The Next World Order and Social Justice

[Guest MormonGator]

11 minutes ago, zil said:

Can't be any more choreographed that this thread was intended to be.

lol! 

Oh, number 392 you've hit a major nerve with me. I used to be a huge wrestling fan. Not so much now, but I do enjoy some classic wrestling DVDs from time to time. People would snobbishly say "You know that's fake, right?" And I'd say "If you think it's fake, jump in the ring and prove it tough guy." No one took me up on the offer. Odd. 

Yes, it's "scripted". Just like the movies and television shows we enjoy. If I said "Hey, the Lord of the Rings. You know that dragons don't exist right?" I'd be obnoxious, wouldn't I? Wrestling  fans know it's scripted. We suspend our disbelief because we choose too. Just like someone watching LOTR. 

I could go on for pages about this. It's about class snobbery, really. People look down on dirty, trashy wrestling fans. 

 

[zil]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

number 392

[zil]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

lol! 

Oh, number 392 you've hit a major nerve with me. I used to be a huge wrestling fan. Not so much now, but I do enjoy some classic wrestling DVDs from time to time. People would snobbishly say "You know that's fake, right?" And I'd say "If you think it's fake, jump in the ring and prove it tough guy." No one took me up on the offer. Odd. 

Yes, it's "scripted". Just like the movies and television shows we enjoy. If I said "Hey, the Lord of the Rings. You know that dragons don't exist right?" I'd be obnoxious, wouldn't I? Wrestling  fans know it's scripted. We suspend our disbelief because we choose too. Just like someone watching LOTR. 

I could go on for pages about this. It's about class snobbery, really. People look down on dirty, trashy wrestling fans.

Hmm.  I wasn't making fun of pro wrestling - I was making fun of this thread.  (The former is at least intended to be entertaining.)

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, zil said:

Hmm.  I wasn't making fun of pro wrestling - I was making fun of this thread.  (The former is at least intended to be entertaining.)

Oh, I know you weren't.

Some people have abortion, gun control, taxes -(you know, little things like that)-as their soapbox issues. I have....pro wrestling...

[wenglund]

Assuming the best of intents and compassion on all sides when it comes to helping the poor, voluntary assistance (charity) within a culture of self-reliance tends to  better both the giver and receiver,. Whereas, compelled assistance (redistribution), particularly within an entitled and big government culture, tends to diminish both.

There are a number of reasons why this is so, and I cover a number of them in several online articles explaining why there are so many unintended negative consequences resulting from leftist policies (if interested, see HERE).

Here is an abbreviated version:

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 17, 2018 by wenglund

[Traveler]

On 12/15/2018 at 1:23 PM, 2ndRateMind said:

You haven't answered my question about the reason for the under-representation. You seem to be implying though, that there are only three African American CEOs of fortune 500 companies because African Americans generally just aren't competent. Is that what you mean? And if you do, do you think that is because of the nature of African Americans, or their nurture?

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

After reading this post - I am wondering why you hold CEO's in high esteem - as thought that is some measure of competency.  I have spent 40 years of my life working for corporate (I work in the field of industrial automation, robotics and artificial intelligence) I have sat in countless meetings with corporate CEO's and board members - few function at that level in the corporate world based in intelligence and competency as much as it is power, prestige, influence and money.   If you are interested in justice - you will not find anything that resembles it in the corporate world.  Corporations and CEO's do not invest in justice.

You used the word social justice - I have no idea what that is and I am of the opinion that anyone using the term even understand justice.  In fact I would say if the parameters of justice are limited to what happens to any person if any society between birth and death - You will not find justice or anything that even hints that justice can even exist.  Life is the most unjust element in the universe - everything that lives does so praying unjustly on everything else that exist.   You cannot even take a breath without committing injustices.  And the more you attempt to bring about justice - the more you will create injustices.

The only hope for any justice is if there is a merciful G-d.  And the first principle of justice is sacrifice not of someone else - but of self.  Those that think anyone or any social group will have social justice without being socially merciful through personal sacrifice - will only create more social injustice - social justice, by every effort, is unjust.

 

The Traveler

[2ndRateMind]

19 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

But pretty good trolling. This has done seven pages!

Hmmm. I tend to be of the view that if a topic is controversial, and arouses passion, then maybe likely enough that topic is important. And that, every so often, even we Christians should discuss important topics. If the thread generated in that spirit is 'trolling' I plead guilty. But I suspect you mean something different by the term, to do with denigrating anyone who disturbs complacency and departs from received and conventional wisdom. I must say, I take some comfort from the observation that civilisation has progressed such that whereas all I need do is suffer a few paltry insults, Jesus was nailed to a cross for that transgression.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 17, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[2ndRateMind]

11 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Not if caucasians had developed a subculture that a) scorned the type of behaviors it tends to take to become the CEO of a Fortune 500 company; b) glorified the sorts of behaviors that tend to make one’s personal life a train wreck, thereby making professional stability and success in any field much harder to come by; and c) had succumbed en masse to the thrall of a destructive economic ideology that says there shouldn’t even be such a thing as a Fortune 500 company. 

Is this all behaviour you accuse African Americans of, then?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

...Those that think anyone or any social group will have social justice without being socially merciful through personal sacrifice - will only create more social injustice - social justice, by every effort, is unjust...

I'm not sure I see why, to revert to an earlier point I made in the thread, it is unjust, socially or otherwise, to question the current skewed world distribution of wealth, and want to see it spread more equitably. Perhaps you can explain.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 17, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[2ndRateMind]

12 hours ago, wenglund said:

Assuming the best of intents and compassion on all sides when it comes to helping the poor, voluntary assistance (charity) within a culture of self-reliance tends to  better both the giver and receiver,. Whereas, compelled assistance (redistribution), particularly within an entitled and big government culture, tends to diminish both.

I would agree with this, and most whole heartedly, were it not for the fact that humanity requires certain basics on a regular basis simply to survive, and that a good portion of humanity are denied these basics by the economic situation in which they find themselves, and that charity alone has proven insufficient to meet their needs. So, when no one is hungry, malnourished or starving, by all means then let us make a virtue of self-reliance. But until then let us not complain if a certain proportion of our tax burden goes towards the sustainable alleviation of absolute poverty at home and abroad.

If you would like to help speed the day when redistributive taxation is no longer necessary, here's a link to one charity among many for you to consider supporting.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 17, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[Just_A_Guy]

4 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Is this all behaviour you accuse African Americans of, then?

Best wishes, 2RM.

These are problems in the African-American community (among others), yes.   It’s not a matter of “accusations”; it’s a matter of statistics.  Look at the unwed birth rate.  Look at the crime rate.  Look at school dropout rates.  Listen to the sorts of behavior promoted in popular music.  Listen to the discourse directed towards community outsiders, and towards insiders who don’t conform to community expectations.   It’s not a matter of race; it’s a matter of bad life choices that don’t work in a free market where the fallout of one’s decisions redounds primarily to one’s own character, reputation, obligations and prospects.  

Now, granted; many of these attitudinal problems are the natural result of centuries of oppression. But the attitudes have often remained as strong as ever—or even strengthened—even after the vast majority of the outright oppression faded away.  

African Americans aren’t the only group that has been intensely persecuted in the post-Civil War period; look at Irish-Americans, or Italian—Americans, or Chinese or Japanese immigrants, or (to a milder extent) Mormons.  But (at the risk of making generalizations, which is certainly risky about any group as there are always going to be numerous individual exceptions)—they are one of few groups who, once relieved of their yoke and left more-or-less alone, for some reason were unable to materially advance their economic and social position over generations; and whose community—not coincidentally, I think—evolved a contempt for “acting white” and developed and embraced the use of pejoratives like “Oreo”.

Edited December 17, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

On 12/15/2018 at 12:44 PM, 2ndRateMind said:

Interesting. I am not sure many Spanish would agree with you! But I have never been to the Philippines, though I would love to visit, and so I will take your word for it.

I have a book for you.  Noli Mi Tangere (Touch Me Not) by Jose Rizal.  It is originally written in Spanish but you should be able to easily find an English version.  You should be able to download a free copy to your eReader of choice from Project Gutenberg.  This book is a fictional romance story written during colonial-era Philippines.  Jose Rizal wrote that book as a way to make the world aware of the atrocities of the Spaniards.  The Philippines was ruled by the same Spanish political leadership that ruled Mexico.

On 12/15/2018 at 12:44 PM, 2ndRateMind said:

But I will make the same point I made to @boxer, that in the grand scheme of things, corruption makes no difference as to whether we succour the hungry, only to what is the most effective way to do that, and how to ensure the solutions we provide are sustainable over the long term.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

There is not a single person in here that promotes not succoring the poor and downtrodden.  It is weaponized compassion to accuse someone of not wanting to succor the hungry just because they strongly oppose government-enforced wealth redistribution.  One thing is certain, though.  You cannot provide long-term sustainable solutions if you don't spend a significant amount of time understanding why there are poor people before you spend your time figuring out how to lift people out of poverty.

 

[2ndRateMind]

21 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

One thing is certain, though.  You cannot provide long-term sustainable solutions if you don't spend a significant amount of time understanding why there are poor people before you spend your time figuring out how to lift people out of poverty.

I think that is so true, I have requoted you in bold.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 17, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I'm not sure I see why, to revert to an earlier point I made in the thread, it is unjust, socially or otherwise, to question the current skewed world distribution of wealth, and want to see it spread more equitably. Perhaps you can explain.

Best wishes, 2RM.

It is akin to revenge - any forced effort to redistribute wealth has in the past  inevitably resulted in greater social injustice and there is nothing to prevent wealth being redistributed unequally in the future.   The absolute worse influence from wealth is a new generation that feels entitled to wealth.

The only "honest" way to acquire and maintain wealth is through industry (hard work).  The greatest misunderstanding of wealth (especially among the rich) is that someone else will maintain it for them so they can just sit back and enjoy wealth while someone else does the work.  The official term for someone unwilling to maintain their wealth is - entitled.  This is why I was so blown away by your entitlement thinking concerning Corporate CEO's.  I have not encountered a more entitled segment of society than the corporate mentality.  

The current #1 cause of separation between the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer is revolving credit and revolving credit fees.  Another great means of rich getting richer and poor getting poorer are the various lotteries.  As long as these elements exist in a society there can be no economic social justice.  Any effort to redistribute wealth while maintaining such institutions in a society - is the work of economic terrorists and uneducated fools and idiots that justify their stupidly with terms like social justice.    Try to tell people they are free but have not right to determine how to spend their money (ie - revolving credit and lotteries).

 

The Traveler

 

Edited December 17, 2018 by Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

30 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

government-enforced wealth redistribution. 

I hear this term a lot but I'm not sure we understand. The government doesn't forcefully take money from the rich and redistribute it to the poor. No army tanks show up at the wealthy mansions and threaten to level them to the ground unless they give up their riches. We pay taxes. More importantly, we vote in the lawmakers that best represent how we want society to run. So, this "government" is really just an extension of what voters/citizens want. 

The reality of it is we are too selfish as a society to truly help out the poor, more than our fair share (because we are too selfish) that we devise laws that try to make helping the poor the least bit stressful on ourselves so that we can have more money for our own toys that only we get to play with. Think of this- if we were to truly do away with all government assistance it would place people in more of a position to truly help out their neighbor whom they may not like. Heaven forbid!

 

[anatess2]

24 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I think that is so true, I have requoted you in bold.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Okay 2RM... this Executive Order is a viable solution to economic depression in certain regions of the USA.  Let's discuss.

This is from Fox Business.  Let me know if you're averse to Fox.  I can give you a link from CNBC instead.  I chose Fox instead of CNBC because the Fox coverage is direct from Ben Carson's mouth while the CNBC coverage is a newscaster saying what Carson is saying here.

 

[Just_A_Guy]

33 minutes ago, Traveler said:

It is akin to revenge - any forced effort to redistribute wealth has in the past  inevitably resulted in greater social injustice and there is nothing to prevent wealth being redistributed unequally in the future.   

Just so.  The line between “social justice” and “payback” gets awful skinny.  Look at what happened in Zimbabwe, or what’s currently happening in South Africa.  Look at the Holy Land, or modern Russian aggression across Europe, or Kashmir, or the Tamil in Sri Lanka, or the Royhinga in Myanmar, or the Hutus and Tutsis, or all of World War II.  How many horrors have been perpetrated by people who thought they were advancing the cause of “social justice” by righting (avenging) past wrongs? 

When government gets away from “equal standing under the law”, we inevitably wind up in all sorts of nasty places.  It is not in human nature for a wronged person to say “it is enough, I have been made whole” when a former oppressor with some remaining modicum of wealth or usefulness lies prostrate before them.

Edited December 17, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

21 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I hear this term a lot but I'm not sure we understand. The government doesn't forcefully take money from the rich and redistribute it to the poor. No army tanks show up at the wealthy mansions and threaten to level them to the ground unless they give up their riches.

Taxation is Governement-Enforced.   Pete Rose, Richard Pryor,  even Al Capone would attest to that.  This has nothing to do with "extension of what the voters want".  It has everything to do with the Government having the power to use your money against you at their whim.  You could have hit a rough spot and ended up dead broke only able to feed your kids once a day and at that, only ramen noodles, or moderately wealthy spending all your money trying to cure you daughter's cancer and paying your music prodigy son's ginormous Julliard tuition bill, and you owe the government taxes... they can separate you from your kids and send you to jail.

 

Quote

We pay taxes. More importantly, we vote in the lawmakers that best represent how we want society to run. So, this "government" is really just an extension of what voters/citizens want. The reality of it is we are too selfish as a society to truly help out the poor, more than our fair share (because we are too selfish) that we devise laws that try to make helping the poor the least bit stressful on ourselves so that we can have more money for our own toys that only we get to play with. Think of this- if we were to truly do away with all government assistance it would place people in more of a position to truly help out their neighbor whom they may not like. Heaven forbid!

Yeah... because it is so selfish to pay for your own daughter's cancer medication and your own son's Julliard education... because THE REST OF AMERICA knows better how to cure poverty.  Setting your own children up to succeed is such... "upper class privilege".  And what's more... you can make the people unselfish by forcing them to be so.  PUKE. 

And this @2ndRateMind is EXACTLY why Socialism or Government-Enforced Redistribution fails.  Because the people who think they know better where other people's money should go are ALWAYS the people that SHOULD NOT be deciding such matters.

 

Edited December 17, 2018 by anatess2

[2ndRateMind]

26 minutes ago, Traveler said:

The only "honest" way to acquire and maintain wealth is through industry (hard work). 

So, suppose you lived in some society, somewhere (let's call it Utopia, for the sake of argument), where the powers that be decided that the strongest in wealth and power had some kind of moral obligation to succour the weakest in wealth and power - up to a certain point. That point being my (admittedly ill-defined, but nevertheless comprehensible) notion of an austere but reasonably dignified standard of living. And suppose they wrote legislation to implement that moral obligation as society policy. Why would this way of life, for the least of us, be dishonest, seeing as how the greatest could easily afford it, without being any less great? Or are only the rich 'honest'?

I might add, it could also be mutually beneficial, for both rich and poor, seeing as crimes of necessity (such as theft to feed one's hungry children) are liable to decrease, and fitness for work and the quality of work they are fit for, liable to increase amongst the poor.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

 

[Rob Osborn]

11 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Taxation is Governement-Enforced.   Pete Rose, Richard Pryor,  even Al Capone would attest to that.  This has nothing to do with "extension of what the voters want".  It has everything to do with the Government having the power to use your money against you at their whim.  You could have hit a rough spot and ended up dead broke only able to feed your kids once a day and at that, only ramen noodles, or moderately wealthy spending all your money trying to cure you daughter's cancer and paying your music prodigy son's ginormous Julliard tuition bill, and you owe the government taxes... they can separate you from your kids and send you to jail.

 

Yeah... because it is so selfish to pay for your own daughter's cancer medication and your own son's Julliard education... because THE REST OF AMERICA knows better how to cure poverty.  Setting your own children up to succeed is such... "upper class privilege".  And what's more... you can make the people unselfish by forcing them to be so.  PUKE. 

And this @2ndRateMind is EXACTLY why Socialism or Government-Enforced Redistribution fails.  Because the people who think they know better where other people's money should go are ALWAYS the people that SHOULD NOT be deciding such matters.

 

My point was that we aren't even having this conversation if we weren't selfish with our own money. 

[2ndRateMind]

30 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And this @2ndRateMind is EXACTLY why Socialism or Government-Enforced Redistribution fails.  Because the people who think they know better where other people's money should go are ALWAYS the people that SHOULD NOT be deciding such matters.

I can't disagree with much of that, either, at a purely atavistic level. But also I can't help noticing a (slight) discrepancy between this and your previous idea that we need to understand why the poor are poor, before we can figure out how to rescue them from their poverty. Surely, if someone has such understanding and has done such figuring, they are qualified to make such decisions? (Even if, ideally, they make such decisions tentatively, pragmatically, and with due attention to what is working, and why it works, rather than ideologically and dogmatically?)

Best wishes, 2RM

 

Edited December 17, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[anatess2]

13 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

My point was that we aren't even having this conversation if we weren't selfish with our own money. 

You are wrong.

[anatess2]

15 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I can't much disagree with much of that, either, at a purely atavistic level. But also I can't help noticing a (slight) discrepancy between this and your previous idea that we need to understand why the poor are poor, before we can figure out how to rescue them from their poverty. Surely, if someone has such understanding and done such figuring, they are qualified to make such decisions? (Even if, ideally, they make such decisions tentatively, pragmatically, and with due attention to what is working, and why it works, rather than ideologically and dogmatically?)

Best wishes, 2RM

 

Sure.  But for them to have the power to effect change, they have to either be Authoritarians or Dictators or Fascists - systems that are only viable when the people in Authority are GOOD.  And then they die leaving the Authoritarian/Dictatorial/Fascist power to somebody else who doesn't share the same values.  So, all you have left is the Power of Authority devoid of moral vision.  Millions have died in this same exact cycle... over and over and over throughout the history of Mankind.

And by the way... you're still stuck up on wealth as the solution to poverty.  Understanding the root causes of poverty will lead you to a different conclusion.  Giving a culturally corrupt society like the Philippines wealth will not eliminate poverty, rather, it will exacerbate the corruption leading to even more poor people.

Edited December 17, 2018 by anatess2

[NeuroTypical]

13 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Surely, if someone has such understanding and done such figuring, they are qualified to make such decisions? (Even if, ideally, they make such decisions tentatively, pragmatically, and with due attention to what is working, and why it works, rather than ideologically and dogmatically?)

What makes you think that government bureaucrats or legislators have any such understanding, or have done any such figuring?

Legislators are in it to stay elected, they propose laws based on what they hear from their biased constituents (at least, those with the most volume or punch to their yelling).  Sometimes, maybe, you'll find a legislator who does their homework, reads studies, has real-world experience.  But usually, they're exposed to various factions spinning their various agendas, and the legislator navigates those waters to the harbor most likely to get them re-elected.  

Bureaucrats follow the rules.  No thinking necessary.

Some of the most harmful things a human can think, is "the government knows all this stuff", and "who are we to disagree".

Edited December 17, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[Rob Osborn]

5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You are wrong.

Spot on, not wrong. We created social monetary help due to the need to help the poor, just as long as it's even, cause I don't want to give more than I should...

In a true zionlike society there are no poor. Everyone works to help themselves and others without the selfishness coming into play. We are both too selfish on the one end and lazy on the other.