The Next World Order and Social Justice


2ndRateMind

Recommended Posts

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

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.

Your very first mistake - Thinking that the measure for poverty is money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Hmmm. Why can't they just be the democratically elected representatives of the people?

Best wishes, 2RM.

You agreed with this statement I made before:  "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".

Those are the people who democratically elect representatives who conform to their idea of where the money should go.  Or,  they think that this politician campaigning to lift people out of poverty like... choose your favorite leader and their political party:  Trump?  Obama?  WBush?  Clinton?  HWBush?  Reagan?  Carter?  Republicans?  Democrats?  Libertarians? etc. etc...  are the experts at the root cause of poverty.

Now, unless you're going to say... the only people who can elect a representative to solve poverty are the experts in the root cause of poverty.  That would be still be Authoritarian.

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

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.

I really do not think you rationally can, or should reasonably try, to blame all the evils of the world on the justifiable and entirely laudable desire for humanity to achieve 'social justice'. Though I will readily admit that often enough the rich and powerful attempt to co-opt such ideals into their self-serving justifications and ideologies for their own selfish purposes.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I really do not think you rationally can, or should reasonably try, to blame all the evils of the world on the justifiable and entirely laudable desire for humanity to achieve 'social justice'. Though I will readily admit that often enough the rich and powerful attempt to co-opt such ideals into their self-serving justifications and ideologies for their own selfish purposes.

Best wishes, 2RM.

No one is trying to blame “all the evils of the world” on the desire for social justice.  And when I see my position so flagrantly twisted and my actual argument so magnificently ignored, it makes me suspect that those in the opposite side of the aisle are either too careless or too dishonest to be trusted with the power they crave.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

...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”...

Seems like you are providing a litany of the evils of the world, to me. I make no apologies for extrapolating this list to cover all such evils. It occurs to me to ask; which evils would you exclude from your list? And why?

And If I am 'magnificently ignoring' your point, it is not deliberately, only that I have possibly not understood what your point actually is. Is the access of the rich to the law to be understood as equivalent to the access of the poor to the law? And if the poor were, by some legislation, to be allowed the same budget as the rich for legal representation, would you then complain that that is not 'equal standing under the law', because the poor were getting more support than the rich?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

You agreed with this statement I made before:  "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".

Those are the people who democratically elect representatives who conform to their idea of where the money should go.  Or,  they think that this politician campaigning to lift people out of poverty like... choose your favorite leader and their political party:  Trump?  Obama?  WBush?  Clinton?  HWBush?  Reagan?  Carter?  Republicans?  Democrats?  Libertarians? etc. etc...  are the experts at the root cause of poverty.

Now, unless you're going to say... the only people who can elect a representative to solve poverty are the experts in the root cause of poverty.  That would be still be Authoritarian.

 

I can't see in this, a reason to forego democratically elected representatives or the expressed preference of the people. I can see, however, a reason to improve the quality of public discourse and debate.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

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.

 

 

I honesty do not understanding your thinking.  Forcing one segment to labor for the benefit of another segment is called slavery.  And slavery is much worse social injustice than what we have now.  

It appears that you keep thinking that wealth happens at random and therefore so should the benefits.  Wealth is part of the incentive of work - and despite your utopia mentality - without the incentive of gravity - water would not flow down hill and the sun would not shine.

Freedom and liberty gives you the right to determine what happens to the fruit of your labor.  It also gives everyone to right to work or not to work.  There is a small segment of society incapable of work - but that is a different matter that should never be discussed with the same breath as those that do not feel like working.  Those that cannot work cannot be free and will always be dependent.

It appears that the only options you are willing to even consider is captivity (loss of freedom) and slavery.  Which is off my charts of social justice.  Is this because you are not willing to work and want someone to work for you?  Or are you so far off base that you think the rich and powerful are going to become slaves because you think it is morally right?

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I honesty do not understanding your thinking...

That's OK. It seems I need to revisit some of the points I have made earlier in the thread. But, it's getting late now, here, and I propose to summarise my thinking on this for you tomorrow.

Best wishes to you, and good night to you all. 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I can't see in this, a reason to forego democratically elected representatives or the expressed preference of the people.  

I didn't say you forego it.  I say Democratically elected/represented Socialism is doomed to fail specifically because of the reasons presented.

 

Quote

I can see, however, a reason to improve the quality of public discourse and debate.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Yes.

But that's only if the people are open to listening and learning, rather than just pontificating.

So, did you learn anything from this specific discussion?  

I asked for a discussion on the recent move by the Trump Administration to try to alleviate economic depression in certain regions of the country... maybe you missed it?

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 2ndRateMind said:

[1]Seems like you are providing a litany of the evils of the world, to me. I make no apologies for extrapolating this list to cover all such evils. It occurs to me to ask; which evils would you exclude from your list? And why?

[2]And If I am 'magnificently ignoring' your point, it is not deliberately, only that I have not understood what your point actually is. Is the access of the rich to law to be understood as equivalent to the access of the poor under the law? And if the poor were, by some legislation, to be allowed the same budget as the rich for legal representation, would you then complain that that is not 'equal standing under the law', because the poor were getting more support than the rich?

Best wishes, 2RM.

1.  No, I’m talking about specific examples of formerly-oppressed peoples who rose up and tried to get a little of their own back.  If you think that that dynamic underlies  *every* major conflict in global history—that’s an interesting point, though I don’t know whether I agree with it or not.  I’d have to study the history more.  But at any rate, it’s your point, not mine.  My point is simply that due to human nature, the proposed beneficiaries of “social justice” are ill-situated to recognize and stay within the line between “social justice” and “payback”.  

2.  If you don’t understand the concepts of a) treating two people of disparate backgrounds exactly the same, b) a color-blind government, and c) that people like to use “justice” as an excuse to hurt people they already dislike; there’s not much I can do to help you.  Maybe you should read up on the discourses of Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela; and take a look at The Count of Monte Cristo?  

Addressing your specific example, it would be sort of disingenuous to pretend that the sum total of “social justice” is that everyone gets a good lawyer for free.  But even granting the point arguendo, and ignoring the plethora of civil attorneys in the US who are happy to work on contingency:  1) The judiciary is only one of three branches of American government; and the weakest one, from a public policy perspective; 2)  you forget that judges don’t care who has the priciest lawyer and in my experience, all other things being equal, tend to be harsher on the parties with private counsel; 3) when we talk of public defenders or state-funded lawyers, we aren’t talking about a benefit that palpably incentivizes bad behavior; 4) you are at least talking about a benefit that would be applied according to an objective criterion across racial, ethnic, familial, economic, religious, professional, and educational lines; and 5) public defender programs predate the entry of “social justice” into our lexicon by at least half a century, so why don’t you tell us what you’re really after here?  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I really do not think you rationally can, or should reasonably try, to blame all the evils of the world on the justifiable and entirely laudable desire for humanity to achieve 'social justice'.

Are you really suggesting that @Just_A_Guy is blaming...for example...the existence of child pornography on the desire to achieve social justice?

2 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

justifiable and entirely laudable desire for humanity to achieve 'social justice'.

Since "social justice" typically means equality of outcome, and since equality of outcome was, in my theological belief, Satan's plan from the start, then I see nothing justifiable or laudable about it whatsoever.

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

Guest MormonGator
35 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

1.  No, I’m talking about specific examples of formerly-oppressed peoples who rose up and tried to get a little of their own back.  If you think that that dynamic underlies  *every* major conflict in global history—that’s an interesting point, though I don’t know whether I agree with it or not.  I’d have to study the history more.  But at any rate, it’s your point, not mine.  My point is simply that due to human nature, the proposed beneficiaries of “social justice” are ill-situated to recognize and stay within the line between “social justice” and “payback”.  

2.  If you don’t understand the concepts of a) treating two people of disparate backgrounds exactly the same, b) a color-blind government, and c) that people like to use “justice” as an excuse to hurt people they already dislike; there’s not much I can do to help you.  Maybe you should read up on the discourses of Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela; and take a look at The Count of Monte Cristo?  

Addressing your specific example, it would be sort of disingenuous to pretend that the sum total of “social justice” is that everyone gets a good lawyer for free.  But even granting the point arguendo, and ignoring the plethora of civil attorneys in the US who are happy to work on contingency:  1) The judiciary is only one of three branches of American government; and the weakest one, from a public policy perspective; 2)  you forget that judges don’t care who has the priciest lawyer and in my experience, all other things being equal, tend to be harsher on the parties with private counsel; 3) when we talk of public defenders or state-funded lawyers, we aren’t talking about a benefit that palpably incentivizes bad behavior; 4) you are at least talking about a benefit that would be applied according to an objective criterion across racial, ethnic, familial, economic, religious, professional, and educational lines; and 5) public defender programs predate the entry of “social justice” into our lexicon by at least half a century, so why don’t you tell us what you’re really after here?  

Trying to discuss anything with a hardcore SJW is like like trying to wrestle with a pig, @Just_A_Guy. You'll both get filthy, and only the pig will like it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

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.

I am not complaining. Rather, I am noting a  critically observed irrational tendency (i.e. compelled assistance diminishes both giver and receiver)., 

The fact that people are starving in spite of charity, is not rational justification for implementing strategies that backfire--not unlike how the U.S. has spent Trillions of dollars in the so-called "War on Poverty" only to end up with a greater percentage of poor and people dependent upon the government--which robs them of self-esteem and self-reliance,, mounting debt, and future unpaid obligations that exceed $200K per citizen..

It used to baffle me why people on the Left seem oblivious to this principle, that is until I realized that for many of them results don't matter, it is the leftest agenda and/or the thought and virtue signalling that counts. 

I hope you are the exception to that rule, and prefer promoting strategies the results of which actual better one and all even when the strategies are not universally successful.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 3:33 PM, 2ndRateMind said:

Hmmm. I rather think that if the situation were reversed, and only 3 Caucasians were CEOs of fortune 500s, you would be kicking up a stink all round. And, it may surprise you to learn, were that to be the case, I would endorse that stink whole-heartedly. But it isn't. So I don't.

I think this is a reasonably made point, but I also think it's based on a flawed assumption.

if only three of *any* group were CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, I'm not sure it's reasonable to leap to the conclusion that this is evidence of some kind of racist conspiracy.  Why would we automatically kick up a stink?  If I saw evidence that there WAS, in fact, some kind of racism at work then yes I'd gripe about it regardless of what demographic was being held back... But I'd have to see that evidence first.  And no, just saying there are only 3 ___ CEOs of Fortune 500s isn't direct evidence in itself.  At best, it's circumstantial.  

Now, do I think that only 3 black CEOs represents a historical racial element?  Maybe.  I agree that black culture in this country does a poor job of encouraging young men and women to focus themselves on such endeavors and if this truly is a problem we can solve, then unfortunately it's going to take a long time and require a lot of hard work to fix.  The first and most crucial step is to identify the cause openly and honestly, and start taking steps as a community to turn things around.  

Know what won't fix it, regardless of the cause?  Crying racism right off the bat and expecting people to just make everything better overnight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Surely, if someone has such understanding and has done such figuring, they are qualified to make such decisions?

 

Even if your presumption  is correct that the government bureaucrats  understand why the poor are poor (highly doubtful),  there is the unavoidable problem, among several, of "distance," which is exacerbated the more centralized and bigger the government

The greater the distance between giver and receiver, the less the giver is sensitive and responsive to the respective needs of the receiver. (see HERE)  Governments, particularly centralized governments, make for very poor charitable organizations, oft leaving recipients of charity worse off than before the government stepped in. (seeHERE)

The problem of "distance" also works in reverse:

The greater the distance between the giver and the receiver, the more the receiver develops a sense of entitlement" (see HERE) --fostering the dysfunction of victimization and dependency (see HERE and HERE), and is at risk of committing fraud.

Charity works best within families, between neighbors, and by local churches and communities. It is the difference between the "Second Great Commandment" and "Rendering unto Caesar ."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Are you really suggesting that @Just_A_Guy is blaming...for example...the existence of child pornography on the desire to achieve social justice?

No. Not at all. I think we were discussing wars for gain and treasure, and the practice of ethnic cleansing, and the implementation of genocidal policies. In such cases, it should be quite obvious that the motive is not social justice, even if that idea is invoked to justify such crimes, but to perpetuate social injustices.

Quote

Since "social justice" typically means equality of outcome, and since equality of outcome was, in my theological belief, Satan's plan from the start, then I see nothing justifiable or laudable about it whatsoever.

Uh huh. In my experience, people who disparage 'equality of outcome' generally do so because they champion 'equality of opportunity'. But, I think, you cannot have genuine equality of opportunity in generation G without some degree, at least, of equality of outcome in generation G minus 1. et cetera. If the race is to be fair, it helps if everyone starts out the same distance from the finishing line.

But even this is not what I advocate. I just want no one malnourished and in absolute poverty; no one dying of hunger; no one so poor they and their families starve. Is that really so hard to understand?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Traveler said:

Freedom and liberty gives you the right to determine what happens to the fruit of your labor.  It also gives everyone to right to work or not to work. 

It gives the wealthy the freedom to use their wealth to help mankind and become true followers of Christ (Huntsman Cancer Center). Or it lets them choose to horde it and become devils (George Soros). ;)

Freedom is the key and the greatest of the gifts that God has given his children, their Moral Agency. Forcing anyone to use their wealth against their will is against the Gospel and is nothing more than Coveting, a violation of Exodus 20:17 - "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

since equality of outcome was, in my theological belief, Satan's plan from the start, then I see nothing justifiable or laudable about it whatsoever

So, if we are all alike and share alike in Zion, is Zion Satan's plan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

If the race is to be fair, it helps if everyone starts out the same distance from the finishing line.

The problem there is applying that analogy correctly in a real world setting.  If I'm 5'-2" and I want to be an NBA player, then do I get the basket lowered for me so I have the same distance to jump as the taller players?  Is that how we'd make it "the same distance"?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

The problem there is applying that analogy correctly in a real world setting.  If I'm 5'-2" and I want to be an NBA player, then do I get the basket lowered for me so I have the same distance to jump as the taller players?  Is that how we'd make it "the same distance"?

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 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.

 

That's not what I asked.  But. true to form, you're going to continue to dodge or ignore questions that completely destroy your argument.

Thank you for showing your true colors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

  But. true to form, you're going to continue to dodge or ignore questions that completely destroy your argument

Welcome to the internet. You must be new here. 

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...