The Next World Order and Social Justice

[estradling75]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It is the means that is being questioned.

Its the Standard tactic of weaponized compassion...    Find a near universal idea..  (in this case helping the poor and needy)  Just about everyone agrees to that.  Then propose an Idea (Rob the rich and enslave the Doctors and Lawyers) that might solve it.  Then when ever anyone even thinks about challenging/protesting the second idea... accuse them of not being willing to help the poor and needy.  Thus you can avoid trying to answer any of the hard question your idea brings about because you have villianized any one that thinks different then you.

[The Folk Prophet]

12 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I would want to throw this challenge out to the entire forum, to try to define 'fairness'.

Fairness is the agency we have all been given whereby we will all equally stand accountable for the choices we made in relationship to the knowledge and understanding we had.

[unixknight]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't believe the scriptures make a habit of defining words. That doesn't mean they don't mean what they mean, of course.

Of course the scriptures are primarily concerned with eternal justice, not mortality. In other words, the injustice of mortality is specifically for the justice of eternity. 

Agreed, they don't.  And they don't even mention 'fairness' in any context, which is an important thing to note if someone (2ndRateMind, in this case) is going to try and put words in Heavenly Father's mouth.

[Traveler]

30 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Then let me provide a clue. If I am an African peasant, scratching around for $2 per day, in what way do my children have 'equality of opportunity' with the offspring of a Western billionaire?

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

For a moment I thought you might have a clue.  It is important when someone wants to cure a problem that they have a clue why there is a problem in the first place.  If the cause is not understood - it is unlikely that any suggested solution will be more concerned with symptoms than with causes.  If the causes are not addressed then the symptom solution is more likely to cause more problems than lead to any solution.

I recommended you read the "Economic of Poverty".  Let me provide you with a little information that may lead to a clue or two.  In 1960 the most in-depth censorious took place in the USA.  In review of the data it was discovered that in 1960 if just 2% of the GNP of the USA was transferred (redistributed) that there would not be any poverty in the USA.  Keep in mind that all current arguments of socialism is that once a productive economy is established by Capitalism - social justice demands that wealth be redistributed.  Sure sounds good - doesn't it?

With this information and data a very ambitious campaign to end poverty was begun in the USA - the initial name of this campaign was called "The Great Society".  It began a revolution in government programs that included changes to welfare, the addition of food stamps, expansion of Social Security to include programs other than senior retirement and many others.  We are now approaching 60 years of wealth redistribution.  But it has gone well beyond the 2% that was determined to be total needed.  We are currently redistributing over 600% more wealth than what was initially determined to be the maximum needed.  And where are we with eliminating poverty?  not 100% - but 600%.

I will tell you exactly where we are - NO WHERE NEAR CLOSER thaw we were in 1960!!!! and yet there are individuals (like yourself) - joining an amazingly increasing number and % of USA population; thinking we can eliminate poverty simply by redistributing wealth.  And there is not a single historical example that poverty can be eliminated by redistributing wealth - not a single one.  If fact we have data proving it does not work!!!!  So my question to you - how do you define dumb and stupid?

 

The Traveler

 

[The Folk Prophet]

@Traveler my laugh at your post was for the last question. I liked the post overall very well.

[2ndRateMind]

27 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Obviously life should be unfair. It it weren't meant to be unfair then God would have made it fair. Do you believe God is cruel? Do you believe God is indifferent? Or do you believe God is, ultimately, eternally fair?

Ummm. Actually, seeing as you ask, I believe God is ultimate, infinite justice, and therefore ultimate, infinite fairness. But I think it the case that He has left it to us to implement that justice and fairness in this mortal realm, to give us something meaningful to do with our lives, and by which we might develop our virtues and character, in service to, and in collaboration with, others.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 18, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[unixknight]

3 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Ummm. Actually, seeing as you ask, I believe God is ultimate, infinite justice, and therefore ultimate, infinite fairness. But I think it the case that He has left it to us to implement that justice and fairness in this mortal realm, to give us something to do with our lives, and by which we might develop our virtues and character, in service to, and in collaboration with, others.

Justice and fairness are two entirely different and separate concepts.

[2ndRateMind]

3 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Justice and fairness are two entirely different and separate concepts.

You are welcome to elaborate on this theme, should you wish to do so. For my part, I'm inclined to the view that if justice were not fair, it would not be justice, and if fairness was not just, it would not be fairness.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 18, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[The Folk Prophet]

7 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Ummm. Actually, seeing as you ask, I believe God is ultimate, infinite justice, and therefore ultimate, infinite fairness. But I think it the case that He has left it to us to implement that justice and fairness in this mortal realm, to give us something to do with our lives, and by which we might develop our virtues and character, in service to, and in collaboration with, others.

Sounds good. Why don't you set about doing that instead of trying to take away my God given agency to choose whether I'll do the same?

Edited December 18, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Justice and fairness are two entirely different and separate concepts.

 

I'd be interested in you expanding on this as well. Per a few dictionary definitions:

 

(From Oxford dictionary

• the quality of being fair and reasonable.
   
  (from merriam webster)

  : the quality of being just, impartial, or fair

   

  "Fair" is synonymous with "just" from certain points of view. So what do you think is different in them?

   

   

[2ndRateMind]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Sounds good. Why don't you set about doing that instead of trying to take away my God given agency to choose whether I'll do the same?

What makes you think I'm not? And what makes you think I want to take away your agency? On the contrary, I would advocate it's expression, to the fullest extent of your compassion.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[unixknight]

3 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

You are welcome to elaborate on this theme, should you wish to do so. For my part, I'm inclined to the view that if justice were not fair, it would not be justice, and if fairness was not just, it would not be fairness.

Justice isn't even remotely about fairness.  As I said, justice is about righting wrongs.  If someone steals my car and destroys it on a joyride, they'll be arrested, tried and convicted of Grand Theft Auto which is a felony.  They will go to prison, serve out some about of time there, then go on to serve parole.  For the rest of their life, they'll have a felony record and be unable to purchase a gun, get a job in several sectors, obtain a security clearance, etc.  That person will have been thoroughly punished.  Justice done.

But is that fair?  I'm still out a car.  I mean, my insurance would reimburse me for the market value of the car at the time it was stolen, but that isn't going to be enough to purchase an identical car unless I add more of my own money to it.  Is that fair?  Is it  fair that someone causes me harm and I have to repair the damage while they sit in prison?  That sure doesn't feel fair, does it?  And yet, justice has been served, to the extent possible in mortality.

Civil situations aren't much different.  If a construction worker drops a 2-ton steel girder on my car and crushes it flat, I can take the construction company  to court and sue them for the cost of replacing my car...  provided I can afford a lawyer and can get one to take my case.  I may be able to recover my legal fees in the lawsuit, I may not.  Even if I win, the company could hold things up in court through procedural tactics, appeals, etc. Meanwhile I still have to have a car, so I have to come out of my pocket in the short term in order to regain my ability to go to work.  Even after the court battles are over and I've been compensated for the cost of my car and hopefully my legal fees, that compensation may or may not include interest paid on the car loan I had to take out so I could have a car in the meantime.  Oh, and is it fair that some careless worker makes a mistake and crushes my car but it's the company that has to fork over its replacement cost.  Why not the worker?  The worst thing that can happen to him is he has to find another job.  In this current economy, that isn't very hard to do.  So in no case is the worker who made the mistake put out as much as I am, but that's  justice, as best we can implement it.

Life isn't fair because fairness is impossible to achieve in a complex system like this one.  The best we can do is justice, which may not always be as satisfying, but it is what it is.

[2ndRateMind]

17 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Justice isn't even remotely about fairness.  As I said, justice is about righting wrongs.

So, I don't see, as you probably don't, how hanging a murderer, for example, rights the wrong. Yet, many would claim that to be 'justice'. And/or 'fair'. Where, in your opinion, might their mistake lie?

Quote

Life isn't fair because fairness is impossible to achieve in a complex system like this one.

Is that an a priori conclusion, based on reason, or an a posteriori observation, based on experience, as you seem to imply? Either way, seems to me, it does not preclude social progress towards the ideals of fairness and justice, and that is really all I ask for.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 18, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[unixknight]

1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

So, I don't see, as you probably don't, how hanging a murderer, for example, rights the wrong. Yet, many would claim that to be 'justice'. And/or 'fair'. Where, in your opinion, might their mistake lie?

I wouldn't call it fair to the victim or the victim's family at all.  As for the murderer?  Well I suppose it's fair if he killed one person, but you can't kill him twice.  Hopefully he wasn't a serial killer.  

1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Is that an a priori conclusion, based on reason, or an a posteriori observation, based on experience, as you seem to imply? Either way, seems to me, it does not preclude social progress towards the ideals of fairness and justice, and that is really all I ask for.

The latter. 

But you still have to define fairness!  How can society work toward any concept that isn't even well defined and agreed upon?  Everybody wants fairness, but what that means is as varied as the stars in the sky.  So I ask once again:  What is your definition of fairness?

[2ndRateMind]

Hmmm. I think there are some truths we can know directly, such as the distance from the earth to the sun. But there are some truths we can only know indirectly, by crossing off a list of candidates to the truth as and when we find them wanting. As someone once said of the Church of England: 'It will always do the right thing, but only once it has exhausted every other possibility!' And I think the Ideals, perfect truth, perfect righteousness, perfect goodness, etc, and, yes, perfect justice and perfect fairness, all fall into this category. So, I have been so wrong about fairness even within my short life, I would prefer not even to attempt to define it for anyone else, just talk around the topic, and let others form their own opinions as they see fit.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 18, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[unixknight]

4 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Hmmm. I think there are some truths we can know directly, such as the distance from the earth to the sun. But there are some truths we can only know indirectly, by crossing off a list of candidates to the truth as and when we find them wanting. As someone once said of the Church of England: 'It will always do the right thing, but only once it has exhausted every other possibility!' And I think the Ideals, perfect truth, perfect righteousness, perfect goodness, etc, and, yes, perfect justice and perfect fairness, all fall into this category. So, I have been so wrong about fairness even within my short life, I would prefer not even to attempt to define it for anyone else, just talk around the topic, and let others form their own opinions as they see fit.

I find it confusing that you'd challenge others to define fairness and yet refuse to do so yourself.  Are you acknowledging that others may have greater wisdom, or are you suggesting that you're more enlightened?  Not meant as an insult, just asking.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not interested in having a discussion with someone who cannot understand the difference between force and choice.

So....can you?

So then, when in the history of mankind has repentance and baptism been forced?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Put your hope in things that have at least a slight chance of happening. Not the mathematically impossible. 

HAH!!!  Wise words, my friend.  Ignore list it is.

[2ndRateMind]

13 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I find it confusing that you'd challenge others to define fairness and yet refuse to do so yourself.  Are you acknowledging that others may have greater wisdom, or are you suggesting that you're more enlightened?  Not meant as an insult, just asking.

 

Well, in a sense, the underlying theme of this thread has been all about fairness. And I have not been reticent in my opinions. So, you can imply a good deal about what I think from what I have said. Do I think others might have less developed theories of fairness? Yes I do. Do I think others might have more developed theories of fairness? Yes I do. Do I hope both to teach and to learn by participating here? Indeed so.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 18, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[unixknight]

7 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Well, in a sense, this underlying theme of this thread has been all about fairness. And I have not been reticent in my opinions. So, you can imply a good deal about what I think from what I have said. Do I think others might have less developed theories of fairness? Yes I do. Do I think others might have more developed theories of fairness? Yes I do. Do I hope both to teach and to learn by participating here? Indeed so.

Which is all perfectly fine for a thought experiment type discussion, but you have to do better if you're advocating an agenda.

You said earlier:  "social progress towards the ideals of fairness and justice, and that is really all I ask for."  Well, if you can't even define those terms, isn't that a bit like trying to navigate without a map? 

Edited December 18, 2018 by unixknight

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

HAH!!!  Wise words, my friend.  Ignore list it is.

 Smart man. Since you can't change people or how they interact with you, you just have to let it go. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

You don't understand. To the Left, the only answer to any political question is Post-modernism/Neo-Marxism. Nothing else matters.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You're right.  I think the problem lies in the fact that when talking about other people's money, it is really easy to simply say "take from one and give to the other." But when talking about anything else (height for instance) we can't really do that.  They know that.  So they stick with money.

The problem with that is that to conservatives, the argument isn't really about money.  Money is only a medium of exchange.  Money doesn't matter.  It is what the money represents. 

To me, the money represents the hours of work I put into earning that money.  That's hours of my life sitting in the bank account.  I spent hours of my life to be able to obtain certain things.  And in the name of "fairness" they tend to think it's okay to take hours of my life away.  That is slavery.

It even goes beyond that.  It's not just the hours of work I put into it.  It is the years of schooling I had.  I spent other hours to earn the money for school.  That learning then had to be spent on still more years of on-the-job training and experience.

That is why I make the salary I do.  And they think it's "fair" to just take those hours of my life away from me so the guy who has not done anything to help himself or me is going to get hours of my life with no recompense for me.  That's slavery.

Edited December 18, 2018 by Guest

[Guest]

Just now, MormonGator said:

 Smart man. Since you can't change people or how they interact with you, you just have to let it go. 

Is this MG, or is it Tyme? 

[2ndRateMind]

 

3 minutes ago, unixknight said:

You said earlier:  "social progress towards the ideals of fairness and justice, and that is really all I ask for."  Well, if you can't even define those terms, isn't that a bit like trying to navigate without a map? 

So, how does that differ from any other stage of life's pilgrim journey? But, at least God gave us all a moral compass.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 18, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[unixknight]

Just now, 2ndRateMind said:

So, how does that differ from any other stage of life's pilgrim journey?

Pilgrims have a destination in mind.  If you haven't got a map, you won't find it.