The Next World Order and Social Justice


2ndRateMind
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, boxer said:

In fact doesn't He say "and the poor will always be with you but me ye shall not have with you"? Or am I just reading the Bible of Boxer?

Well, He does say that:*

Quote

Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat. But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste? For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor. When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always. For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial. Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.

So, if you read the context, you might well agree with me that Jesus was chiding His disciples, in their time and place, not prophesying some adamantine necessity for all times, and all places. And in our time, and our place, perhaps for the first time in human history, we have the means to eradicate absolute poverty for now and ever, if we only summon the political will to do so. And I suspect, if we did, Jesus would approve.

Best wishes, 2RM

 

*Matthew 26: 6-13 KJV

 

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, let’s roll said:

I think the answer @Fether provided to the OP was spot on, so I’m ready to move on.  

In fact, I’d suggest that if 2RM had understood the depth and breadth of that response there would have been no follow up, since the follow up seems to be an invitation to speculate on who will be closest to God, akin to the unhealthy debate among the apostles about seating proximity to the Savior.

I choose to pass on that invitation.

Ummm. I'm not the one whose Church (according to one of your missionaries I met once) insists on a tripartite heaven, LDS believers being assured the best place. Regard my post as my gentle, indirect enquiry towards understanding why this might be.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Well, He does say that:*

So, if you read the context, you might well agree with me that Jesus was chiding His disciples, in their time and place, not prophesying some adamantine necessity for all times, and all places. And in our time, and our place, perhaps for the first time in human history, we have the means to eradicate absolute poverty for now and ever, if we only summon the political will to do so. And I suspect, if we did, Jesus would approve.

Best wishes, 2RM

 

*Matthew 26: 6-13 KJV

 

Well, and for full context:  as we learn from the parallel account in John 12, He was chiding a particular disciple who used “the poor” as the pretext for a nominally redistributionist regimen that in fact would have benefited only himself.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Well, and for full context:  as we learn from the parallel account in John 12, He was chiding a particular disciple who used “the poor” as the pretext for a nominally redistributionist regimen that in fact would have benefited only himself.  

Just so.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

We’ll just have to liquidate the middle class so that the Lord will have an easier time recognizing His own.

Its the only Christian thing to do.  

But if we implement full on socialism, and the pro-socialism folk are right, then we eradicate the poor and the rich and we're all middle class? Wouldn't that be the OPs ideal dream?

@2ndRateMind, if only the poor go to heaven, then why would you want to eradicate the poor? Shouldn't your goal, as a good Christian be to make more people poor?

Of course since that is the end result of socialism (all poor), then I guess if works....um....sort of?

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am aware of a little language difficulty that may arise, or may have already arisen. What you call socialism, we in Europe are prone to call communism, and there are very many Europeans, unlike most North Americans, who have experienced that totalitarian regime personally, and know full well its horrors. What we call socialism is much softer, and more pragmatic, and altogether more cuddly a centrist concept than communism. Those of us who lean to the left often do so not out of some jealousy of the worldly success of others, but simply out of love and pity and sympathy, because we don't want our people, or indeed, any people, to be homeless and destitute, hungry to the point of starvation, or ridden with cheaply preventable disease. And the thing is, there is enough wealth the world right now to make that ambition a reality. And because we can, I am inclined to think that so we ought.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

And the thing is, there is enough wealth the world right now to make that ambition a reality. And because we can, I am inclined to think that so we ought.

I don't necessarily entirely disagree. I just thing socialized government is the dumbest way possible to work towards this end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

But if we implement full on socialism, and the pro-socialism folk are right, then we eradicate the poor and the rich and we're all middle class? Wouldn't that be the OPs ideal dream?

@2ndRateMind, if only the poor go to heaven, then why would you want to eradicate the poor? Shouldn't your goal, as a good Christian be to make more people poor?

Of course since that is the end result of socialism (all poor), then I guess if works....um....sort of?

Not really the target of your post, but in a related idea...

If you go by 4th Nephi, one could assume that they were all middle class of sorts.

Quote

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

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

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

4 And it came to pass that the thirty and seventh year passed away also, and there still continued to be peace in the land

One could view this as the ideal situation of Zion, and possibly what the people in the City of Enoch lived under.  It is what we would suppose that the Christians with Peter, James, and John tried to live after the Lord's resurrection.  It is inclined to my opinion that this was also the society that Joseph Smith was putting a framework for and what we may possibly live under as Saints after the Lord comes during the Millennium.

Regarding the people at that time, it seems also that they were able to exist and put away many of the things that cause such strife and inequality in our time...perhaps

Quote

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

16 And there were no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness; and surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God.

17 There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God.

18 And how blessed were they! For the Lord did bless them in all their doings; yea, even they were blessed and prospered until an hundred and ten years had passed away; and the first generation from Christ had passed away, and there was no contention in all the land.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Ummm. I'm not the one whose Church (according to one of your missionaries I met once) insists on a tripartite heaven, LDS believers being assured the best place. Regard my post as my gentle, indirect enquiry towards understanding why this might be.

Best wishes, 2RM.

It’s the difference between the love of learning/knowledge and grade grubbing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

@Vort my dear fellow, I thought I had let enough time elapse for our previous differences to lie fallow for good. And I have tried to be more respectful. So, I'm willing to let byegones be byegones, if you are.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

I read that in a victorian gentleman's voice.

fd37cbcd529a662aa8781412d5a58524.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

@Vort my dear fellow, I thought I had let enough time elapse for our previous differences to lie fallow for good. And I have tried to be more respectful. So, I'm willing to let byegones be byegones, if you are.

Does that mean you're actually going to answer meaningful (and tough) questions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, boxer said:

Your whole premise is totally and irredeemably flawed making any conversation pointless. 

You equate power with rich, you equate power with white, you equate power to male, you equate power to christian.  You equate no power to non-whites, no power to women, no power to those who have no religion or other religions.

In other words you have a completely delusional and flawed conception that the world is soley based upon Power and that groups that you like don't have power and groups you do like have no power. Either you have an extremely myopic view of the world or are simply pushing a propaganda native-based in a Marxists philosophical view of the world.

You've never read any of his old posts, have you?  He always says this stuff.  And he has no explanation for any reason to believe it other than some variant of "well, it's obvious."

You'll  find that it's like talking to a brick wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

 And the thing is, there is enough wealth the world right now to make that ambition a reality. And because we can, I am inclined to think that so we ought.

Best wishes, 2RM.

And what if I say no.  What if I say, no I refuse to allow my income to go to someone else?   You'll send the tax man after me, and if I refuse the tax man you'll send the police after me and if I refuse the police then they will shoot and kill me.

It's an iron first with a velvet glove around it.  You claim it's "cuddly"-it's not cuddly-it's backed by murder.  In the bottom of your heart-you are a murderer. If I refused, you'd kill me for it. Not Christlike at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, boxer said:

And what if I say no.  What if I say, no I refuse to allow my income to go to someone else?   You'll send the tax man after me, and if I refuse the tax man you'll send the police after me and if I refuse the police then they will shoot and kill me.

It's an iron first with a velvet glove around it.  You claim it's "cuddly"-it's not cuddly-it's backed by murder.  In the bottom of your heart-you are a murderer. If I refused, you'd kill me for it. Not Christlike at all.

Don’t be paranoid, Boxer.  We’ll only kill you if you resist, and in that case, you’ll deserve it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, boxer said:

And what if I say no.  What if I say, no I refuse to allow my income to go to someone else?   You'll send the tax man after me, and if I refuse the tax man you'll send the police after me and if I refuse the police then they will shoot and kill me.

It's an iron first with a velvet glove around it.  You claim it's "cuddly"-it's not cuddly-it's backed by murder.  In the bottom of your heart-you are a murderer. If I refused, you'd kill me for it. Not Christlike at all.

Depends on whether he's in charge of it or not I suppose.

Quote

1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,

2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.

7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.

8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.

9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.

10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

 

Despite what people may think there is the loving side, and then there's the side you REALLY don't want to get on the bad side of.  This is light compared to what he did in the past.   Look up Pharaoh and his armies in the Red Sea chasing Moses, or his commands to his people Israel to kill all living things in some of their military campaigns.  When he gets it into his mind to enforce an economic system or government, he doesn't seem to pull punches as much as some may think he does.

What's worse is once you are dead, guess who's waiting for you to explain yourself on the other side most likely!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In an addendum to my post above, but separate, it is interesting that people will say they would give all that they have to the Lord if he asked, or that they are willing to do such a thing, but I think many who show reluctance or are very caught up in their worldly possessions today may not be so eager to part with them or donate it to the Lord's need if they were actually asked.

In the instance above it was Peter who was in charge of the Church, what happens if it is the prophet that asks?

This happened in the history of the church previously and MANY were not so faithful as to live it completely or as intended.  However, as we see many of those went through the plains and lived near Starvation at first when settling Utah, they went through trials that make ours today seem excessively trivial.  If they had difficulty, I have no doubt that there are MANY, with a lot of them who are like me who are comfortably off, who could have REAL trouble giving all that they have to the lord.

Indeed, we may find we are more like the rich man who was asked to give all that he had and found he could not, than the widow who gave all she had.

I know for me the hardest thing to give up most likely would be my books.  I just would think no one would really treasure them as much as I do, and instead they'd be sold off for 25 cents a book, or maybe a dollar or two at DI rather than what they would be worth to a Historian, and what I value for it's written records would be held as dross by those in charge of the financial reckoning.  I know it would be VERY hard for me to sell them or give them up to the church. 

Luckily, and hopefully that won't ever occur in my lifetime (more likely those who are younger than I) but one can never tell.  No man knows the hour or the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Both? Did I mention 2 approaches?

Sure, both. Broadly speaking, there is neo-liberal capitalism, reliant on a somewhat unreliable sense of charity among the rich to succour the poor. Or the pragmatic left, which involves some compulsory element of the redistribution of wealth from the rich to meet the fundamental needs of the absolutely poor.

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.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, boxer said:

And what if I say no.  What if I say, no I refuse to allow my income to go to someone else?   You'll send the tax man after me, and if I refuse the tax man you'll send the police after me and if I refuse the police then they will shoot and kill me.

It's an iron first with a velvet glove around it.  You claim it's "cuddly"-it's not cuddly-it's backed by murder.  In the bottom of your heart-you are a murderer. If I refused, you'd kill me for it. Not Christlike at all.

Why would you want to say no? Why would you not want to succour those in need? 

Jesus' two famous commandments are to 'Love God', and 'Love each other'.* If we love, we want the best interests of the beloved, quite as much as our own best interests, realised. And if God suffers along with those suffering, as I believe, then alleviating such suffering in others, alleviates also the suffering of God. So, where is your problem?

Best wishes, 2RM.

*I would happily contend the view that, in these five words, you have Christianity in a nutshell, and that all the rest is footnote and detail. Those who love as Jesus commends for us will get that; those who don't yet so love, still have a way to go on their pilgrim journeys.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Why would you want to say no? Why would you not want to succour those in need? 

Jesus' two famous commandments are to 'Love God', and 'Love each other'.* If we love, we want the best interests of the beloved, quite as much as our own best interests, realised. And if God suffers along with those suffering, as I believe, then alleviating such suffering in others, alleviates also the suffering of God. So, where is your problem?

Best wishes, 2RM.

*I would happily contend the view that, in these five words, you have Christianity in a nutshell, and that all the rest is footnote and detail. Those who love as Jesus commends for us will get that; those who don't yet so love, still have a way to go on their pilgrim journeys.

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?".

Edited by boxer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I'll give you another reason why it doesn't work-it's called the price problem. The only way any form of socialism works is with omniscient knowledge.

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. It's why price "gouging" is actually the best way to recover from any disaster.  Take a hurricane disaster that hits and in one geographical area price gouging is allowed and the price per gallon skyrockets to 100/gal. If you live 5 hours away and your gas prices are still at $2, it signals to you 1) this disaster is REALLY bad and 2) there is a boat load of money to be made. You fill up at your 2 5-gal containers for $20 and can sell it for $1000-it takes you 10 hours to deliver the gas.  Now what incentives you, incentives plenty of other people and all the sudden you're going to have a rush of people filling up their small tanks and rushing to fill the void-relatively quickly the price will drop and resources will be diverted to the afflicted area.

And you could say, well people should just help out-yes they should, but no one REALLY knows how bad it really is, except through prices. Prices are the brain that signal . . .oh crap something is really off here, help!! through arbitrage.  In addition, prices signal people to conserve their resources.  Prices go up and people realize, hmm I shouldn't take that trip b/c it costs alot.

Prices are the mechanism by which people signal their needs and their wants. How bad they need or want something is reflected in how much they will pay for it.

If you've ever traveled the world, you'll notice that food prices vary across the world.  In the US it might cost $15 for a good steak.  In Columbia it might cost $2.  Why is that?  Because prices naturally self-regulate to the area they are in.  When a people have a lot of "money" prices  will rise to fit that environment, when people don't have a lot of money prices will drop to fit that environment.

The reason why some places don't have as much "things" as other places has nothing to do with "money" it has to do with production and productivity. Wealth is generated by how much you can produce-the more goods you can produce the wealthy you become. This should be obvious; if all I have is a shovel-it's going to take me a long time to dig a hole; if I have a back-hoe I can dig a hole in seconds.

The reasons why the Western world is so incredibly wealthy is that we have found a way to incentive production while minimizing non-production.  And the way you incentivize production is by capitalism and instilling hard work values in people. When you go to other countries (especially south american countries), people will spend much of their day doing nothing except "hanging out". That's a perfectly valid use of their time.  But if you "hang out" you can't be digging a hole, you can't be building a house.

Just giving people money doesn't solve the problem of poverty on a society wide scale-b/c someone has to actually physically do the work. I give you $1000, it doesn't matter if you can't find anyone who is willing to cook you a steak for 1000.  Someone may just decide, nah, I don't want to cook a meal for you. Why would they want to do that?  Well maybe they value hanging out with a girlfriend or a child over cooking you a steak and 1000 isn't enough to convince them it's worth it.

You seem to think money takes care of everything-but it doesn't; someone has to do the work. Someone to be willing to do what you want.  Unless you plan on forcing people to do what you want.

Which is exactly the road this path leads to. It leads to murdering people to steal from them and then murdering them again if they don't work how you want them to work. It is slavery.

There are aspects about capitalism that is bad-but only insomuch as people's hearts are wicked. There is no amount of money you could shove in my face to kill another human being.  1 billion dollars it doesn't matter.  I simply wouldn't do it-you couldn't incentivize me enough to do it.  Yet I fully recognize that there are many immoral people who would kill for money.

In order for any society to exists beyond much of a subsistence standard of living you MUST have the price mechanism and the only way a price mechanism can exist is with capitalism. And it's why in EVERY SINGLE instance of where this has been tried the black market occurs. It's why in Europe there is a black market for health care. 

Edited by boxer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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?".

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.

 

Edited by 2ndRateMind
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