It's just not fair...


2ndRateMind
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ha ha ha. We all know that the US has been living beyond it's means for decades. And all the while, still voting for lower taxes. Meanwhile, it is the nation of a million millionaires, that, to it's shame, hasn't even cured it's own poverty issues. It can, you can, we all can, I suggest, go some way towards doing that by pursuing a more egalitarian approach to wealth.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

 

While it is clear that the government has been living beyond its means for a long time...  But you can't deny that a large chunk of the the very wealth you wish to get your hands on is in the hands of US citizens.   Also a good chunk of the reason the US is living beyond is means is trying to fund social support programs.  Because enough people like you, don't do the math and continue to vote to keep their government hand out.  Maybe they they believe in Magic and fairy fairy dust because they sure don't believe the math and pay no attention to hard numbers.

 

But it also seem to me that you are not really interested in solving the problem in any practical manner so I see no reason to continue discussing it with you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I understand the spirit of his OP, it does seem like he prefers that everybody is starving rather than billions of people starving and a hundred thousand living like royalty...

 

If that is the way you understand my message, I have failed to communicate it properly. The world produces more than enough food for everyone to eat, and eat well. Yet, people starve. The problem is not production, but distribution, according to the lopsided way we allocate wealth. That is my central issue, not the irrelevance of some lucky few eating like royalty.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...But you can't deny that a large chunk of the the very wealth you wish to get your hands on is in the hands of US citizens.   Also a good chunk of the reason the US is living beyond is means is trying to fund social support programs.  Because enough people like you, don't do the math and continue to vote to keep their government hand out. 

 

....

 

But it also seem to me that you are not really interested in solving the problem in any practical manner so I see no reason to continue discussing it with you

 

I don't want your wealth. I thought I had made that clear. Don't make this personal. I just suggest that malnourished people with little or no access to clean, fresh water, or housing, or electric power, or sanitation, or primary education and healthcare, are better entitled to these basics, whatever their nationality, than millionaires are to a 'tax efficient environment'.

 

I am sorry you don't want to discuss further. I, personally, have made considerable progress due to your contributions.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha ha ha. We all know that the US has been living beyond it's means for decades. And all the while, still voting for lower taxes. Meanwhile, it is the nation of a million millionaires, that, to it's shame, hasn't even cured it's own poverty issues. It can, you can, we all can, I suggest, go some way towards doing that by pursuing a more egalitarian approach to wealth.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Just like to point out it is not the nation of millionares. the % that fit into that category is less than 1%.

china, russia, UK, all have millionares and i'd imagine that the % of such would not be too much off from that of the US.

the big difference between the US and many other countries is the wealth at the middle and poor classes is above those that are in the middle and poor classes in other nations (but that is changing).

the gap between the ultra elite rich and everyone else is sickening. however it is a symptom not a cause.

Edited by Blackmarch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's OK. Assuming the population of the US to be around 300,000,000, the proportion of millionaires in the population is around 0.3%. No other nation has anything like this ratio. In economic terms, by definition of the personal wealth of the wealthy, no other nation is anything like so successful. Incidentally, we are only talking about the US because that is where most of you are.

 

However, the line this thread is taking, is, is that success a moral success, or just plainly unfair?

 

You're quite welcome to argue either way, but I will come after you if you think excessive wealth is 'A Good Thing'.

 

Best wishes, 2RM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's OK. Assuming the population of the US to be around 300,000,000, the proportion of millionaires in the population is around 0.3%. No other nation has anything like this ratio. In economic terms, by definition of the personal wealth of the wealthy, no other nation is anything like so successful. Incidentally, we are only talking about the US because that is where most of you are.

 

However, the line this thread is taking, is, is that success a moral success, or just plainly unfair?

 

You're quite welcome to argue either way, but I will come after you if you think excessive wealth is 'A Good Thing'.

 

Best wishes, 2RM

the means to the end is what will define the answer to that- as there are both moral and immoral roads to reaching that end, as well as what is done with that achievement.

However considering how humanity when left to itself usually is, you would probably be safer in betting that immoral means are often what is used.

which is why my stance is; actual wealth amount doesn't matter, or necessarily the gap itself.

what matter is the how it occured and why it occured.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Windseeker, I hope you read this. I gathered you had tired of the thread.

 

I wanted to say that I appreciate the wisdom in your post.

 

If I have a big idea, though, it is this. By making the world fit for Christ to return to (hasn't He done enough for us, already?) we assure our own salvation. When He returns, let Him have nothing left to do! The spiritual stature necessary to forego our own wealth, that others might have a basically acceptable standard of living, is the same spiritual stature that will see us into heaven, and beyond. For me, Utopia, and Salvation, are not therefore, fundamentally different concepts, but depend on each other. How this notion might fit into Mormon theology, though, I have no idea.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The title of this thread irks me every time I see it. As if I don't hear about something not being fair enough, with 5 kids in the house. 

 

Sometimes, you just have to take a child's-eye view of the world, to make any moral sense of it. 'Be ye as cunning as serpents, and innocent as doves'.

 

 

At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them, and said, Truly I say unto you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 18 1:3 KJV

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wealth is neither moral nor amoral.

 

Sometimes money in the hands of the productive individual can do more good for the needy in the long term than someone in need. It is a delicate balance. 

I don't support some of these ideas because I don't think it is the best or most effective way to solve such problems. Even if we only took enough money from everyone to provide a basic living for everyone I suspect it wouldn't work very well. 

You might be interested in taking a look at the Copenhagen Consensus.

 

 

Copenhagen Consensus is a project that seeks to establish priorities for advancing global welfare using methodologies based on the theory of welfare economics. --wikipedia

http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/
 

 

 

Queue opinion below:
 

What is done with the wealth makes the difference (and the personal attitude towards wealth makes the difference). A wealthy individual who uses money to expand a business to create the things others want/need is doing good. This is good for jobs, and for what they produce. Large amounts of this money (When looking at the figures) is donated by companies and individuals to help the poor, the needy. This is also good. This is a faithful and fruitful servant who has increased his talents.

Are there some under this system who are greedy, abuse power, use their wealth to exercise dominion? Unfortunately yes.

When good is done, We shouldn't be quick to judgement.

 

The crux of the issue isn't why money should be redistributed. I think many will agree that an equitable society would be the ideal we strive towards. The issue is human nature. The theory you proclaim seems very similar to Communism. All people living in Common would be awesome, no poor, no starving etc... except no current society today has successfully implemented such a society. They all suffer from inefficiencies, corruption, lack of wealth, crime, (some moral decline) etc. As Just_A_Guy has said, and I paraphrase: "How can this successfully be implemented without completely falling apart and the cure being worse than the disease?"(The answer is Christ like love, charity among all mankind, not an economic program)

 Is it fair for someone to create something, say a piece of art for their home and then have that piece of art taken from them since they can always make another one?  Is it fair for a child to starve because of want? NO!

 

Edited by Crypto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

 

Ha ha! Yes, Mormons. I take it that on an LDS forum, I am talking mainly to Mormons. I have allocated you a year of my time, some of which has still to elapse. Persuade me your ideas are compatible with mine, and I am yours, forever.

 

If not, there are the Jehovah's witnesses, or the Southern Baptists, or the Roman Catholics, or the Scottish Presbyterians. But, I came to you guys first, because I like your sense of community.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Persuade me your ideas are compatible with mine, and I am yours, forever.

 

This holds no interest for us "Mormons". Nor should it be your objective. Our objective, all of us, should be to alter our ideas so they are compatible with God's. Nothing more, nothing less. We believe that revealed truth (which does not play into politics much) gives us the truth of God's ideas, and therefore, we believe it behooves all mankind to alter their ideas to become compatible with said revealed truth. All we can do is testify that we have the truth and exhort others to pursue the same methods we did in finding that truth. Beyond that, no mortal persuasion or agreement holds any meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, clearly The Folk Prophet, if I did not believe my ideas were true, and just, and right, and therefore Godly, and True, and Just, and Right, I would not be seeking a spiritual home, but another set of ideas. All religions, and splits off religions, would like to claim they have access to divine and perfectly objective truth. They cannot all be right, because they disagree in matters of substance and detail. And so I am more likely to be persuaded by compatibility with my conscience than theological assertions.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, let's now deal with some of your horrors. Let's assume everyone in the world gets their $9000.00. Corporations would not cease to exist. Rather, they would be owned by many investors, instead of just a few. Governments are not gone; they simply need to tax more fairly, instead of favouring the wealthy, who invariably find ways of avoiding tax, to the detriment of the poor, who have to pay, even in allegedly progressive systems, a greater proportion of their wealth than the rich. Systems like insurance, especially health insurance, do not evaporate. Instead, they gain greater purchase, because no-one can afford to opt out. Houses are valued on the basis of their land, labour, bricks and mortar, instead of what the rich can afford to bid their prices up to. We all get to have one. The police are less necessary, because there is no economic inequality anymore, to feed economically acquisitive crime. Nevertheless, they are still available, along with the military, because truly democratic, legitimate government is enabled, uninfluenced by vested interests. More to the upside, millions, perhaps even billions, of good, resilient, self-reliant poor people, frustrated by their poverty, would have sufficient capital to launch micro-businesses, or educate themselves, or equip themselves for employment, in ways they currently can only dream about. 

 

2ndRateMind, I only have one question for this vision: 

 

Why?

 

Why would anyone want to own part of a corporation if they aren't allowed to have more than $9K in assets anyways?

 

Why would anyone work any harder than necessary to keep their net worth over $9,000, thereby producing any significant amount of taxable income?

 

Why would a student spend almost a decade in medical school, knowing that she will never be able to accrue more than $9,000 in wealth regardless of how much she invests in her own education?  Why would someone spend hours a day, for days on ending, building a house they will never live in?

 

Why would someone agree to live a $9K lifestyle when they can join with others to create a black market that will provide a far better lifestyle?

 

Why would someone launch a micro-business or invest in their economic ability, knowing that someone who could not/would not work as hard is waiting in the wings to skim off the fruits of those labors above and beyond $9,000?

 

Mormonism provides the why--in the Book of Mormon, 4 Nephi, Chapter 1:

 

And it came to pass that the thirty and fourth year passed away, and also the thirty and fifth, and behold the disciples of Jesus had formed a church of Christ in all the lands round about. And as many as did come unto them, and did truly repent of their sins, were baptized in the name of Jesus; and they did also receive the Holy Ghost.

And it came to pass in the thirty and sixth year, the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land, both Nephites and Lamanites, and there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another.

And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift. . . .

And it came to pass that there was no contention in the land, because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people.

 

When you can get all people--rich and poor--to love God and their fellowman so much that they voluntarily commit to such a regimen, and will continue to work even when that work no longer directly benefits them; you can make the system function.  But until then, you've got human nature to deal with.  And human nature says that workers will stop working as hard, and non-workers will remain non-workers, if lifestyle and work ethic are completely dissociated.

 

Price ceilings lead to product shortages, 2ndRateMind--that's an empirically verifiable fact.  You can fiat policy; but you can't fiat human behavior in response to that policy.  That's why collectivist enterprises tend to fail, and any truly lasting, nominally "communist" enterprise tends to wind up as an oligarchy with a small group of "haves", a large group of "have-nots", and a pervasive police state.

 

If I have a big idea, though, it is this. By making the world fit for Christ to return to (hasn't He done enough for us, already?) we assure our own salvation. When He returns, let Him have nothing left to do!

 

. . . by, imprisoning/killing the conscientious objectors in the here-and-now?  That's been the battle cry of more than a few tyrants over the last two millennia.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2ndRateMind, I think you would be highly interested in the Law of Consecration:

(take a look at the linked page!)

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/consecrate-law-of-consecration

Section 105 of the Doctrine and Covenants

 

 

And Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom; otherwise I cannot receive her unto myself.

   
First thing is first, All man kind (Or concentrated pockets of people) learning then living all basic principles, say things like the 10 Commandments. Then working their way up. We all are still working on that :'(

This line of thinking goes along with a strong belief that God intends all people have agency to choose good or to choose evil.

Edited by Crypto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This holds no interest for us "Mormons". Nor should it be your objective. Our objective, all of us, should be to alter our ideas so they are compatible with God's. Nothing more, nothing less. We believe that revealed truth (which does not play into politics much) gives us the truth of God's ideas, and therefore, we believe it behooves all mankind to alter their ideas to become compatible with said revealed truth. All we can do is testify that we have the truth and exhort others to pursue the same methods we did in finding that truth. Beyond that, no mortal persuasion or agreement holds any meaning.

 

You and I view God/what we're supposed to be doing here very differently.  Isn't diversity in the church great!? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

. . . by, imprisoning/killing the conscientious objectors in the here-and-now?  That's been the battle cry of more than a few tyrants over the last two millennia.

 

Indeed it has! Perhaps the world is fortunate that I will never become it's leader, with armies and secret police and stuff at my beck and call, and need to rely solely on rational argument to persuade people, for their own good, to agree a common and just agenda for all our own future's sake.

 

As to your why? question, I am not ignoring it. Part of the answer lies in a post I have already made (I think on this thread) about the nature of 'Good Work'. The rest requires us to address this vexed question about the nature of human nature, and whether it is inherently selfish, or selfless, or, as I suppose, somewhere in between.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

 

(No, it wasn't. Here it is:)

 

Thank you, james12, for that greatly useful overview. I find your principles most worthy. Let us then discuss them

 

Considering work, EF Schumacher* lists the purposes of work, as follows:

 

  1. To provide useful goods and services
  2. To enable everyone of us to use and thereby perfect our gifts like good stewards
  3. To do so in service to, and in cooperation with, others, so as to liberate ourselves from our in built egocentricity.

If we accept these purposes, which seem good to me, it is worth noting that there is nothing in them that suggests that we should work to become wealthy, or wealthier than our neighbours, or wealthier than we need. These ideas are other-centric, rather than self-centered. I wonder, therefore, what you make of them?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

*EF Schumacher, Good Work, Sphere Books Ltd, 1980, London

 
Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2ndRateMind, I think you would be highly interested in the Law of Consecration:

(take a look at the linked page!)

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/consecrate-law-of-consecration

Section 105 of the Doctrine and Covenants

   

First thing is first, All man kind (Or concentrated pockets of people) learning then living all basic principles, say things like the 10 Commandments. Then working their way up. We all are still working on that :'(

This line of thinking goes along with a strong belief that God intends all people have agency to choose good or to choose evil.

 

 

Thank you, for that. Fascinating reading.

 

I certainly agree with you that 'We are still working on that' !

 

So, I'm wondering what do you LDS/Mormons (I never know what to call you!) make of these scriptures?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm confused, 2RM. You say you care about the spiritual welfare of all, then turn around and say it's only about eliminating poverty.

 

That's OK. These discursive, rambling threads may not always be the most ideal medium for deploying a long, complex chain of reasoning. Nevertheless, they are democratic, in that anyone can interject, and criticise, and that is why I use them.

 

So, let us backtrack, somewhat.

 

I believe the purpose and meaning of life is human spiritual development. I further believe that we achieve that by sacrifice and service to one another. By donating to, say, some charity, we simultaneously practice and display and manifest our love for our fellow creatures. In that manifestation, we make God more immanent in the world, right up to the point of sacrificing our very lives, that is, everything we are and have, for the benefit of others. There can be no greater gesture, and Christ made it on our behalf, to show us that no such sacrifice, which takes the ultimate in spiritual development, would be in vain. And that all our sacrifices, however small, would be noted and counted in our favour, come the resolution of things.

 

So, for me, absolute poverty is the scandal of our age. For you, it might be something different. Perhaps it is global warming, or habitat destruction, or whaling, or disease reduction, or the confine of wild animals to zoos, or the dismissal of our elderly to dismal homes. Whatever it is, and whatever you do for and give to your chosen project, it all counts towards making the world a better place, towards making your salvation, and our Utopia, that bit closer. If I commend the eradication of absolute poverty to you, it is because there is clearly much to do, in this matter, and because it throws into sharp relief the nature of the sacrifices necessary. Each $1 I have is $1 someone else, who may need it more, doesn't.

 

Hope this clarifies, a little.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You and I view God/what we're supposed to be doing here very differently.  Isn't diversity in the church great!? :)

 

Really? Your objective is to twist truth until it lines up with mortal thinking? To what end? Bring them into the church based on falsehoods?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a time the church early in our history tried to live by the law of consecration, however it seems like we were not quite ready for it. Much like God allowed divorce under the law of Moses not because it was okay, but because of the hardness of the hearts of the people. 

 

The nitty gritty of how it is to be implemented was not given (as far as my knowledge), there are some guidelines though, so there will be differing opinions on how to implement.

 

We are still to strive to live by it, which can be seen through service, fast offerings, and other charitable works.

This was a talk recently given in our general conference about poverty:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/are-we-not-all-beggars?lang=eng

 

It reflects the guidance we have been given today.

Latter day saints is fine :-) 
[to me lds/mormons is more of a nickname,from my view at least, some people prefer nicknames]

Edited by Crypto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how it's always the poor who have the onus to make the world a better place. Like, the responsibility of the wealthy begins and ends with meeting government regulations on wages/hours/safety regulations. Also, who is going to help the underserved if it isn't the government? If one cannot petition the government for redress from unethical employers then what is an individual suppose to do?.'Get a better job/you made the choice to work there/you should have gone to a college you can't afford' works only when there is a choice. When all the employers in an area offer the same level of wages no matter what level of education you're stuck. 

 

*Takes a deep breath*

 

I wasn't going to say much, really. But I felt there had to be a counterpoint to all this job-creator love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how it's always the poor who have the onus to make the world a better place. Like, the responsibility of the wealthy begins and ends with meeting government regulations on wages/hours/safety regulations. Also, who is going to help the underserved if it isn't the government? If one cannot petition the government for redress from unethical employers then what is an individual suppose to do?.'Get a better job/you made the choice to work there/you should have gone to a college you can't afford' works only when there is a choice. When all the employers in an area offer the same level of wages no matter what level of education you're stuck. 

 

*Takes a deep breath*

 

I wasn't going to say much, really. But I felt there had to be a counterpoint to all this job-creator love.

While you speak much truth, I don't know how we can get around "improve your skills" especially in a society where simple things are increasingly made automatic. If a job can be replaced by a machine, it is done. From what I'm aware, true socialists encourage this. It often bites, but when skills are no longer needed new skills must be developed--this applies to both individuals and ssocieties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes, you just have to take a child's-eye view of the world, to make any moral sense of it. 'Be ye as cunning as serpents, and innocent as doves'.

 

Matthew 18 1:3 KJV

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Yes, but often my children's sense of what is "fair" is that they get everything they want, and that they get everything the next guy gets. I don't know if you have kids, or how you were raised, but it does them no favors to let them think they're entitled to either of those. 

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