us will be held accountable for what we did with the things we are given. 

 

I feel when I vote for more welfare, I'm voting for the following

- empowering the gun that is held against the head of each of individual by government

- encouraging government dependence

- securing the position and wealth of modern day slavers

 

Abraham Lincoln also had this to say

 

Lincoln.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is very simple in my mind.

 

I come from the Philippines.  Your story of your circumstance is RICH compared to 70% of Filipinos.  But I won't ask any government to strip you of it to "equalize" wealth.

 

Wealth is not the measure of character.  Nor is it a measure of worth.  Nor is it a measure of happiness.  Money is simply an enabler.  If you are of sound moral character, then your having even just a little money can give that sound moral character power to help a lot of people.  If you are of debased moral character, then your having even just a little money can give that bad character power to hurt a lot of people.

 

I do not trust any government one iota - especially career politicians - to determine who deserves more than what they have by the soundness of their moral character.  The only way this would work if Christ himself, or his authorized prophet on earth, presides over the government.

 

Therefore, as it is, wealth re-distribution should remain voluntary - a facet of society swiftly eroding from the United States Of America as government intrudes more and more into people's lives to redistribute wealth as a means to buy a vote.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once had a young man on my case load who would always say, "It's not fair." I once pointed out to him that what he was really saying was, "I'm not getting my way!"  There would be a near infinite list for things that are unfair. Since I had an epiphany (whilst in the 4th grade ) that the sun will one day burn out, I came to understand that all human endeavors will become meaningless. Money will not make you immortal. No matter how much one amasses you are still going to die. Then what? To be sure, bellies growl, people get cold and sick but people who have values and the correct perspective will be there with money (or some else appropriate) to help. I tend now to concern myself with what I can do and how I can help. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What concerns me directly is that some 2 billion people, who eke out meagre lives on less that $2.00 per day, who have little access to clean  water, food, shelter, sanitation, primary healthcare, primary education, etc, should coexist with a wealthy (allegedly Christian) west. I just do not see how these occurrences are compatible. If by giving up some of my assets (such as they are!) and some of my benefits (such as they are!) I could alter this imbalance of wealth, I would do so without hesitation. As it is, I give what I can, when I can. Why this desire for social justice seems less urgent among the wealthy, and whether this lack should be assuaged by government action - well, that is the topic for this thread. And the place to start, surely, is why we tolerate such severe economic imbalances even within our own nations.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

The only argument you have made so far is inequality of wealth is bad...  and I have not even touched that argument (because I mostly agree with it).  I have asked you to clarify what you meant by "Make it better"  Which you have not... While you have clearly stated a problem you have not proposed any ideas for solving it. (I am for volunteers) Even when I clearly and specifically asked  you what you wanted used against you.  Because lets face it fair can only really be fair if we are willing to have it done unto us as well as have it done to others.

 

Now you said you would if you could make a 'difference'  That is a hedge.  Mother Teresa give up all her worldly wealth, did she make a difference?

 

Now lets run some numbers about making a difference...  I grab the total world population from here for 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population its 6,916,000,000  I grab the total world wealth (aka Gross_world_product) for 2010 (although the sight has number for 2012 I am trying to keep it the same year) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product its 62,220,000,000,000 US dollars assuming wikipedia's numbers are good it is simple math at his point to figure out what strict numeric equality is.  In the year 2010 if we made everyone equal.  Everyone (man, woman, child) would have had 8,996.53 US dollars of total wealth.  That is your difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I suggest you focus your attention on those that are doing something. Warren Buffett as well as Bill and Melinda Gates have given millions of their wealth to good causes.  You can also look into "The Robin Hood Foundation".

 

Aside from that I believe in hand ups, not hand outs.  There is a big difference between the poor that don't have adequate food and water because of circumstance versus those that are poor by choice (i.e. they 'need' their fancy gadgets and cable tv but then expect others to put food on their table).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So guys and gals, the contentions seem to be these;

 

i) It's ok that people should be rich, despite others starving, or living in want.

ii) It's not ok that people should be rich, despite others starving, or living in want.

 

I think we have to deal with this fundamental, before we get onto more advanced ideas like the role of government. Do any of you have Biblical, or Mormon, scriptures, to support either view?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So guys and gals, the contentions seem to be these;

 

i) It's ok that people should be rich, despite others starving, or living in want.

ii) It's not ok that people should be rich, despite others starving, or living in want.

 

I think we have to deal with this fundamental, before we get onto more advanced ideas like the role of government. Do any of you have Biblical, or Mormon, scriptures, to support either view?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

You forgot

 

iii) It's not ok that people should be rich, despite others starving, or living in want.  But using force (which the government is) to correct the problem is also fundamentally wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So guys and gals, the contentions seem to be these;

 

i) It's ok that people should be rich, despite others starving, or living in want.

ii) It's not ok that people should be rich, despite others starving, or living in want.

 

I think we have to deal with this fundamental, before we get onto more advanced ideas like the role of government. Do any of you have Biblical, or Mormon, scriptures, to support either view?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

 

You forgot

 

iii) It's not ok that people should be rich, despite others starving, or living in want.  But using force (which the government is) to correct the problem is also fundamentally wrong

 

In my opinion, all three of these ideas are beyond over-simplification of extremely complex things.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So guys and gals, the contentions seem to be these;

 

i) It's ok that people should be rich, despite others starving, or living in want.

ii) It's not ok that people should be rich, despite others starving, or living in want.

 

I think we have to deal with this fundamental, before we get onto more advanced ideas like the role of government. Do any of you have Biblical, or Mormon, scriptures, to support either view?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Here's your fundamental -

 

Spiritual language:

It doesn't matter that people are rich or starving.  It only matters that they are free to choose to live by Christ's principles.

 

 

Secular language:

It doesn't matter that people are rich or starving.  It only matters that they are free to change their circumstance in a righteous pursuit of happiness.

 

In suma total - if nobody needs somebody, nobody can serve somebody.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard on the radio today (BBC Radio 4) that 5 families, in the UK, own as much wealth as the bottom 12,000,000 of the population.

...

how Mormons might view this kind of inequality. 

I view this kind of inequality thusly:

"ye have the poor with you always" (found in Mark, Matthew, and John)

 

Matthew 6: "Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly."

 

Basically, we're commanded to help the poor.  But we're also pretty clearly commanded not to do it openly.  Forcing the rich to be less rich, so the poor can be less poor, isn't a notion found in scripture.

 

Matthew 26: A woman anointed Jesus' head with an expensive ointment.  His disciples freaked out, calling it a wasteful act, noting she could have sold the ointment and given the money to the poor.  Jesus gave them a verbal smackdown for that way of thinking.  It's good reading, 2ndrate.  Interesting to note how clearly and directly Jesus opposed his follower's misguided and wrong notions about wealth and fairness and whatnot.  

 

Finally, The Gospel Principles manual, chapter 27, Work and Personal Responsibility

 

 The Lord said to Adam, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread” (Genesis 3:19). Adam and Eve worked in the fields so they could provide for their own needs and the needs of their children (see Moses 5:1).
 
The Lord said to the people of Israel, “Six days shalt thou labour” (Exodus 20:9).
...
The Apostle Paul wrote, “If any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith” (1 Timothy 5:8).
...
•Matthew 25:14–30 (parable of the talents)
•Ephesians 4:28 (steal no more but rather labor)
•1 Thessalonians 4:11–12 (work with your own hands)
From where I'm standing, the Lord condemns idleness, and pretty clearly refutes the modern notions of people having a right to stuff.  I always wonder at Christians, who purport to believe a book telling them that man is to work to eat, having opinions about how food/healthcare/jobs/paid time off/etc is a basic human right.
Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how much it really helps, but the scriptures do describe an almost hypothetical ideal. A concept that we refer in LDS circles as "Zion" (See Moses 7:18 in the PofGP). According to scripture, there have only been two societies to successfully understand and live these principles -- the city of Enoch and the Nephites in the period immediately after Christ's visit. These societies are described as having "no poor among them" and "they had all things common among them." Scripture does not describe in great detail the legal and political elements that regulated and facilitated the flow of wealth from the haves to the have nots. The Book of Mormon explains that this ability to freely share wealth came from the love of God (and by extrapolation, fellow man) that they developed.

 

How we apply this in a fallen world and society that is far removed from the idyllic conditions described in these scripture accounts, I don't know. It seems to me that, as LDS, our ultimate goal is to realize this kind of society where the "rich" share with the "poor" so freely that the distinction between rich and poor ceases to exist. Getting fallen people to reach this ideal seems to be a rare feat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Estradling75, my dear fellow, I had not forgotten your iii) at all. I just felt we needed to arrive at a principle, before we decided how best to implement it. And, I am genuinely interested by the application of scriptures to modern dilemmas.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Then your problem is that you are looking at a dilemma and then wanting a simple scriptural answer to a question that has profound scriptural implications depending on how it is solved.  We repeatedly discussed this but you keep returning to it because you don't want the other stuff that comes along with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share