Caring for the poor and needy

[2ndRateMind]

We dedicate all we have, all our spiritual and physical gifts, all our money, all our effort, to the establishment and building up of God's kingdom on earth. Everything we do is to further this end.

 

 

I'm up for this. I just see it a Christendom-wide project, rather than purely an LDS one.

 

Happy New Year, all. 2RM.

Edited January 2, 2015 by 2ndRateMind

[2ndRateMind]

Good ought to be a pleasure. Forcing good, is not. 

 

There is nothing Christian to be taxed into helping the poor. If part of my income goes to supporting healthcare for the needy am I blessed for that? Maybe I have done a good thing, but I had no choice in doing said good thing. I also find no pleasure in it directly.

 

I do however, find much pleasure in giving income away at my own will. Forced charitable work sounds like the adversaries plan. Making people do good is not of God. If that were the case, things would be a lot different. No poor, no hungry, no wars, and no choices and no personal progress and growth. You cannot force sacrifice. 

 

I agree with you, that, ideally, the world should be saved by the voluntary efforts of those with resources excessive to their immediate requirements.

 

But, there are three points that prevent me from agreeing with you, entirely.

 

Firstly, the rich have the resources, but have not yet saved the world, voluntarily. Should we just wait for them to turn charitable, while people starve of hunger and sicken and die from entirely preventable disease? There is an urgency imperative at operation, here.

 

Secondly, Governments have powers to do things that individuals, however rich, do not. Sometimes it is just a better solution to consolidate resources, and social, economic and political power, to get the things done that need to be done. Collective leverage is often more powerful than the sum of individual efforts. It's a synergy thing.

 

Thirdly, there is this idea that charity should be beneficient to the charitable. I am a little more austere than this, in attitude. I do not care all that much whether rich people derive benefits from their donations. I only care that good is done, that might otherwise not be done. If the charitable earn merit and well-being by their charity, for me, that is a by-product, not the purpose of the giving.

 

So, I take your point. I do not entirely disagree with it. But I think we would be foolish to overlook the advantages of working together, even through government, to make of this world the paradise it ought to be by now, 2000 years since Christ.

 

Best wishes, and happy new year, 2RM.

Edited January 2, 2015 by 2ndRateMind

[Vort]

I'm up for this. I just see it a Christendom-wide project, rather than purely an LDS one.

But in the LDS implementation, compliance is never forced. The idea of any governing entity forcibly requiring charitable works is anathema to the spirit of God and to LDS doctrine.

[james12]

I agree with you, that, ideally, the world should be saved by the voluntary efforts of those with resources excessive to their immediate requirements.

 

But, there are three points that prevent me from agreeing with you, entirely.

 

Firstly, the rich have the resources, but have not yet saved the world, voluntarily. Should we just wait for them to turn charitable, while people starve of hunger and sicken and die from entirely preventable disease? There is an urgency imperative at operation, here.

Yes there is an urgency but you cannot take from another, or force them to give. It is not the Lord's way. It never has been it never will be. The LDS people learned this the hard way and I believe it is still ingrained in our cultural thought. The ultimate lesson can be summed up in these words from President Lorenzo Snow: 

In things that pertain to celestial glory there can be no forced operations. We must do according as the spirit of the Lord operates upon our understandings and feelings. We cannot be crowded into matters, however great might be the blessing attending such procedure. We cannot be forced into living a celestial law; we must do this ourselves, of our own free will. And whatever we do in regard to the principle of the United Order, we must do it because we desire to do it. (Journal of Discourses Vol. 19, p. 346, 349-350) 

Do you see that the spirit of the Lord is not in it when we take from another? The person who is forced to give loses desire to work. Why? Because they work for profit motive not for the betterment of society and you have just taken away their incentive. What will such a person choose to do? Become one of the needy and not one of the providers. 

 

Now, when someone is ready and willing to give the whole situation changes. They do not work for personal profit but to better those around them. These people work harder when they give to others. But the point is, such an attitude cannot be forced. It cannot be legislated, it cannot be taxed. It will come from the heart or it will not come. In all your posts you seem to not understand this issue. 

Secondly, Governments have powers to do things that individuals, however rich, do not. Sometimes it is just a better solution to consolidate resources, and social, economic and political power, to get the things done that need to be done. Collective leverage is often more powerful than the sum of individual efforts. It's a synergy thing.

 It is better to consolidate resources. But the issue here is how to do it. I have just explained that we cannot legislate it, we cannot demand it, so how does this begin? It begins with the individual as I explained above. How then does it spread? I believe by example. A few individuals blessing others in their community. In so doing one persons life is improved, then another, then another. In time the whole community is lifted up and others will see it. They will recognize the benefit and the blessings and want to do the same. Again, this starts at the grass roots level or it does not start. The Lord works from the inside out, not the outside in. 

Thirdly, there is this idea that charity should be beneficient to the charitable. I am a little more austere than this, in attitude. I do not care all that much whether rich people derive benefits from their donations. I only care that good is done, that might otherwise not be done. If the charitable earn merit and well-being by their charity, for me, that is a by-product, not the purpose of the giving.

 

So, I take your point. I do not entirely disagree with it. But I think we would be foolish to overlook the advantages of working together, even through government, to make of this world the paradise it ought to be by now, 2000 years since Christ.

 

Best wishes, and happy new year, 2RM.

I think you are missing the point. It is not about rich people deriving benefit. It is about poor people receiving benefit from what they are given. It does little good to give to people who will accept a hand out and continue to live off the dole. The whole teach a person to fish idea. Brigham Young, a prophet who tried to get the people to live the united order and so share and work for each other, said he could redistribute wealth with no problem. But then he explained how that was not the problem. The problem was some would be industrious and work hard while others would not. He said that in a short time he would be left with the same situation where some were rich and some were poor. Again, I hope you see this problem. So I ask you, how would your suggestions avoid this problem? 

[james12]

But in the LDS implementation, compliance is never forced. The idea of any governing entity forcibly requiring charitable works is anathema to the spirit of God and to LDS doctrine.

Vort, I see you just beat me to the punch. The question remains for 2ndRateMind, how does forced redistribution of wealth encourage people to work?

[EarlJibbs]

In time the whole community is lifted up and others will see it. They will recognize the benefit and the blessings and want to do the same. Again, this starts at the grass roots level or it does not start. The Lord works from the inside out, not the outside in. 

 

I agree James. We hear this time and time again don't we?.

 

The globalization of practically everything makes this even more difficult in my opinion. Your "community" seems to be ever larger these days. If we really focused on our own home and affairs and then those of our immediate neighborhood and community it would spread. Not only for temporal benefits, but spiritual as well. The idea of a community changed along with our agriculture culture. We can still have it, we just need to work harder. 

[Traveler]

I agree with you, that, ideally, the world should be saved by the voluntary efforts of those with resources excessive to their immediate requirements.

 

But, there are three points that prevent me from agreeing with you, entirely.

 

Firstly, the rich have the resources, but have not yet saved the world, voluntarily. Should we just wait for them to turn charitable, while people starve of hunger and sicken and die from entirely preventable disease? There is an urgency imperative at operation, here.

 

Secondly, Governments have powers to do things that individuals, however rich, do not. Sometimes it is just a better solution to consolidate resources, and social, economic and political power, to get the things done that need to be done. Collective leverage is often more powerful than the sum of individual efforts. It's a synergy thing.

 

Thirdly, there is this idea that charity should be beneficient to the charitable. I am a little more austere than this, in attitude. I do not care all that much whether rich people derive benefits from their donations. I only care that good is done, that might otherwise not be done. If the charitable earn merit and well-being by their charity, for me, that is a by-product, not the purpose of the giving.

 

So, I take your point. I do not entirely disagree with it. But I think we would be foolish to overlook the advantages of working together, even through government, to make of this world the paradise it ought to be by now, 2000 years since Christ.

 

Best wishes, and happy new year, 2RM.

 

The big flaw in your theory of government is that governments are not of necessity charitable and benevolent.  Just as unscrupulous individuals tend to dominate the race of accumulation of wealth resources - such individuals also tend to dominate in the race of political influence.

 

Governments tend to have less morals than corporations - both of which are in essence a pyramid structure that maintains a large base to support a tiny top.  A few years ago I was working for the top corporation in my field of work.  This corporation controlled 80% of the market share.  As one of two principle engineers of the company, I was well connected to the projects and the profit margins our company was producing.  There was a downturn in the economy and the company announced it must downsize and implement austerity measures in order to overcome a 600 million loss the company had suffered.  20% of the engineers would have to be laid off and the remaining would have to accept a 10% reduction in pay.  The management would take a 20% cut in pay to keep the company viable.  This was announced at a company wide all hands meeting.  Then the company opened up to questions.

 

I stood and explained that I had a very important question that had several parts.  First I explained that as one of two principle engineers in the company I was not aware of a single contract that had lost money or that there had been any fall off in contracts in the last two years to account for the losses.  I asked for a better accounting for the 600 million loss.  I knew well that the loss was a management blunder in borrowing money to buy other companies (that were failing) to (according to management) increase our market footprint.  In short a management blunder.  I then asked about the necessity for a layoff and reductions in pay.  I pointed out that in the past the management had been taking millions in bonuses - and that their bonuses far exceeded the cut backs now taking place.  I asked if instead of layoff and pay cuts that the management forgo their bonuses until the company was back in the black.  Guess what management did?????  And guess what it costs them???????

 

They went a head with their layoff and pay cut plan.  Over 10 years they have run the entire corporation into the ground.  They went from a 80+ percent market share to less than 15%.  The one good spot in all this is that the consulting company I started when I was laid off; now owns as much market share as they do.  Sadly many of my fellow engineers have not done as well and though I have survived; I suffered significant loss that will mean I must work well into my normal retirement age and postpone our plans to serve a full time mission.

 

Since you are sure that governments as the answer - you tell me what government you are willing to leave where you are now living - give all your assets and holding to -- that you trust will insure there are no poor in their borders.  If you live in the UK - you must believe this government to be the example to the world of how to end poverty as a government????

[mordorbund]

I'm up for this. I just see it a Christendom-wide project, rather than purely an LDS one.

 

Happy New Year, all. 2RM.

 

How interesting. As an extension of my earlier question, Is your church's programs and methodologies extendable beyond your faith community? Would this work as an interfaith initiative? Or even a governmental initiative?

[2ndRateMind]

Vort, I see you just beat me to the punch. The question remains for 2ndRateMind, how does forced redistribution of wealth encourage people to work?

 

Yes, this is a key point, and has to do with all your answers. It is not immediately obvious to me, however, that people will only work if they are incentivised by some profit motive. Plenty of people work for the betterment of mankind, or the discovery of truth, or the advancement of justice, or the expression of their creativity, without any need to resort to selfish gain, at all. They simply find some calling, greater than themselves, and lend their allegiance to it. These seem to me to be honourable motives, and more so than a simple, mercenery desire to get as rich as possible, as quick as possible.

 

Even if people were only motivated by profit, it might just be that if people were liberated from the crushing disability of poverty, we would have a more free, more rich, more vibrant human community. Simple economics suggests that more businesses and livlihoods would be supported if more people had the capital to invest.

 

The problem you highlight, however, is a real one. It is the 'free-loader' problem. Some people will inevitably take advantage.

 

1) Humanity is very good at spotting freeloaders, even potential freeloaders, as you have just demonstrated. Do you really think those who want to live of the wealth of others, or state handouts, will get away with it?

 

2) Meanwhile, is our suspicion of possible freeloaders locking us out of an altogether better world?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited January 2, 2015 by 2ndRateMind

[2ndRateMind]

How interesting. As an extension of my earlier question, Is your church's programs and methodologies extendable beyond your faith community? Would this work as an interfaith initiative? Or even a governmental initiative?

 

Mordorbund, my friend, I have no church, no special spiritual home. That is part of the reason I am here, looking for something congenial. Meanwhile, all of Christianity is where I live.

 

Best, 2RM.

[mordorbund]

 

 

I agree with you, that, ideally, the world should be saved by the voluntary efforts of those with resources excessive to their immediate requirements.

 

But, there are three points that prevent me from agreeing with you, entirely.

 

Firstly, the rich have the resources, but have not yet saved the world, voluntarily. Should we just wait for them to turn charitable, while people starve of hunger and sicken and die from entirely preventable disease? There is an urgency imperative at operation, here.

 

The charity of the rich doesn't seem to be the problem. You've mentioned before that a simple 4% levy on the rich would fix the problem. The rich are already freely giving more than the necessary amount. They are being charitable, and the ungrateful poor refuse to leave poverty. From an earlier post in another thread:

 

Great news everyone! The problem is solved!

 

Last year President Obama donated almost $60k of his $500k income as "gifts to charity". That's 12%!

The Clintons, back in 2000, donated $10.2M of their $109M income. That's a little more than 9%!

Back in 2011, the Romneys donated $4M of their $20.9M income. That's 19%!

 

So it looks like wealthy people are contributing MORE than the 4% needed to solve the problem of poverty.

 

I like this thread too much to see it die. So what do you guys think? Why are we still hearing about poverty when it clearly doesn't exist anymore? Is it a 1984-style propaganda thing? An effort to maintain control and power? Is it because we all need a common enemy to unite us? Or are we simply uncomfortable with an abundant world? If this truth were to get out, would we star-belly sneetch a selection of us so we could still have problems in paradise?

 

 

 

Secondly, Governments have powers to do things that individuals, however rich, do not. Sometimes it is just a better solution to consolidate resources, and social, economic and political power, to get the things done that need to be done. Collective leverage is often more powerful than the sum of individual efforts. It's a synergy thing.

 

This is why I started the other thread about the role of religions in society, social movements, and government (it didn't get much traction). If my church wields its political influence to mandate your 4% redistribution in the UK and US, will you also support my church in wielding its political influence to stabilize society by legislating against homosexuality, adultery, and fornication, as well as alcohol and all related vices? What if my church isn't able to get the job done, but Scientology can. Will you support them in additional initiatives to remove other evils like psychiatry?

 

Thirdly, there is this idea that charity should be beneficient to the charitable. I am a little more austere than this, in attitude. I do not care all that much whether
rich people derive benefits from their donations. I only care that good is done, that might otherwise not be done. If the charitable earn merit and well-being by their charity, for me, that is a by-product, not the purpose of the giving.

 

This is why I've been trying to understand your viewpoint with respect to Christianity and giving to the poor. It sounds like your position is "You will give because this is the cost of Christianity. If you want to be a good Christian, you'll learn to love it!" I don't know any brand of religion that takes such a philosophy (perhaps that's why you're still seeking).

[mordorbund]

Mordorbund, my friend, I have no church, no special spiritual home. That is part of the reason I am here, looking for something congenial. Meanwhile, all of Christianity is where I live.

 

Best, 2RM.

 

Sorry I was unclear. I was using it as a springboard to ask a follow up question of the participants. I think we've been given a fair look at what the LDS Church does to care for the poor and needy. I was wondering if it would work outside the LDS paradigm. 

[2ndRateMind]

Dear all;

 

Despite your comments, I still view the American Government, as the democratic expression of the American people, as a force for good in the world. For me, it would be a crying shame if your government were to lose it's legitimacy because it was no longer supported by it's people.

 

As regards your other points, I will reply in due course, as time and inclination permit.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited January 2, 2015 by 2ndRateMind

[2ndRateMind]

 

 

This is why I started the other thread about the role of religions in society, social movements, and government (it didn't get much traction). If my church wields its political influence to mandate your 4% redistribution in the UK and US, will you also support my church in wielding its political influence to stabilize society by legislating against homosexuality, adultery, and fornication, as well as alcohol and all related vices? What if my church isn't able to get the job done, but Scientology can. Will you support them in additional initiatives to remove other evils like psychiatry?

 

 

 

I'll have a look at your thread. Meanwhile, your question is about realpolitik. Since you ask my opinion, I will give it, in all it's stark naivite, and principled politics. I am, at heart, a liberal. My general position is that people should be at liberty to go to hell in their own way, free of interference. However, that freedom stops when they, deliberately or accidentally, cause harm to others. At this point, I think, the government has a right and duty to step in, and adjudicate the best way to reconcile competing interests. And the denial of resources to people who need them, in favour of people who just want them, and more and more of them, crosses this line in the sand for me.

 

Anyway, specific to your query, I would tend to be relaxed about sexual peccadilloes which do little harm in the grand scheme of things, and less relaxed about the interference with the scientific enterprise on which humanity's whole future depends.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited January 2, 2015 by 2ndRateMind

[james12]

Yes, this is a key point, and has to do with all your answers. It is not immediately obvious to me, however, that people will only work if they are incentivised by some profit motive. Plenty of people work for the betterment of mankind, or the discovery of truth, or the advancement of justice, or the expression of their creativity, without any need to resort to selfish gain, at all. They simply find some calling, greater than themselves, and lend their allegiance to it. These seem to me to be honourable motives, and more so than a simple, mercenery desire to get as rich as possible, as quick as possible.

 

Even if people were only motivated by profit, it might just be that if people were liberated from the crushing disability of poverty, we would have a more free, more rich, more vibrant human community. Simple economics suggests that more businesses and livlihoods would be supported if more people had the capital to invest.

 

The problem you highlight, however, is a real one. It is the 'free-loader' problem. Some people will inevitably take advantage.

 I see a number of problems. First, you believe that same people who will not give to others, will be happy with their wealth being taken from them? I think not. Sure there are good people who don't mind sharing what they have, but most of these people are already giving to others. There are many ways for these good people to give without filtering and wasting the money in the cogs of the government machine, and that is what they do. The people you want to take money from are the people who do not want to give it (or perhaps cannot give more). At any rate, taking it from them will not make them saints. 

Next, I believe there is ample evidence to support the fact that people have, and do, take advantage of free handouts. Do we need to revisit the communistic system and it's failure? See the problem is wealth redistribution in no way encourages lazy individuals to work. But it does encourage those who are industrious not to work. To further exacerbate the problem, the more money you take from the industrious and give to the free loader the more free loaders you create. Sorry, this is human nature as it stands today.

1) Humanity is very good at spotting freeloaders, even potential freeloaders, as you have just demonstrated. Do you really think those who want to live of the wealth of others, or state handouts, will get away with it?

Wow, you have a high opinion of government. Sure individuals can spot most free loaders, but what you suggest runs through the government. There is incentive for a politician to promise to feed the poor, to provide health benefits to all, to cure poverty. And big government by it's very nature looks at society as a whole, not the individual. 

2) Meanwhile, is our suspicion of possible freeloaders locking us out of an altogether better world?

This is not a suspicion, this is truth. Free loaders, along with those not willing to give indeed do lock us out of a better world. Please review LDS history and the law of consecration/united order you will see that these two groups of people tore down the system. You must fix these two issues first or all your taking will amount to more problems then it solves.

Edited January 3, 2015 by james12

[Just_A_Guy]

 

The rich are already freely giving more than the necessary amount. They are being charitable, and the ungrateful poor refuse to leave poverty.

 

I can't quite tell; but I hope you're being tongue-in-cheek here.  I don't think there's a conscious decision amongst most poor people to stay poor.  Rather, I think they've bought into a culture that a) tells them they can never get ahead regardless of their own efforts or merit; b ) tells them that they should have more than others regardless of their own efforts or merit; c) actively denigrates self-sufficiency, d) trivializes or even denigrates the importance of self-denial and delayed gratification, e) glorifies sexual and family planning practices that ensure continued poverty; and f) holds education in utter contempt.

 

It's not a fully-informed, knowing and voluntary decision to stay poor:  at this point, millions upon millions--quite frankly--don't know any better.  Our leading lights in academia and the arts have been carefully erasing the public's understanding of what actually builds wealth; leading those who don't have wealth to throw up their hands and assume that it can only come from corruption or birthright.

Edited January 3, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

I can't quite tell; but I hope you're being tongue-in-cheek here.

Pretty sure that mordorbund's point was that the rich are already more than complying with 2RM's stated conditions, yet those obstinate poor just stay poor. If 2RM's conditions for the rich were sufficient to solve the problem of poverty, we wouldn't have poor people any more.

[mordorbund]

I can't quite tell; but I hope you're being tongue-in-cheek here.  I don't think there's a conscious decision amongst most poor people to stay poor.  Rather, I think they've bought into a culture that a) tells them they can never get ahead regardless of their own efforts or merit; b ) tells them that they should have more than others regardless of their own efforts or merit; c) actively denigrates self-sufficiency, d) trivializes or even denigrates the importance of self-denial and delayed gratification, e) glorifies sexual and family planning practices that ensure continued poverty; and f) holds education in utter contempt.

 

It's not a fully-informed, knowing and voluntary decision to stay poor:  at this point, millions upon millions--quite frankly--don't know any better.  Our leading lights in academia and the arts have been carefully erasing the public's understanding of what actually builds wealth; leading those who don't have wealth to throw up their hands and assume that it can only come from corruption or birthright.

 

Yup, tongue-in-cheek. You'll see in that post another quote of an earlier post of mine. 2RM's proposal is really quite simple: 1) tax the uber-wealthy at a 4% rate, and 2) watch poverty go away. My post shows that the first part looks to be unnecessary. The rich are voluntarily giving more than needed. 2RM is insistent that his plan will work if only it was implemented. Well, it's implemented on a volunteer basis, but poverty continues to exist. I want to assume that maybe this simple plan doesn't work in reality, but I am told that it's the real deal. So if the plan works, and the rich are cooperating, then the only conclusion that remains is that the poor aren't cooperating.

[2ndRateMind]

Pretty sure that mordorbund's point was that the rich are already more than complying with 2RM's stated conditions, yet those obstinate poor just stay poor. If 2RM's conditions for the rich were sufficient to solve the problem of poverty, we wouldn't have poor people any more.

 

To Vort, and Mordorbund, and any others following this thread.

 

Hmmm. I hope you do not misunderstand me by thinking that I think money alone will solve the poverty issue. That is not my position. But that money, 4% of world's 225 greatest fortunes would, according to the UN*, would be sufficient to resolve the problem given that other necessary factors are put into place. These other factors range widely, from good governance to sustainable lifestyles. The point is that the money is a sine qua non, an enabling factor. Without it we can't do what we need to, as quickly as we might; with it, we have the potential to solve the poverty problem for good and all.

 

As for the rich, doing more than they need, well I did take that to be tongue in cheek, and therefore have not addressed the point, til now. I accept that some wealthy people are doing more than their fair share, as some poor people are. If your list of virtuous rich people included the Sultans and the Emirs of Brunei and of the Middle East, the Sheikhs and petty sheikhs of Saudi Arabia and the Arabian peninsular, maybe a few Russian oligarchs, perhaps the odd African demagogue, possibly an Indian entrepreneur or two, then I might be more impressed by it. But these rich people are the same rich people who employ expensive tax accountants to minimise their civil liabilities abroad, and generally bend laws at home to suit themselves, rather than the poorest amongst us. I cannot find that such are Christian tactics, or that supporting them are.

 

Best wishes, 2RM

 

*

The UN calculates that the whole of the world populations's basic needs for food, drinking water, education and medical care could be covered by a levy of less than 4% on the accumulated wealth of the 225 largest fortunes. To satisfy all the world's sanitation and food requirements would cost only 13 billion, hardly as much as the people of the United States and European Union spend on perfume each year.

 

 

Ignacio Ramonet, "The politics of hunger" Le Monde Diplomatique November 1998.

Edited January 4, 2015 by 2ndRateMind

[Traveler]

Yes, this is a key point, and has to do with all your answers. It is not immediately obvious to me, however, that people will only work if they are incentivised by some profit motive. Plenty of people work for the betterment of mankind, or the discovery of truth, or the advancement of justice, or the expression of their creativity, without any need to resort to selfish gain, at all. They simply find some calling, greater than themselves, and lend their allegiance to it. These seem to me to be honourable motives, and more so than a simple, mercenery desire to get as rich as possible, as quick as possible.

 

Even if people were only motivated by profit, it might just be that if people were liberated from the crushing disability of poverty, we would have a more free, more rich, more vibrant human community. Simple economics suggests that more businesses and livlihoods would be supported if more people had the capital to invest.

 

The problem you highlight, however, is a real one. It is the 'free-loader' problem. Some people will inevitably take advantage.

 

1) Humanity is very good at spotting freeloaders, even potential freeloaders, as you have just demonstrated. Do you really think those who want to live of the wealth of others, or state handouts, will get away with it?

 

2) Meanwhile, is our suspicion of possible freeloaders locking us out of an altogether better world?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

I think you error in thinking (a very common political error) - is thinking poverty is caused by money or rather the lack of money.  Money is only a medium of exchange.  Poverty is caused when someone does not have anything of value to exchange for things needed.  Although money can be exchanged for things needed money cannot modify skills, abilities or value an individual gives to society.  Because of your failure to understand poverty as a value exchange deficiency you are not seeing the actual problem.  Thus you are attempting a one fix for all problems.

 

In my personal research and experience I have found at least 5 classes of poor.  Each class requires a very different approach to solving the problem - if the problem is even solvable.  For example one class of poor are what could be called addicts or substance abusers.  Time and time again it is been proven that increasing amounts of money to addicts and substance abusers that the problem is made worse - both for society as well as the individual.

 

Putting government in charge of determining substance abuse is a most difficult problem.  I do not know of a single example of the force of law altering the problem of substance abuse to change in any way poverty caused from such abuse.  China attempted to control drug addiction during the Opium wars (as known in the west or the 100 years of shame known in China).

 

And substance abuse is just one kind of poverty.  You have hinted at a second type of poverty - which is the hobo class of poor.  These are individuals that have skill to provide for themselves but for some reason to them, they have decided not to offer anything of value to society in exchange for their needed support.  They are also known as freeloaders.  We have learned by historical example that offering benefits without any incentive for giving back some benefit will only increase those willing to freeload.  You have already pointed out that governments fail miserably as well as yourself in determining those deserving of assistance.  In fact you have hinted that it may be un-Christian to even try to determine those deserving assistance.

 

Your problem in understanding poverty is like thinking all with health problem can be treated with the exact same remedy.  It is like someone going to the doctor for a broken leg  or while having a heart attack then given drugs for high blood sugar and told to exercise more. 

 

Some poor need education, some poor need health care and some poor just need an opportunity.  Your desire to not be actually involved in others specific needs; demanding governments alone deal with poverty so no individual has any real responsibility, to me is the pinnacle of  self righteousness and lack of Christian charity.  You pretend to care but do nothing yourself - demanding instead others take care of things you refuse to contribute anything to yourself.

[Vort]

A deeply insightful post, Traveler.

[2ndRateMind]

Actually, Traveler, as I read this, I thought we were beginning to make some progress. I thought we were discussing how, given the required resources, to make the poor comfortably off, or at least less poor. That would be constructive. But, you had to finish with an ad hominem side-swipe you are in no position to make. Admit it; you have no idea what charities I support, and to what extent. Your remarks in this respect are mere rhetoric and entirely irrelevant. Retract them, and let's talk about how to provide the poor with addiction therapies, other health care, education, an opportunity to earn money, etc, and where the resources to do this on a global scale are to come from.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Backroads]

The problem is that you constantly demand we support a government - run solution. Oh, you change your wording, but it's been made clear that most of us here don't believe wealth redistribution and mass government intervention is the way to go. You need to provide a more convincing argument about how we are wrong instead of this never-ending "let's discuss my wishes again".

[FunkyTown]

 

Actually, Traveler, as I read this, I thought we were beginning to make some progress. I thought we were discussing how, given the required resources, to make the poor comfortably off, or at least less poor. That would be constructive. But, you had to finish with an ad hominem side-swipe you are in no position to make. Admit it; you have no idea what charities I support, and to what extent. Your remarks in this respect are mere rhetoric and entirely irrelevant. Retract them, and let's talk about how to provide the poor with addiction therapies, other health care, education, an opportunity to earn money, etc, and where the resources to do this on a global scale are to come from.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

I retract them on his behalf as I'm completely uninterested in that part of the conversation. But I -am- interested in sustainable living, which you had mentioned in a previous post. That's something very close to my heart.

It takes approximately 1 acre of land to feed a person for a year. That can be supplemented with fishing, tiered farming, et al.

To eliminate hunger and homelessness, you would need to encourage both competent and respectful land ownership and develop skills to do so. That's one option.

The other option would be to go full-out corporate megafarming with our arable land and encourage arcology building(Which has been considered).

Both of those options would be long-term solutions to poverty. Both have drawbacks that have made them untenable. How would you resolve the issues with those or, barring that, how would you encourage sustainable living for the world?

[mordorbund]

I'll have a look at your thread. Meanwhile, your question is about realpolitik. Since you ask my opinion, I will give it, in all it's stark naivite, and principled politics. I am, at heart, a liberal. My general position is that people should be at liberty to go to hell in their own way, free of interference. However, that freedom stops when they, deliberately or accidentally, cause harm to others. At this point, I think, the government has a right and duty to step in, and adjudicate the best way to reconcile competing interests. And the denial of resources to people who need them, in favour of people who just want them, and more and more of them, crosses this line in the sand for me.

 

Anyway, specific to your query, I would tend to be relaxed about sexual peccadilloes which do little harm in the grand scheme of things, and less relaxed about the interference with the scientific enterprise on which humanity's whole future depends.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Many have argued that one of the reasons for the poverty cycle is because of a culture of unwed mothers and broken families. It's generally fine for these fornicators to "go to hell on their own, free of interference. However, that freedom stops when they, deliberately or accidentally, cause harm to others" - such as birthing children that they cannot afford (especially when they cannot afford themselves), or carrying and spreading diseases which is now covered by a healthcare tax, or simply encouraging a culture that is unsustainable for these reasons. "At this point, I think, the government has a right and a duty to step in, and adjudicate the best way to resolve competing interests."

 

You have mentioned that your home is "all of Christianity", but Christianity, despite the premise of this thread, is not eradicating poverty. Christianity is Christ and Him Crucified. In all your seeking, I have heard you talk about finding a religion that carries this moral obligation that you've found as your pet issue, but only once have you talked about redemption or salvation (in one thread where you ask if salvation in the hereafter is more important that a temporal salvation in the here-and-now).

 

I think what you're really looking for is not a Christian religion. You are looking for a social, philanthropic organization who's issues (and methods) match yours. I think you would love for Christians to join you in this (but you haven't even found this organization for yourself, so join you in what exactly?), and so you play the Christian duty card. But Christian duty is defined by Christ and His duly appointed ministers.

 

My point is, that I get the impression that all of Christianity is not your home. Your home is the land of EradicatePoverty. This is not a bad place to live. But do not pretend that it is the land of Christianity.