The Next World Order and Social Justice


2ndRateMind
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Hmmm.

It seems to me, dear friend, that your argument, baldly stated, is as follows:

Premise 1: Anyone who disagrees with Boxer''s politics is a murderer.

Premise 2: 2RM disagrees with Boxer's politics.

Conclusion: 2RM is a murderer.

I wonder if you can spot the flaw?

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Classic case of a strawman argument. Reread what I wrote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, boxer said:

Your idea of "love" has been tried many, many times over with the same result every single time; murder, death, millions of people dead all to enforce your view of morality.

Actually, I don't think it has, or by now there would be no poor among us. And to try to confuse the eradication of absolute poverty with the excesses of totalitarianism, imperialism, dictatorship and such like coercive regimes is disengenuous at best, and possibly even deliberately misleading. There is no force more coercive than the economic necessity of starvation, when one cannot afford to eat, while billionaires squabble about which champagne to serve on their gin palace yachts.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, boxer said:

Classic case of a strawman argument. Reread what I wrote.

No. I read through your litany of insults twice, and arrived at the understanding above. I have neither the inclination nor the time to dwell on this. If you want to progress the discussion, then I suggest a rather more courteous tone henceforth.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, boxer said:

Because I'm human.  Because maybe I just don't feel like it.  Because maybe I do agree Love God and Love each other are really important but I disagree with how you go about doing it. Maybe I believe to truly love each other means more than just taking from those who have and giving to those who don't.

Does it really matter why I say no?  No, it doesn't b/c again a the end of the day-you are a murderer.  You'd murder me to enforce you view of morality.  And your morality is really jacked up b/c you believe that stealing from someone and killing them to give to someone who doesn't have what you think they should have is morally just and right.

You are no better than a common thug, a thief, a robber, a murderer.  You see someone that has something you want-or something you think someone else should have and you'll murder for it and the consequences be #@@@ed. You'd murder me to steal my food, to steal my house regardless if I have kids, regardless of my circumstance. All you see is money, power. Your version of "love" is nothing more than love of money, love of stealing, love of murder.  Your version isn't Christlike love (it's a heart filled with wicked desires, wicked thoughts and at the end of the day rather than being a disciple of Christ you are a disciple of the Devil.

Do you not hear yourself?  You tell me you are going to break into my house, steal my goods and then shoot me if I refuse to comply.  You tell me your act of robbery and murder is going to be because you "love others", and then you ask me "Why would you say no?".

So what do you consider the Lord?

You do know he has either killed or ordered many to be killed to enforce his will.

I don't know anyone here who has advocated killing anyone for their stuff, but I DID show an example where some individuals died due to not giving all they had including property they sold to the Lord's apostle.

In fact, the way it has worked in society is normally much less drastic than what the Lord demands or the Lord's punishment.  The Lord will condemn people to an eternity of hell for not following his commandments, while normally in Western society socialistic policies such is done via taxation.  The worst that typically happens to one who does not pay their taxes is jail time.  If it becomes violent that is normally because the individual is trying to murder the government employees who have come to arrest them.

The Lord on the otherhand can either kill people directly, via the words of his servants, or through the order of force to his servants to kill the inhabitants and take their lands (such as Israel was to Canaan).

Of course, the LORD sees property differently than we do.  Rather than seeing it as something WE earn and that WE possess, he sees it such as something he has granted to us.  All things ultimately are his anyways, we have been blessed to be able to have the things that we currently use.

This does not mean he wants our children to starve either, in fact I think he wants us to provide for our families. The Lord loves us greatly, and he loves ALL his children, both rich and poor.  He wants his children to have the necessities of life, though we also are here for a purpose that must also be fulfilled, whether it is being rich or poor in that purpose.  He wants us ALL to love each other and he loves us perhaps more than we love ourselves.

So, no one here is commanding or telling anyone to starve, kill anyone, or anything like that.  Even now, the command is not to neglect the poor or to call them murderer's or thieves, but to support our families and ourselves.  Then, if we are able, to help those who are in need.  King Benjamin gave an excellent address to a degree on this, though I will only post part of Mosiah Chapter 4 here (as it is quite lengthy of an address).

Quote

14 And ye will not suffer your children that they go hungry, or naked; neither will ye suffer that they transgress the laws of God, and fight and quarrel one with another, and serve the devil, who is the master of sin, or who is the evil spirit which hath been spoken of by our fathers, he being an enemy to all righteousness.

15 But ye will teach them to walk in the ways of truth and soberness; ye will teach them to love one another, and to serve one another.

16 And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.

17 Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—

18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.

19 For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?

20 And behold, even at this time, ye have been calling on his name, and begging for a remission of your sins. And has he suffered that ye have begged in vain? Nay; he has poured out his Spirit upon you, and has caused that your hearts should be filled with joy, and has caused that your mouths should be stopped that ye could not find utterance, so exceedingly great was your joy.

21 And now, if God, who has created you, on whom you are dependent for your lives and for all that ye have and are, doth grant unto you whatsoever ye ask that is right, in faith, believing that ye shall receive, O then, how ye ought to impart of the substance that ye have one to another.

22 And if ye judge the man who putteth up his petition to you for your substance that he perish not, and condemn him, how much more just will be your condemnation for withholding your substance, which doth not belong to you but to God, to whom also your life belongeth; and yet ye put up no petition, nor repent of the thing which thou hast done.

23 I say unto you, wo be unto that man, for his substance shall perish with him; and now, I say these things unto those who are rich as pertaining to the things of this world.

24 And again, I say unto the poor, ye who have not and yet have sufficient, that ye remain from day to day; I mean all you who deny the beggar, because ye have not; I would that ye say in your hearts that: I give not because I have not, but if I had I would give.

25 And now, if ye say this in your hearts ye remain guiltless, otherwise ye are condemned; and your condemnation is just for ye covet that which ye have not received.

26 And now, for the sake of these things which I have spoken unto you—that is, for the sake of retaining a remission of your sins from day to day, that ye may walk guiltless before God—I would that ye should impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants.

27 And see that all these things are done in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength. And again, it is expedient that he should be diligent, that thereby he might win the prize; therefore, all things must be done in order.

 

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, boxer said:

I'll give you another reason why it doesn't work-it's called the price problem...

Prices are critical to understand what things need to be produced when.  Prices are the incentive that drive people to produce widget x rather than widget y.

Indeed, prices are the mechanism by which the consumer indicates to the producer what (s)he requires. And it works very well, when the consumer has some money. But when the consumer has little or no money, it does not work at all. Someone absolutely poor, say, on less than $2 per day, cannot indicate to the market that they need food, clean water, sanitation, secure shelter, and education and healthcare for their families, because they do not have the wherewithall to afford them. So, the market leaves their needs unaddressed, since there is no profit in meeting them.

If everyone had at least some money, consistent with an austere but reasonably dignified way of life, then the market would respond appropriately, providing perhaps, fewer luxuries, but more basics. But that is not the situation that currently pertains.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Of course, the LORD sees property differently than we do.  Rather than seeing it as something WE earn and that WE possess, he sees it such as something he has granted to us.  All things ultimately are his anyways, we have been blessed to be able to have the things that we currently use.

Amen.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Only God has the abilty to judge the intent of our hearts. Don’t assume that the wealthy are evil and the poor are righteous. I have seen plenty of good and bad at both ends of the wealth spectrum.

I don't assume that. But, I cannot help but observe that there is enough food in the world to provide everyone with sufficient calories to eat, and yet there are many hungry, malnourished and starving. So, I am inclined to the view that if the wealthy were as righteous as they think themselves to be, they would not be so wealthy, and there would be no one hungry, at all. And who knows what further righteousness might arise, were the threat of death by starvation lifted from all.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I don't assume that. But, I cannot help but observe that there is enough food in the world to provide everyone with sufficient calories to eat, and yet there are many hungry, malnourished and starving. So, I am inclined to the view that if the wealthy were as righteous as they think themselves to be, they would not be so wealthy, and there would be no one hungry, at all. And who knows what further righteousness might arise, were the threat of death by starvation lifted from all.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

It helps if "so called" leaders are not corrupt. Here are millions of water bottles that federal and local officials judged were not needed for relief in Puerto Rico. And yet the people cannot find clean water to drink even almost a year and a half after Maria. Throwing supplies at the problem will not help if those supplies are hoarded and wasted by the "experts."180913-puerto-rico-water-bottled-index.thumb.jpg.60bb4acc1de61fe35fa48c60705bb9ad.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Indeed, prices are the mechanism by which the consumer indicates to the producer what (s)he requires. And it works very well, when the consumer has some money. But when the consumer has little or no money, it does not work at all. Someone absolutely poor, say, on less than $2 per day, cannot indicate to the market that they need food, clean water, sanitation, secure shelter, and education and healthcare for their families, because they do not have the wherewithall to afford them. So, the market leaves their needs unaddressed, since there is no profit in meeting them.

If everyone had at least some money, consistent with an austere but reasonably dignified way of life, then the market would respond appropriately, providing perhaps, fewer luxuries, but more basics. But that is not the situation that currently pertains.

Best wishes, 2RM.

You bring up a good point.  How does one indicate to the market they would like food, shelter, etc?  They produce something that someone else wants!  At the end of the day it's all a massively huge barter system.  That all it is-money is just the grease that makes sure the gears don't get rusty and that they can turn properly.

Fundamentally the problem isn't a problem of money-it's a problem of productivity.  Fundamentally if one is a productive individual and produces things that other people want, someone is going to trade with you-period. There might be good times and worse times-but fundamentally as long as you can produce you'll have sufficient for your needs. 

The real fundamental question is two fold. How do you incentive people to produce that which other people want, to do it well and to continue doing it?  The second is what do you do with unproductive people?  I'm not making a value judgement on unproductive people-they may be unproductive b/c they are lazy, b/c they simply don't want to be more productive, b/c through some physical limitation-it could be health, it could be age, it could be ability.

How do you help unproductive people become productive?  How do you keep productive people producing?  And for those who aren't productive, how do you ensure they form the least burden upon the rest of society?

Fundamentally, many different society have come up with different solutions to this problem.  Some society have killed off unproductive people-some societies have said we need to "equalize" the wealth-except that ends ups dis-incentivizing those who produce.  When societies kill off unproductive people it incentivizes those who don't produce to work, when societies "equalizes" wealth it incentives those who produce to not produce.  Both are horrifically bad outcomes.

It's one of the reasons why slavery was so bad . . .sure you can force people at the point of a gun to work-but ultimately they won't produce as much as when you allow people the freedom to be rewarded when they produce more.

And that is where up until the last 60+ years, Christianity came into play.  It told people look you really should be charitable, you should give to those less fortunate b/c you want to give-b/c it can help them out.  Voluntarily giving of that which you have produced to help someone else out avoids the plague of killing off those who are unproductive and the plague of forcing people to be productive against their will. And while it didn't make everyone "equal", it worked.

And the bottom line (going back to someone who said inequality is a sin-that's like saying a cold is a sin-just stupid) is that the heart of man is rooted with all sorts of nastiness.

Pride, envy, hate, greed, malice, etc. etc. etc.  You will NEVER have equality as long as those feelings are a part of this world.  Someone will always feel slighted, someone will always want more, someone will always try to get more. 

What you want is utopia and that's not going to happen-it's a fantasy a delusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

So what do you consider the Lord?

You do know he has either killed or ordered many to be killed to enforce his will.

I don't know anyone here who has advocated killing anyone for their stuff, but I DID show an example where some individuals died due to not giving all they had including property they sold to the Lord's apostle.

In fact, the way it has worked in society is normally much less drastic than what the Lord demands or the Lord's punishment.  The Lord will condemn people to an eternity of hell for not following his commandments, while normally in Western society socialistic policies such is done via taxation.  The worst that typically happens to one who does not pay their taxes is jail time.  If it becomes violent that is normally because the individual is trying to murder the government employees who have come to arrest them.

The Lord on the otherhand can either kill people directly, via the words of his servants, or through the order of force to his servants to kill the inhabitants and take their lands (such as Israel was to Canaan).

Of course, the LORD sees property differently than we do.  Rather than seeing it as something WE earn and that WE possess, he sees it such as something he has granted to us.  All things ultimately are his anyways, we have been blessed to be able to have the things that we currently use.

This does not mean he wants our children to starve either, in fact I think he wants us to provide for our families. The Lord loves us greatly, and he loves ALL his children, both rich and poor.  He wants his children to have the necessities of life, though we also are here for a purpose that must also be fulfilled, whether it is being rich or poor in that purpose.  He wants us ALL to love each other and he loves us perhaps more than we love ourselves.

So, no one here is commanding or telling anyone to starve, kill anyone, or anything like that.  Even now, the command is not to neglect the poor or to call them murderer's or thieves, but to support our families and ourselves.  Then, if we are able, to help those who are in need.  King Benjamin gave an excellent address to a degree on this, though I will only post part of Mosiah Chapter 4 here (as it is quite lengthy of an address).

 

And yet one of the Great commandments is "Thou shalt not steal".  If we never "earn" anything, then it's never really ours, who is to say that the house you bought, the car you drive is "yours".  You didn't "earn" it.  Maybe I believe God should give it to me not you.  Maybe if I round up 10 of my best buddies, I can "convince" you to part ways with your car. Or better yet, maybe I can come with a mob of 100 people and convince you to part ways with what you didn't earn.  Or better yet, I'll just convince 100 million people you didn't earn it and it should really be given to me b/c I think God wants to give it to me.

-------------

The fundamental basis of society is rooted in the 10 commandments.  Just b/c people have voted on it and given approval to some thug dressed up all nice to come and steal what I've produced doesn't make it any less of stealing than if you'd broken into my house and taken it.

What happens in every single society which has gone down this road is that those who produce tolerate some amount of theft b/c it's not worth the risk involved in pushing back . . .but eventually when the theft gets bad enough those who produce do one of two things, they either quit producing, they fight back, or they join those who steal. Once you have a culture built on the theft of what other people produce-it devolves pretty horrifically.

Edited by boxer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Personally, I prefer a combination of the two; the capitalism to create the wealth, and the enlightened tax system to distribute part of it to eliminate 'want', that being a state of absolute, vital need for the individual, without the resources to meet that need.

That system is already in place in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@2ndRateMind, before you can solve the poverty problems of the world, you first have to solve the poverty problems in your backyard.  As Jordan B. Peterson would say, "Clean Your Room".

So, here's a Real Life video of a nomad.  He doesn't have money but he is not poor, he is a nomad by choice.  The first objective to solving poverty is to know what being poor means and knowing that it has not much to do with the amount of money one has.  In this video below, he told the story of the poor people he met on his nomadic journey.  Now, I want you to provide a viable solution to each of these cases he mentions.  Although the nomad in the video does not have money, he is not the one that needs help.  Rather, he's the one finding ways to help.

1.) A meth addict and a meth lab (and all other homeless addicts living in national forests).  Addiction is self-inflicted.

2.) A couple with a child who are fighting rendering themselves homeless.  Family break-up self-inflicted.

3.) A homeless elderly woman without a single family to call for help facing a medical emergency.  Where is her family?
     - Interestingly, she was helped by another nomad without money who is not poor.

4.) People who choose to be homeless because they refuse to change the habits that rendered them homeless.  This includes a man in his 70's who takes baths in alligator infested rivers for lack of better options.

These people are all American living in the United States of America.

So, what is your solution to all of these?  Do you think giving them money will solve these self-inflicted problems?  Do you think the answer to a meth addict running a meth lab empowering other meth addicts is to take away the money from rich people and give all the meth addicts money?

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trouble with Socialism is that every single argument supporting it is, ultimately, an argument meant to appeal to morality.  It's as if the *only* result of a purely socialist system would be that everybody becomes comfortably middle class, everybody works together for the benefit of the community, and everybody is equal, financially, so nobody is being exploited.

There are several problems with that.  

  • Morality isn't universal.  The argument appeals to the more or less universal moral belief that the poor should be helped, but the morality on how to achieve that is NOT universal.
  • Socialism has a track record of failure.  Not once has socialism been implemented where the poor didn't suffer even WORSE, the middle class becomes poor, and the elite manage to stay elite.  (Don't cite Scandinavia as a success story.  They are NOT Socialist Governments, by their own statements.)
  • Socialism empowers the corrupt.  In every example of pure socialism in history, the government becomes despotic.  
  • Conversion from a free market economy to a socialist economy has catastrophic results for the society being affected.  Tens of millions starved to death in the Soviet  Union during the reorganization.  The actual number of deaths is not known for certain, but could be as  high as 20M.  That dwarfs the Holocaust.
  • Human nature works against Socialism.  In a socialist society, every single person needs to contribute in order to sustain it, yet socialism itself does not provide an incentive to work hard, to innovate or to excel.  At best,  you'll get people to do the bare minimum.  And what happens when you have to start using force to make people shoulder their share of the burden?  (See item 3 with that in mind.)  
  • Socialist cultures stagnate.  With little to no incentive to innovate, progress slows to a halt.  Technology slows, culture slows, growth slows.

Meanwhile, the justification of elevating the poor has failed.  History tells us that socialism creates poverty, it does not reduce it.  

In my experience, socialism is pushed by people for one of three reasons:

  • They are afraid of their own ability to compete in the free market and want the security of a system they think it's safe to fail in
  • They have a hatred and envy of wealthy people and believe that socialism is the mechanism for bringing them down.  (Putting the "justice" in 'social justice')
  • Ignorance of history makes them vulnerable to propaganda generated by those in the above two groups, and fail to exercise critical thinking or historical research.
Edited by unixknight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My have many problems with anyone that thinks they have a solution for the poor.  I will list some.

If if someone believes in G-d and believes that we can take care of the poor if the rich would just not be so greedy and give up more of their riches.  Question - Since G-d is the richest being (also the smartest) in the universe; why has he not given up a tiny insignificant minuscule bit of his riches and forever ended poverty?  If rich people can fix poverty - why do you believe in a G-d that is rich and refuses to fix poverty himself?

If anybody really knows how to end poverty - why is there still poverty?

If anybody has even an idea how to relieve poverty - why is poverty increasing?

Why in over 50 years of government programs specifically intended to end poverty - is poverty worse today than before all the programs were conceived?  

My biggest problem with any discussion about poverty is some pseudo intelligent person that thinks they can solve the problem but it requires someone else other than them to do something.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, anatess2 said:

So, what is your solution to all of these?  Do you think giving them money will solve these self-inflicted problems? 

Dear @anatess2, of course not. You are quite right to point out that, in the developed world, poverty is a multi-dimensional issue involving homelessness, family breakdown, gambling and substance addiction, mental and physical health problems, crime and offending, and so on and so forth. Do I think just giving away money to the poor in these circumstances  is going to provide a sustainable solution? Absolutely not. Do I think money is necessary to tackle these challenges? Absolutely I do. 

In the developing world, the situation is somewhat different. Here, the major problem really is related to the lack of money alone. And here I think the judicious investment in people, and their resources, skills and training really would make a significant difference to the sustainability of their futures. At least, I hope so. It is where the bulk of my charity budget goes.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Dear @anatess2, of course not. You are quite right to point out that, in the developed world, poverty is a multi-dimensional issue involving homelessness, family breakdown, gambling and substance addiction, mental and physical health problems, crime and offending, and so on and so forth. Do I think just giving away money to the poor in these circumstances  is going to provide a sustainable solution? Absolutely not. Do I think money is necessary to tackle them? Absolutely I do. 

In the developing world, the situation is somewhat different. Here, the major problem really is related to lack of money. And here I think the judicious investment in people, and their resources, skills and training really would make a significant difference to their sustainable futures. At least, I hope so. It is where the bulk of my charity budget goes.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I am going to make a suggestion.  You are far too political.  I recommend the book "The Economics of Poverty" by Martin Ravallion.  Especially since you think poverty is an economic problem - you might want to consider seeing the problems through the eyes of an expert economists. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Fether said:

“Yea, I tell thee, that thou mayest know that there is none else save God that knowest thy thoughts and the intents of thy heart.”

- D&C 6:16

It is my honest opinion that you misunderstand this particular scripture.  G-d does not keep secrets and he tells his prophets his secrets - including the intents and desires of other's hearts.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I am going to make a suggestion.  You are far too political.  I recommend the book "The Economics of Poverty" by Martin Ravallion.

Uh huh. I am reminded of the saying of the Brazilian Archbishop Helder Camara. He said: 'When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist'. For me, I have to say that the Gospels are intensely political. When I stop being political, you will know I have lost my faith in God, and ceased to be a Christian.

In fact, I'd tie it up with the beginning of the thread in this way: By saving the world temporally, we save ourselves spiritually. If you refer back to my early posts, you will see that I place great emphasis on the virtues as being the 'riches' of Heaven. But to develop the virtues, we have to practice and exercise them. And what better way to do that, than by rescuing the world from its current, urgent, and really rather desperate plight?

I may well take you up on your reading recommendation. The book looks good, but expensive. I'll have to see what Santa brings.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Traveler said:

It is my honest opinion that you misunderstand this particular scripture.  G-d does not keep secrets and he tells his prophets his secrets - including the intents and desires of other's hearts.

 

The Traveler

I think you are right, but God doesn't hand out the knowledge of others thoughts and intents like it’s candy at the parade like many think (For example, anyone who accuses others of hypocrisy and unrighteous judgment). He gives it to his Prophets and there when it is necessary

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