So, I'll be posting less often, now.

[estradling75]

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

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

And those whom don't believe it is a sin?  Do you trample their beliefs in the "Name of the Greater good"  Knowing that tyrants and despots...  Do what they do in the "Name of the Greater Good"

 

The thing is... Is that Finrock pointed right to the answer.  We should not be asking how can I make "Everyone else do right"  The question we should be asking is "What can I do right now to help someone?"    Chances are the answer will be something small and simple.  That is perfect.  Do it.  Labor within yourself until this becomes a pattern, a habit.  Then once you have that then Labor to keep the habit.  By so doing to change yourself for the better.

 

And all the little things will add up in time.  People will see the change in you see the things you do and maybe they will decide that they want to be a part of that or get them some of that.  And it grows.  It takes time yes, but it requires no force or compulsion.  It simply inspires by example people to step up and do what they know to be right.

[Guest]

 

@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.

 

 

 

Best wishes, 2RM

 

 

That's not even close to what I'm saying...  This world matters.  VERY MUCH.   And Good and Evil wrestled way before this world and will wrestle well after this world.  But you seem to think that MONEY is the measure of good and evil.  It is not.  Money has no bearing on the Spirit - or it shouldn't.  One can be good or evil regardless of how much money one has.  Just because Bill Gates is rich doesn't make him evil just like just because that starving kid in Darfur is poor doesn't make him good.  We came here so we can CHANGE and be as Christ is.  One can't change if we're compelled to do so or if we don't put forth the faith and work into the mortal project.

 

Therefore, it is not how much money that makes you good or evil.  It is the CHOICES you make - as a rich person or as a poor person that matters.  Therefore, being rich/poor is not as important as being FREE to exercise free choice.  We've been making choices since before we were born... everything in this world is simply an environment of opposites - the physical man being the opposite of the man's spirit, given as a challenge for the spirit to master the physical.  So that being poor is just an opposite of being rich - given as a challenge for the spirit to master the material... money is simply the tool from which the spirit can exercise free choice.

 

Of course it would be awesomely amazing if the rich would use his money to serve - that's his mortal probation - to see what his spirit does to what talent he is given - and will be the yardstick for his spiritual progression.  But, just TAKING or COMPELLING money from the rich to give to the poor doesn't really fulfill the ETERNAL purpose of the mortal exercise... because it doesn't teach the spirit anything.  That's how the revelations of Joseph Smith about the Eternal Perspective gives you a completely different way of looking at and solving life's problems.

 

But we've been through this powwow before and you have not yet understood what I've been trying to say for many many many posts.

Edited December 15, 2014 by anatess

[PolarVortex]

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.

 

Various subsets of those 225 people have tried this, with varying degrees of failure.  But that doesn't mean that we should stop trying.

 

However, I can't help but wonder what would happen if those 225 actually met and hammered out some real proposals to eradicate hunger and poverty.  If the proposals didn't require direct transfers of money from the rich to the poor, or massive transfers of borrowed money to the poor, then I'm afraid most liberals would reject them without a second thought.  Some without a first thought.

[FunkyTown]

 

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

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

But it is not the excess of wealth that is the problem. It is the lack in Bangladesh, not your surplus.

It seems obvious that, like a lack of water in one area can be overcome by diverting a river to another area, so the stem of wealth can be redirected.

It is not, however. Many have discussed that, so I would ask this:

You have options - Right now - That can change the world. You can make a difference in a single life. You could work with Habitats for Humanity. You could go to a poverty-ridden place and teach people how to overcome, survive and prosper.

Or you could be one of the many hundreds of thousands currently working on improving productivity to make goods and services more accessible, or you could work on a new economic system that created a better and easier flow of goods and services- Something fairer than our current, flawed system.

With so many options, why concentrate on the one that requires the least investment from you, personally?

[2ndRateMind]

Dear FunkyTown.

 

Be assured, that believing as I do, I am not doing nothing. But being poor, that not nothing is pretty marginal. Hence my frustration. The world has the resources to eradicate poverty. Forever. But, it refuses to deploy them to do that, preferring, as you do, to suggest that those who advocate this are somehow hypocritical. 

 

I have to observe that an ad hominem argument is not a sound refutation, just an excuse. If you can supply a real reason why the 225 richest people in the world should not forego 4% of their wealth in an effort to avoid starvation, bring shelter, power, clean water and sanitation to those that lack it, provide primary education and healthcare to those without, well, I would be interested to hear it.

 

Furthermore, I even suspect that such an effort would be sound economics. People who are not on the edge of starvation and want are a market for all sorts of goods and services, of the kind that anyone who has an excess wealth might have investments in.

 

Best wishes, 2RM

Edited December 16, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[FunkyTown]

 

Dear FunkyTown.

 

Be assured, that believing as I do, I am not doing nothing. But being poor, that not nothing is pretty marginal. Hence my frustration. The world has the resources to eradicate poverty. Forever. But, it refuses to deploy them to do that, preferring, as you do, to suggest that those who advocate this are somehow hypocritical. 

 

I have to observe that an ad hominem argument is not a sound refutation, just an excuse. If you can supply a real reason why the 225 richest people in the world should not forego 4% of their wealth in an effort to avoid starvation, bring clean water and sanitation to those that lack it, provide primary education and healthcare to those without, well, I would be interested to hear it.

 

Best wishes, 2RM

I did not, as a matter of fact, use an ad hominem. An Ad Hominem would have been if I had said "You aren't volunteering at Habitat for Humanity, therefor your arguments are irrelevant." I simply pointed out that your view on how to solve humanity's issues was flawed.

So, I will instead explain as best I can. This will require a set of answers from you.

The 225 wealthiest people in the world. What percentage of wheat do they own - Not in vague promissory notes, but in a very concrete way: What percentage of the worlds wheat do they own?

[2ndRateMind]

Sorry FunkyTown. I don't have the time or inclination to pander to this kind of game. If you have an argument, state it, and I will reply as seems appropriate, when the spirit moves me to do so.

 

As for ad hominem, you suggested that I was disposed to the least costly for me, as against the most effective, option.

 

Best wishes, 2RM

Edited December 16, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[FunkyTown]

 

Sorry FunkyTown. I don't have the time or inclination to pander to this kind of game. If you have an argument, state it, and I will reply as seems appropriate, when the spirit moves me to do so.

 

Best wishes, 2RM

 

That's just it. You seem to almost be deliberately misinterpreting us. Willfully so. So I'm trying to get a feel for your understanding of wealth, so I will be even more specific:

If I were to go to Warren Buffett's house, how many tons of concrete and steel could I cart off? Please be as specific as possible.

If I were to go to Oprah Winfrey's house, how many tons of wheat could I expect to get? Please be as specific as possible.

[2ndRateMind]

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

 

Best wishes, 2RM,

[estradling75]

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

 

Best wishes, 2RM,

 

 

His argument is... "You seem to misunderstand us... alot."

[2ndRateMind]

His argument is... "You seem to misunderstand us... alot."

 

I'm open to that possibility. If you can justify it!

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Vort]

Funky, 2RM has no answers for you. He simply knows he's right. No argument can convince him otherwise. He has neither the ability nor the inclination to prove his point. It's just obvious, as any right-thinking person already knows. The case (and the mind) is closed.

[2ndRateMind]

Funky, 2RM has no answers for you. He simply knows he's right. No argument can convince him otherwise. He has neither the ability nor the inclination to prove his point. It's just obvious, as any right-thinking person already knows. The case (and the mind) is closed.

 

Get real Vort. I'm highlighting a global problem, and proposing a raft of global solutions. You guys debating with me, are all just suggesting why the solutions won't work. Well, that's fair enough. But there is no need to mount personal attacks, as opposed to debating the issue at hand.

 

Or, am I to suppose that y'all would rather be rich, than save insignificant lives in the developing world?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 16, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[Backroads]

So you're saying we should pillage the property of the richest people and hope the world magically improves after that? How do you intend to make them give up their wealth? How will that wealth fix social and political problems? Why is slavery such a righteous option?

[estradling75]

I'm open to that possibility. If you can justify it!

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Your next post does it for me

 

 

Get real Vort. I'm highlighting a global problem, and proposing a raft of global solutions. You guys debating with me, are all just suggesting why the solutions won't work. Well, that's fair enough. But there is no need to mount personal attacks, as opposed to debating the issue at hand.

 

Or, am I to suppose that y'all would rather be rich, than save insignificant lives in the developing world?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

If you truly believe the last sentence you wrote then you have understood precisely nothing that we have talked about.

 

Most of the posters here belong to the LDS church.  The LDS church claims 15 million people as members and depend entirely on volunteers to do its work. (Which means that while it claims 15 million the number of active feet on the ground pushing the work along is less).  It teaches and encourage all people to become more Christ-like and then offers them chances to practice it.  Because of this the church currently has deployed about 80,000 men and women between the ages of 18-26 deployed full-time trying to save souls.  This is in addition to each and every member who goes to church on Sunday is also reminded that they to need to be involved in saving souls and becoming Christ-like.

 

Saving souls is important but we do not stop there.  Due to the donation of money and talents of the members the Church owns several large farms. It also has several food processing plants, and food distribution networks. All designed to grow food and give it away to the poor and needy.  All funded by the members.  I would put the LDS church's welfare program against any other welfare program and fully expect that it does more with less.  We even have job training programs, and item donation programs to do more then give people food.

 

We don't need a 'new system' or 'new laws.'  We simply need to expand what we currently have.  And we are working that as fast as we can convert people.

 

But you don't see that or understand that...  You argue that we need to do something, to a group that is probably running one of the best system that exists for helping the poor and needy.  And you say that we are greedy and heartless.

 

You propose laws and taxes and large scale changes.  When we use our experience to point out flaws to your ideas you seem to see and understand those problems but instead of offering solid counters on how to get around them you throw up your hands and say we will figure it out.  Then you go right back to it as if you had some magic fairy wand that you can wave to make the problem go away without dealing with it.

 

So yes it seem very clear that you understand nothing about us. Or what we have been telling you.

[Crypto]

I think backroads concisely illustrated the difference in thinking.

Different people prioritize different virtues, in this case idea of stealing versus charity. Different paradigms. When presenting facts from differing paradigms under such paradigms I would suggest that not much agreement will be found. 

 

When it comes down to it which is more important to you, Freedom, Justice, Charity, or Goodwill? Which you do prioritize at the expense of the others? Is there a way to do this without putting something at the expense of another virtue? 

[Crypto]

btw I see misunderstanding happening on both sides... imo at least...

[pkstpaul]

I like something CS Lewis said - I don't have the referrence to quote exactly so I have to paraphase - "One cannot say they know the ocean by standing on the shore with a map."  He was addressing those who seek to find spirituality without belonging to a faith (Church). 

 

I would venture to say, 2RM didn't even get wet. Religion and faith are more than intellectual arguments. You have to dive in. 

 

As expressed earlier, if you think the LDS faith isn't about sacrafice, you haven't been paying attention.

[FunkyTown]

 

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

 

Best wishes, 2RM,

I am not being silly.

You understand, of course, that these people do not have millions of tons of wheat stored? Nor concrete, steel or clean water? You understand they are most likely not engineers nor architects, welders nor farmers.

They are completely irrelevant to the problems at hand. They are a paper tiger whose 'wealth' is utterly beside the point to the problems at hand.

If you took 4% of their wealth, you would not solve the worlds problems. Could not, in fact, because 4% of their wealth is 4% of a balance sheet. Unless the worlds problems involve a lack of 0s in their life, they won't be resolved. If you look at Germany pre-World War II, they were given large chunks of money. There was a major influx of money in to the system and costs skyrocketed - Businesses simply changed prices in accordance with the available funds. People were bringing their paychecks home in wheelbarrows.

Due to the reparations forced on Germany, the government decided an influx of hard currency would be the way to resolve the issue. This resulted in massive hyperinflation.

And companies simply upped their prices. Parents who had saved their whole lives suddenly were watching their children starve on millions of Marks. That isn't to say that nobody made money off of the back of this hyperinflation, however. Some made fortunes.

If you simply take 4% of the wealthiest people's wealth, then you will simply change who is wealthy. That's it. It won't solve the problems you want. It will simply change power dynamics.

To enact meaningful change requires an awful lot more than juggling numbers in a ledger.

Do you understand what I mean when I say that I do not want to destroy the wealthy, but simply render them meaningless now? I don't care if someone owns a mansion in Beverly Hills. Good for them. That's not what I want, nor what I care for.

I was not being silly when I asked that. You kept repeating the 'Eat the rich' mantra, when 'The rich' are simply irrelevant to the problems of the world except insofar as we enslave ourselves to their whim.

Edited December 17, 2014 by FunkyTown

[Blackmarch]

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.

now theres a question.... "what makes a good mormon?"

[2ndRateMind]

OK, people. So, my new year's resolution, which I am starting today, is to be nicer to you all.

 

Nevertheless, I am guessing that the reason you don't want the rich tapped for the wherewithall to prevent the poor from dieing of malnutrition, is because you all are already rich, or you all want to become rich. I might be wrong, but behind your arguments I perceive self-interest. Now, self-interest is not necessarily a bad thing. Under certain circumstances, it can be considered prudence, which is a Christian virtue.

 

But the overwhelming opposition I have received on this forum to any idea of the redistribution of wealth from rich to poor inclines me to one of two conclusions:

 

a: You do not perceive the injustice in the way wealth is currently distributed, or

b: You do perceive it, but do not care, or care sufficiently to do anything about it.

 

Neither conclusion leads me to a positive view of your church. But I don't see how I might alter your opinions. If you can't see the social injustice inherent in the capacity to own a  private jet, or gin-palace yacht, on the one hand, and being unable to feed your family, on the other, nothing I can say will persuade you of that injustice.

 

Worse than this, if you can see the injustice, but want the upside for you and yours to the necessary exclusion of others and theirs, and don't really care what happens to those others, then nothing I can say will make you care.

 

Nevertheless, I'm interested to know, which it is; whether you do not understand social injustice, or just do not care about it?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 22, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[Dravin]

But the overwhelming opposition I have received on this forum to any idea of the redistribution of wealth from rich to poor inclines me to one of two conclusions:

 

a: You do not perceive the injustice in the way wealth is currently distributed, or

b: You do perceive it, but do not care, or care sufficiently to do anything about it.

 

 

2ndRateMind, I like you man, but several people have been trying to direct you to:

 

c. They believe the redistribution of wealth and effort should be made voluntarily and not by governmental decree and enforcement.

 

Now it's fine if you don't like that option for whatever reason, but don't ignore it. The disagreement isn't fundamentally about if a more egalitarian world would be better (though there are still those who would argue the specifics), but in how to go about realizing that world. It seems to me you feel that it must be done by government taxation and action to such a degree that when people are disagreeing with government taxation and action you automatically conclude they disagree with a goal of a more egalitarian world. 

 

Note, it's perfectly legitimate to argue and disagree with the how, just don't confuse it for the what.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Dravin

[2ndRateMind]

  I am not being silly.

You understand, of course, that these people do not have millions of tons of wheat stored? Nor concrete, steel or clean water? You understand they are most likely not engineers nor architects, welders nor farmers.

They are completely irrelevant to the problems at hand. They are a paper tiger whose 'wealth' is utterly beside the point to the problems at hand.

If you took 4% of their wealth, you would not solve the worlds problems. Could not, in fact, because 4% of their wealth is 4% of a balance sheet. Unless the worlds problems involve a lack of 0s in their life, they won't be resolved. If you look at Germany pre-World War II, they were given large chunks of money. There was a major influx of money in to the system and costs skyrocketed - Businesses simply changed prices in accordance with the available funds. People were bringing their paychecks home in wheelbarrows.

Due to the reparations forced on Germany, the government decided an influx of hard currency would be the way to resolve the issue. This resulted in massive hyperinflation.

And companies simply upped their prices. Parents who had saved their whole lives suddenly were watching their children starve on millions of Marks. That isn't to say that nobody made money off of the back of this hyperinflation, however. Some made fortunes.

If you simply take 4% of the wealthiest people's wealth, then you will simply change who is wealthy. That's it. It won't solve the problems you want. It will simply change power dynamics.

To enact meaningful change requires an awful lot more than juggling numbers in a ledger.

Do you understand what I mean when I say that I do not want to destroy the wealthy, but simply render them meaningless now? I don't care if someone owns a mansion in Beverly Hills. Good for them. That's not what I want, nor what I care for.

I was not being silly when I asked that. You kept repeating the 'Eat the rich' mantra, when 'The rich' are simply irrelevant to the problems of the world except insofar as we enslave ourselves to their whim.

 

 

Well, thanks for your history of economics (Weimar republic) crash course 101.

 

Truth is, of course it is quite irrelevant to the topic under discussion, which is, why should the rich not succour the poor, and, if they won't, why should they not be encouraged to, and, if that doesn't work, why should they not be made to?

 

I'm quite relaxed about rich people being rich. As I have said elsewhere, I am completely in favour of wealth; so much so, I want everyone to have some.

 

Wealth, is, of course, nothing to do with the tons of concrete or wheat you have stored up in your garage; it is a matter of purchasing power. It is your capacity to exchange goods, services or currency for the things you need or want for yourself and your family. When the distribution of wealth is so skewed that some people can get hold of an excess of luxury goods, to the detriment of the ability of others to provide their children even with nutritious and safe food and drink, well, I am inclined to think we need look critically at the economic system that produces this result. 

 

None of this involves 'hyperinflation' or 'skyrocketing of costs'. A redistribution of wealth merely involves switching economic demand of part (4% of superfluous production) of the economy from luxury goods for a few to essential items for all.  

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

2ndRateMind, I like you man, but several people have been trying to direct you to:

 

c. They believe the redistribution of wealth and effort should be made voluntarily and not by governmental decree and enforcement.

 

Now it's fine if you don't like that option for whatever reason, but don't ignore it. The disagreement isn't fundamentally about if a more egalitarian world would be better (though there are still those who would argue the specifics), but in how to go about realizing that world. It seems to me you feel that it must be done by government taxation and action to such a degree that when people are disagreeing with how you are proposing something be accomplished you automatically conclude they disagree with a goal of a more egalitarian world. 

 

Note, it's perfectly legitimate to argue and disagree with the how, just don't confuse it for the what.

 

 

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

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Dravin]

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

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Well, rightly or wrong, most of what you are getting directed at you is people arguing over the how. I won't say there hasn't be any commentary on the what but if you've been speaking in terms of what and you've been getting responses in terms of how then the miscommunication going on (from both sides) isn't the least bit surprising.