It's just not fair...


2ndRateMind
 Share

Recommended Posts

Do not presume you know my motives.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

 

You choose the words you put in your post.  You choose what you will and will not respond to.  That is your right.

 

But it is the right of everyone in the forum to form an opinion about you based on what you do or do not respond to and how you respond.

 

When you keep asking the same question over and over.  When you ignore questions asked of you... People are going to start forming opinions about what your motives might be.  You can either choose to correct them or choose to ignore them.  Either way you choose to respond you don't really control how those opinions about you or your motivations change, if they change at all

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.

 

Windseeker's post above cites to a couple of important scriptures.  In addition to them you might look at Mormon 8:37, and especially D&C 49:19-20 which I'll quote here:

 

19 For, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance.

20 But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.

 

The issue isn't whether Mormons agree that there's a problem; the issue is whether Mormons agree as to what to do about that problem.  Compulsion is problematic, arguably deprives would-be humanitarians of much of the moral rightness of their cause, and may portend worse things, as explained in this video:

 

 

For those of us who live within the bounds of the US:  I think most of us (with some notable and important exceptions) feel that the existing safety net in this country, in conjunction with the opportunities that we still believe to be available here, are sufficient; and that in doing much beyond that, you might be creating a situation where the cure can quickly become horrifically worse than the disease. 

 

As for poverty abroad:  I think you've really got to look at the places in question on a nation-by-nation scenario; because in some situations (certain Islamic countries, for example) there just isn't a heckuva lot you can do if you aren't willing to deploy troops as peacekeepers first.  But--while I realize you took some umbrage at Estradling's comment above--I do think he had a good point:  If I had enough cash to get a computer and pay for monthly internet access, I had more cash than a couple of dozen families in some third-world location.  We cannot indict the Waltons or the Koches, without also indicting ourselves.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys and gals,

 

This thread has proven, for me anyway, considerably more fertile than some others I have spawned. There are many issues I want to take up with you all, and I will do that, in due course. Right now, I need to sign off for the moment, and get some sleep. I am not ignoring you, just ensuring I will be on my best mettle to respond to you.

 

Best wishes, 2RM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

If you work hard you should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of your labor.  Should you help the poor? Of course you should.

 

However, when it gets mandated by the government, all the happens is that everyone gets poorer.

 

There is also a lot of envy that is based in redistribution philosophies. Sort of like "If I can't have it, no one can."  Another troubling point-who decides who is "rich?" It's fairly arrogant to think that we can decide who gets their property taken away from them. 

Not sure if I missed the point of your original post. Sorry if I did. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traveller, as an aside, I have often wondered why people spell God as G-d. Perhaps you can tell me?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

I can only answer for myself.  It is personal and my individual effort while on the internet (not on all my writing) to keep sacred my references to G-d.  Also from time to time I will receive input from individual (usually not from an English speaking country) trying to get religious information from "Christians".  They thank me because they are not able to copy any text that spells out G-d.

 

Thanks for asking and not assuming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sell all that thou hast and follow me.

A lot of people want to claim discipleship, but can't seem to let go of their comfort.

I'm not there myself, but I will say that the older I get the more I see the prosperity gospel as incompatible with the teachings of Jesus.

 

Indeed people fail the test of discipleship all the time.  The question isn't that... the question really is what do we do next... Do we stay within the limits the Lord gives us in D&C 121... Or do we step beyond that into the 'Other Guy's' plan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed people fail the test of discipleship all the time. The question isn't that... the question really is what do we do next... Do we stay within the limits the Lord gives us in D&C 121... Or do we step beyond that into the 'Other Guy's' plan?

Sell all that thou hast and follow me.

A lot of people want to claim discipleship, but can't seem to let go of their comfort.

I'm not there myself, but I will say that the older I get the more I see the prosperity gospel as incompatible with the teachings of Jesus.

The commandment came from the Lord. I disagree with it coming from a government without the other teachings of Christ involved. Edited by Backroads
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

The commandment came from the Lord. I disagree with it coming from a government without the other teachings of Christ involved.

 

 

 Very well said.  Equality will come in the next world. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way to bring fairness and equality in this life is to preach the gospel of Christ. If everyone accepted it and truly lived according to it's principles, then all would be equitable. That's it. That's the only way. And so, we go and we preach the gospel. It is through this means that we strive to solve the world's problems.

 

I'm not saying there aren't political ideas that might help here and there. But I agree that forcing everybody to be equal is a horrible idea. Add to that, it would never work. Not without people actually being Christlike. It would force poverty upon us all, and certainly lead to an uprising ultimately to throw off government oppression.

 

If everyone on the earth accepted Christ's teachings and actively went about feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, etc., then the problems would be solved.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
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.

Who are "you guys"? Mormons?

If you think any one discussion forum on the internet speaks for Mormons everywhere - or for the church - you would be woefully mistaken.

Do you take these "discussions" to other religions? Or do only chastise the Mormons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Discussions of this topic can be hard because so few people understand the concept of "zero sum."

 

If I go on a diet and lose 100 pounds, that doesn't force some unlucky woman on the other side of the world to gain 100 pounds.  And yet I know many people who would claim that any act of generating wealth, even something as simple as choosing to work overtime or selling lemonade, must necessarily cheat someone else out of money that they rightfully deserve.

 

This whole debate is poorly framed, in my opinion.  The question should be whether any act of generating wealth in a modern economy steals from others or makes it harder for others to generate wealth.  If not, we're going to have rich and poor people, just like we have fat and skinny people.  But I guess I shouldn't say this too loud, or else the liberal progressives will start thinking about new government fat-redistribution programs.

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.

 

Most Mormons in my area love wealth inequality. They relish in it sometimes, buying the biggest SUVs, bragging about how much they have, their house, and, of course, how their kids are above average, and generally have a patronizing attitude towards the poor. I have heard many statements that amount to, "it's always their own fault for being poor". Their kids go around bragging about everything they own (or rather what their parents bought them) and seldom do anything that doesn't involve spending money or being at one of the wealthier families' house. In three years, I have only seen 1, maybe 2, ward activities that involved helping a group of disadvantage people.

 

They also take extraordinary pride in the church, bragging about how they and their kids are chosen, the important people they know in the church, and of course every trip to Utah for General Conference is brought up, most often during testimony meetings. The families that are considered "more important" to the ward also tend to fill up the calling with themselves and their kids.  So basically they are like most people. They love inequality as long as it favors them. Fortunately, not everyone is like that, but most are here.

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.

spiritual law says that it is not ok to let those around you suffer when you have the means to alleviate them in some way.

the law of justice doesn't care what happens, as long as laws are not broken, or that penalties are fixed for the broken ones and the rewards are given for the kept ones.

until Christ comes again it's man's law that will rule the land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Dear Estradling75,

 

Let's just take this step by step, so no one gets left behind. The first thing to agree is that the kind of huge disparities in wealth I posted in the OP are not morally defensible. They might be economically defensible, or politically defensible, or historically defensible, but they are not morally defensible. They offend a very basic sense of justice, of fairness, of egalitarian impulse. I am not sure we have achieved consensus on this point, yet.

 

Secondly, thank you for your figures, which I agree with. Let's say, to round things out neatly, we are talking US$9,000.00 each, or around £5,600.00 sterling, each, if wealth were evenly distributed. This is a useful figure, to me. I can understand that figure. So, I will voluntarily be limiting my net worth to this figure, and giving any excess away. Fortunately, I don't have to do that just yet, because I am not even that wealthy. I am not persuaded that this position will make a big difference, but I think it will make some difference, and some difference is better than no difference.

 

Best wishes, 2RM

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Discussions of this topic can be hard because so few people understand the concept of "zero sum."

 

If I go on a diet and lose 100 pounds, that doesn't force some unlucky woman on the other side of the world to gain 100 pounds.  And yet I know many people who would claim that any act of generating wealth, even something as simple as choosing to work overtime or selling lemonade, must necessarily cheat someone else out of money that they rightfully deserve.

 

This whole debate is poorly framed, in my opinion.  The question should be whether any act of generating wealth in a modern economy steals from others or makes it harder for others to generate wealth.  If not, we're going to have rich and poor people, just like we have fat and skinny people.  But I guess I shouldn't say this too loud, or else the liberal progressives will start thinking about new government fat-redistribution programs.

 

Over time, capitalism clearly delivers wealth. I grant that. That is not to say all that wealth is 'good wealth'; some of it is rubbish, and some of it downright perniciously harmful. But, it is wealth, all the same.

 

Nevertheless, at any given moment in time, there is a fixed amount of money and stuff to go round. At point t in time, economics just is a zero sum game. How we distribute wealth, and why we distribute it that way, speaks volumes about our spiritual health as individuals, societies and nations.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

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.

 

Of course, I am outraged that some have so much while others have so little.  (My son teases me that I am a "Classist" because he feels I'm prejudgiced against rich people.  He's partially right, and I'm working on that because I feel the root problem is really not them, but my own pride...)

 

I am also outraged about sexual abuse (of any kind--children, women and men), and I'm passionate about the problems of homelessness, and racism.  Are you as outraged by these issues too?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LiterateParakeet, I am glad you're outraged by injustice and abuse of power. It is nice not to feel alone. I confess though, in a peculiar way, I am not as outraged by, say, a murder of a child after a rape of that child, than I am by the death of a child through malnourishment and eventual starvation. Seems to me the former is so obviously wrong, no right-thinking person could condone it, and no right thinking person would do anything other than assist the police and government to get that kind of thing stopped.

 

But, when it comes to death by starvation, well, it happens all the time, and people just accept it, and carry on complaining about the size of their tax burden, or blame it on corruption, or the fecklessness of the poor, or do anything other than face the fact that we rich westerners are hogging the wealth that these poor people need to stay alive, with.

 

So, that is why I am outraged. The argument about sexual abuse has, I think, largely been won in respect of the court of public opinion. The argument about poverty has not.

 

Best wishes, 2RM

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

The argument about sexual abuse has, I think, largely been won in respect of the court of public opinion. The argument about poverty has not.

 

Forgive me, but it only seems that way to you because you are not a survivor of sexual abuse.  People may agree that it is horrible, but they don't want to talk about it any further than that.  When survivors look for support/help/rescue, they often receive none of them.  Often children are not believed, rape survivors are asked what they were wearing...and if you look to religion for help you get the message "forgive and let go" which again makes one feel that he/she is THE problem.  Of course forgiveness is important but it is not the first step toward healing (for most).  So while people claim outrage about sexual abuse, most of the time is seems to be in word only--just the same as poverty. Likewise racism has not been resolved in the court of public opinion....many refuse to see it at all.  

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But how would forced redistribution of wealth improve spiritual health?

 

I take the degree of economic equality within a society to be an indicator of, rather than a decider of, it's spiritual health.

 

It may indeed be that a wealthy person forced to give up some proportion of his wealth might not benefit spiritually in that scenario quite as much as if he or she had decided, of their own volition, to give that proportion of their wealth away, and sacrifice their own consumer desires for the needs of others. Of course, much depends on their own attitude to the democratic will towards eradicating absolute poverty.

 

But, when we are balancing wants and needs, profligacy and lives, I confess I feel no sympathy for the rich in this respect. I don't particularly care whether rich people benefit spiritually by the redistribution of wealth. It would be better if they did, and if this were all resolved voluntarily and amicably. But, this has shown no sign of happening yet, 2000 years since Christ, to the extent necessary. I weigh the very lives of the poor as more important than the ascendance of wealthy people up the spiritual ladder. If they are dead, the poor have no opportunity to gain in spiritual stature, at all.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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....

 

So, here is the text as I read it in my translation

 

 

And when the disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, "Why this waste? For this could have been sold for a large sum, and given to the poor." But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, "Why do you trouble this woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to me. For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me. In pouring this ointment on my body, she has done it to prepare me for burial"

Matthew 26 8:12 KJV

 

To me, it seems quite clear that Jesus was speaking in a specific time and place, to a specific audience, and that his words are best understood in that context. It is quite true that his disciples, in their time, always would have the poor with them. But, that is not necessarily true of our time, and place. For the first time in history, humanity has the economic capacity to eradicate absolute poverty. The question is, do we also have the will?

 

Best wishes, 2RM

Edited by 2ndRateMind
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