Fifty years ago today, Apollo VIII brought us to the moon for the first time ever.

[Traveler]

20 hours ago, unixknight said:

I'm gonna drop in my 2 cents' worth here.

The fear that people won't be charitable enough is frequently the engine that drives anti-capitalist arguments.  It assumes (incorrectly) that the motivations of  profit absolutely exclude charitable giving.  I can also understand a suspicion of non-profit charities because yes, a lot of them are scams.  (e.g. the Clinton Foundation, which collected millions for Haiti which was never used for Haitian humanitarian relief.)

That being said, if you look at a list of the wealthiest people in America, it would very much resemble the largest charitable donations in America.  And so what if there's a tax motive involved?  I'd say that's a win/win.  That's an example of a government in a capitalist nation making a smart move.  (Rare though it may be.)  

And the statement " It would be that everyone would contribute according to their ability and everyone receive according to their need (which is more socialism than free market)."  is not 'more socialism than free market."  That's straight-up, undistilled Marxism.  

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" 

-Karl Marx, 1875

And brother, that last sentence in your post is a mix of terms and phrases that are unrelated to each other anyway.  Supply and demand has nothing whatsoever to do with selfishness, nor would it be the engine of free market economies regardless of the motivations of those engaged in the free market.  Also, free markets do not operate on any principles other than those of personal property rights and transactions being mutually beneficial.  

To clarify:

Supply and demand is simply the economic law that describes the price of good or services in the free market.  The more demand there is for a product, as a function of its rarity, the higher the price.   For example, if there is a sudden increase in demand for socks, but no corresponding increase in the production of socks, then the demand for socks outpaces the supply.  As a result, the price of socks rises.  On the other hand, if suddenly fashion trends change and the demand for socks drops, then the supply of socks becomes a surplus, and the price drops fast.  So the price of goods will generally be a relationship between their supply, and how much in demand they are.  This is not a moral concept.  It simply is. 

The Free Market is nothing more than the system in which I am entitled to dispose of my own property in any way I see fit.  If I chose to sell my television, I am free to do so without needing permission from the government.  If I wish to purchase a new television, I am free to do so.  Every transaction in a true free market is completely voluntary.  It also means that I am entitled to decide the value I am willing to buy and sell for.  If I want to sell my TV I'm free to charge $10,000 for it if I want to.  (Nobody will buy my TV for $10,000... but I certainly have a right to try.)   By the same token, if I do not wish to pay $10,000 for somebody's crusty old worn out TV, I don't have to.  The only morality associated with this is the matter of personal property rights.  I can either engage in voluntary transactions involving my own personal property or I cannot.

What drives the free market?  property rights.  What drives prices?  Supply and demand.  

What is my motivator to contribute?  Enlightened self interest.  I want to eat, I want to live in a house and I want to have a television.  So what do I do?  I can sell my time, my expertise or my property to gain the money I need for those things.  Again, entirely voluntary.  I am not a slave.  I thus hold down a regular job, through which I contribute my expertise for the good of the community.  My wages are based on the market value of my expertise.  If I'm a very competent Java developer (which I happen to be) then I can easily make six figures.  If the only thing I'm good at is running the deep fryer at McDonald's then I'll be paid a lot less.  Why?  Because the supply of skilled deep fryer cooks is very, very high while the supply of competent Java developers is relatively miniscule.  That's supply and demand again, setting the market price for an hour of a professional's time.  Again, it isn't a matter of morality.

Now, you talk about greed and selfishness being an integral component of Capitalism.  I that's a matter of perspective, but I don't agree with you.  Is it selfish of me to sell my time and expertise as a Java developer for the highest wage I can?  Why is  that selfish?  If the market has determined that my expertise is worth a certain amount, why shouldn't I receive that amount?  I use my wages to sustain myself and my family.  The more I make, the better I can do for them.  Considering my tithing is a direct function of my earnings, the Church benefits as well by me taking a higher paying job.  Where is the selfishness?  

Granted, there are plenty of examples of people twisting the system for their own gain in a way that harms others, such as price gouging, monopolies, golden parachutes, etc... but that isn't what capitalism is about.  Those activities are immoral and usually illegal.  To say that somehow those cases prove that capitalism is evil is like saying trucks are evil because a few madmen have used them to kill people in terrorist attacks.    

I want to respond to a couple of thought - First; and this is of paramount importance, money does not equal charity.  It never has and it never will.  Giving money is not an act of charity.  It never has and it never will.  Wealthy people giving money is not charity, it never has been and it never will be.  The thought that charity can be bought and paid for with money is the primary reason why what the world defines as charity always fails - usually very miserably.  On several occasions I have recommended the reading of a book titled "The economics of Poverty".  Charity requires sacrifice but charity is also more than sacrifice and requires love - not the romantic Hollywood kind of love but a divine compassionate love that transcends money and economy - and yes when I say economy I am including a free market economy.

Second - as much as I respect and desire a free market, I also understand that a free market is an ideal that as much as it may be strived for - it can never be fully achieved.  There is no such thing as a "free market" - only approximations of almost free markets .  Elements of a free market can exist in part in isolated situations but the reality is - there is no free market that can exist in entirety.  I will use the example of health care to explain why.  If a persons is in the processes of dying unless they get health care; there is no free choice to purchase what ever health care is most readily available to sustain the life in critical need at that moment.  In short a free market only applies for an economy of certain abundance or plenty when individuals in the market place are dealing with "wants" and not actual "needs".

 

The Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

12 minutes ago, Traveler said:

  Giving money is not an act of charity

Wrong. 

 Anytime you give money to a charity it's a good thing, no matter if the giver is rich or not. No matter if their motives are pure or not. Do you think St. Judes Medical hospital cares if the person making the donation is rich or not? 

[unixknight]

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I want to respond to a couple of thought - First; and this is of paramount importance, money does not equal charity.  It never has and it never will.  Giving money is not an act of charity.  It never has and it never will.  Wealthy people giving money is not charity, it never has been and it never will be.  The thought that charity can be bought and paid for with money is the primary reason why what the world defines as charity always fails - usually very miserably.  On several occasions I have recommended the reading of a book titled "The economics of Poverty".  Charity requires sacrifice but charity is also more than sacrifice and requires love - not the romantic Hollywood kind of love but a divine compassionate love that transcends money and economy - and yes when I say economy I am including a free market economy.

I agree that charity =/= money, in that there are many forms of charity.  One can give of their time, their possessions or their skills/talents as well as their money.  I don't agree that money can't be charity.  One doesn't "buy" charity.  If I want to help out the local homeless shelter but I can't volunteer for whatever reason, then donating money is a perfectly good option.  I just don't understand why that's supposed to be a bad thing.  When George Lucas sold Star Wars to Disney he got $4B for it.  He then took $2B of that  money and donated it to education.  I don't care what his motives were.  I happen to know that Lucas is passionate about education, so I'm inclined to think this was a genuine act of altruism, but if I'm wrong, who cares?  My only concern now is that the money actually improves a few schools rather than ending up in some Board of Education member's pockets.  Maybe it was PR.  Maybe it was a tax offset.  Maybe he was guilted into it.  Maybe he just can't spend that  much money.  Maybe he just loves schools THAT MUCH.  Maybe it's a combination.  So what?  Do you think the schools who will receive that benefit should give that money back unless he passes some kind of test to make sure his heart was in the right place?  Or maybe they should give it back to him and tell him if he REALLY wants to be charitable he should come down and volunteer to help out at the lunch line because that's WAY better than 2 billion dollars...

I mean, I understand what you're saying about the purity of motives making it true charity, but that's something that will come  up for each of us when we stand in judgement and our hearts and motives are examined.  Maybe the widow who gave her only two pennies will receive greater blessings than Lucas will for his donation.  Either way, that isn't for us to judge.

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Second - as much as I respect and desire a free market, I also understand that a free market is an ideal that as much as it may be strived for - it can never be fully achieved.  There is no such thing as a "free market" - only approximations of almost free markets .  Elements of a free market can exist in part in isolated situations but the reality is - there is no free market that can exist in entirety.  I will use the example of health care to explain why.  If a persons is in the processes of dying unless they get health care; there is no free choice to purchase what ever health care is most readily available to sustain the life in critical need at that moment.  In short a free market only applies for an economy of certain abundance or plenty when individuals in the market place are dealing with "wants" and not actual "needs".

I agree that the Free Market is an ideal to strive for.  I also agree that it can't ever be perfect.  

I disagree that being forced to purchase good or services by circumstance somehow goes against the point of the free market.  Circumstances force us to purchase all kinds of necessities in the free market, all the time.  We have to buy food unless we're farmers.  We have to buy clothing unless we're not only skilled at sewing but also capable of making our own needles, thread and cloth.  We have to buy or rent a home unless we can build one ourselves, on land that we have to buy anyway.  What makes healthcare any different?  We treat it like it's totally different, but that's part of the problem.  When medical care was handled by the free market it was much less expensive.  Doctors made housecalls and visits to the doctor's office for checkups were trivial to pay for.  

And then, one day, the Government got involved, and health insurance companies started getting involved in non-emergency care and healthcare was no longer truly in the free market.  At that point it started becoming the giant monster it is today, and people act as if it's always been like this and how we need Government to fix it (Not saying you're making that case, just speaking in general.)  

[unixknight]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Wrong. 

 Anytime you give money to a charity it's a good thing, no matter if the giver is rich or not. No matter if their motives are pure or not. Do you think St. Judes Medical hospital cares if the person making the donation is rich or not? 

And Gator makes the same point I did much more succinctly.  

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, unixknight said:

And Gator makes the same point I did much more succinctly.  

The other awkward truth that no one wants to admit? When you can't feed your own family the last thing you are thinking of is helping other needy people. You are busy trying to make sure your own family is taken care of. 

Edited January 3, 2019 by MormonGator

[Traveler]

25 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Wrong. 

 Anytime you give money to a charity it's a good thing, no matter if the giver is rich or not. No matter if their motives are pure or not. Do you think St. Judes Medical hospital cares if the person making the donation is rich or not? 

Then you believe that a person without money cannot be charitable?  I still insist that money does not equal charity and regardless of how much money anyone gives it does not buy charity.  I stand firm against the notion that motive has nothing to do with charity and that a person with true charity knows that money is not ever necessary - ever - for there to be charity.  Acts of charity can exist (completely) without money.  Giving money is not the act of charity - and as Paul said - even if you give all your money and possessions to the poor and have not charity - giving the money and possessions means nothing!!!!!  (ICor - Chapter 13).

 

The Traveler

Edited January 3, 2019 by Traveler

[Traveler]

12 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

The other awkward truth that no one wants to admit? When you can't feed your own family the last thing you are thinking of is helping other needy people. You are busy trying to make sure your own family is taken care of. 

There is an example in scripture of a widow with a child that were starving and gave their last food to a prophet.  The pure love of Christ transcends even needs.

 

The Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Then you believe that a person without money cannot be charitable? 

No, that's not what I said, nor what I implied. What I said, and what I was correct about, is that, "Anytime you give money to a charity it's a good thing, no matter if the giver is rich or not. No matter if their motives are pure or not. Do you think St. Judes Medical hospital cares if the person making the donation is rich or not? " No where in there did I say that poor people cannot be charitable. You are reading into things that aren't there. 

5 minutes ago, Traveler said:

There is an example in scripture of a widow with a child that were starving and gave their last food to a prophet.  The pure love of Christ transcends even needs.

Yup.

But, um, uncomfortable truth-in order to run a charity you need money. Therefore, you need people with money to donate. 

Edited January 3, 2019 by MormonGator

[Traveler]

24 minutes ago, unixknight said:

And then, one day, the Government got involved, and health insurance companies started getting involved in non-emergency care and healthcare was no longer truly in the free market.  At that point it started becoming the giant monster it is today, and people act as if it's always been like this and how we need Government to fix it (Not saying you're making that case, just speaking in general.)  

No one is forcing doctors to not make house calls - there is no law to prevent it.  The truth is that health care has never been a free market commodity - as are many other things.  But since we live in a mostly affluent society - we tend to think like spoiled rich untitled folks that think money solves and is the answer to everything. 

 

The Traveler

[unixknight]

22 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I stand firm against the notion that motive has nothing to do with charity and that a person with true charity knows that money is not ever necessary - ever - for there to be charity.  Acts of charity can exist (completely) without money.  Giving money is not the act of charity - and as Paul said - even if you give all your money and possessions to the poor and have not charity - giving the money and possessions means nothing!!!!!  (ICor - Chapter 13).

Nobody's saying otherwise.  We're just not willing to discount giving money as one form of charity.

4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

No one is forcing doctors to not make house calls - there is no law to prevent it.  The truth is that health care has never been a free market commodity - as are many other things.  But since we live in a mostly affluent society - we tend to think like spoiled rich untitled folks that think money solves and is the answer to everything. 

Well, circumstances rather DO prevent doctors from making housecalls.  Between malpractice insurance and the immense amount of clerical staff needed in doctors' offices to handle all the Medicare/Medicaid related paperwork, they operate on a razor thin profit margin.   That's why they squeeze in as many patients as they possibly can and why people often complain that they see their actual doctor for only 5 minutes in a 90 minute visit.  The time it would take to travel to people's homes, along with an entourage of nurses and secretaries, makes housecalls impossible.

And yes, healthcare once was a free market commodity.  Otherwise health insurance would never have needed to exist in the first place.  As technology and science allowed us to treat ever more serious illnesses and injuries, the equipment, time and expertise to give these treatments increased.  That, in turn, increased the cost.  So what do you do when life saving medical treatments are so expensive that only the wealthy can afford them?  *Poof* Health insurance was born to handle catastrophes.  Then, gradually, the insurance itself became the commodity, not the medical treatments.  

[Traveler]

14 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

No, that's not what I said, nor what I implied. What I said, and what I was correct about, is that, "Anytime you give money to a charity it's a good thing, no matter if the giver is rich or not. No matter if their motives are pure or not. Do you think St. Judes Medical hospital cares if the person making the donation is rich or not? " No where in there did I say that poor people cannot be charitable. You are reading into things that aren't there. 

Yup.

But, um, uncomfortable truth-in order to run a charity you need money. Therefore, you need people with money to donate. 

I think there is a disconnect.  Money does not feed people - they cannot digest it.  And money does not stop someone from bleeding.  And as far as I know money has never prevented someone from getting sick, stopping and infection or kept a heart beating.  In fact money carries a lot of germs - money is not sterile. 

But as I said in a previous post - rich entitled people seem to think everything in this world can be purchased with money - I wonder where that idea came from?

 

The Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Traveler said:

I think there is a disconnect. 

Oh, we agree on that, that's for sure. 

[unixknight]

9 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I think there is a disconnect.  Money does not feed people - they cannot digest it.  And money does not stop someone from bleeding.  And as far as I know money has never prevented someone from getting sick, stopping and infection or kept a heart beating.  In fact money carries a lot of germs - money is not sterile. 

But as I said in a previous post - rich entitled people seem to think everything in this world can be purchased with money - I wonder where that idea came from?

 

The Traveler

Dude, I do not understand this post.  Are you seriously making the argument that money is useless because you can't eat it?

Are you sure this isn't all just coming form whatever axe you have to grind against the rich?   

[Guest MormonGator]

17 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Are you sure this isn't all just coming form whatever axe you have to grind against the rich?   

Envy is gravely sinful. Not saying @Traveler suffers from that, but a lot of people who talk like this do. 

[unixknight]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Envy is gravely sinful. Not saying @Traveler suffers from that, but a lot of people who talk like this do. 

Yeah obsessing over money - and who has it - is usually the engine that powers anti-capitalist sentiment.  Know what else I've noticed?  That stuff doesn't come from the poor, either.  Every single person I've known who hates capitalism is at least middle class and comfortable, benefitting from the fruits of a capitalist market.

Know who else rarely, if ever, complains about capitalism?  People who have emigrated from Communist or Socialist countries and know how good we have it.

Edited January 3, 2019 by unixknight

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Yeah obsessing over money - and who has it - is usually the engine that powers anti-capitalist sentiment.  Know what else I've noticed?  That stuff doesn't come from the poor, either.  Every single person I've known who hates capitalism is at least middle class and comfortable, benefitting from the fruits of a capitalist market.

Know who else rarely, if ever, complains about capitalism?  People who have emigrated from Communist or Socialist countries and know how good we have it.

100% correct. 

Capitalism is the only system that has actually allowed the masses to escape grinding, unending poverty. Yet people will never appreciate it. Capitalism reminds me of a woman who divorced her first husband to marry a doctor. When the doctor goes bankrupt, she realizes that what she had was special and she never appreciated it. 

Edited January 3, 2019 by MormonGator

[unixknight]

9 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

100% correct. 

Capitalism is the only system that has actually allowed the masses to escape grinding, unending poverty. Yet people will never appreciate it. Capitalism reminds me of a woman who divorced her first husband to marry a doctor. When the doctor goes bankrupt, she realizes that what she had was special and she never appreciated it. 

Hehe true.  And, to brig @Vort's thread back on topic, this is exactly why Capitalism is going to be what ultimately gets humanity out into space permanently.  In a capitalist society, there is the freedom and the wealth for some individuals (wealthy ones) to be able to pioneer ways into space.  (SpaceX, Virgin Galactic) In Communism or Socialism, everybody is (nominally) equal, which means NOBODY has the resources to do it except the government itself.  The only way such an economy gets in to space is when it's politically expedient, subject to the discretion of the leaders.  

50 years ago, it was indeed a Government agency that sent Apollo 8 to orbit the Moon, but private industry is now picking up the mantle.

[Traveler]

For the record - I am rich.  Never in my life have I ever felt that I did not have enough money.  But when I returned home from being in the military (during Vietnam) and serving a mission - I could not adjust and at the suggestion of a mission companion I walked away from civilization into the wilderness (desert of central Utah) with nothing but the cloths on my back, a jacket, a rope and a knife - not sure when or if I would return.

My experience was unlike any other spiritual experience I have had before or since.  I survived for 40 days and nights without spending, earning or concerned about a single penny.  I was alone for over a week without seeing or talking to another mortal human person.  What did happen is that I was led by the spirit to a person lost in the wilderness - on the verge of dehydration and starvation.  If I had not found him he would have died but to save him required all my resources (water and food) that I had with me.  If I had had a million dollars it would not have many any difference.  I believed at the time that we would not survive because he was twice my weight and was so weak and sick that he could not walk.  I was also quite sure that if I left him to get help that he would perish.  It was a miracle that saved us both most likely because he offered the first prayer of his life.

The main principle that the spirit taught me by experience is that money is more of a distraction in life than a benefit.  If G-d is with you and guiding you - you do not need money and that you will accomplish much more with G-d and no money than you ever will with any amount of money without G-d.

I had hoped that someone would realize G-d is the currency of charity (the only true currency of charity) - but since no one followed my lead I will leave this issue and debate of this thread to foolish want and use of money.

 

The Traveler

[unixknight]

@Traveler,

  That sounds like a really awesome experience, and I'd sincerely be interested in hearing more about it.  That sounds like the sort of life changing experience that really helps a person's perspective and I respect you for that.

  That said, It's not obvious to me how that experience taught you all these broader lessons about money being a useless form of charity.  Just because money would have been useless in the experience you described doesn't mean it's useless generally, or that other people in need couldn't benefit from having access to it.  

I don't know if you were already wealthy at the time of the story you shared, but if you were then...  let's be honest, @Traveler, most of us middle class folks can't afford to just pack up and take a 40 day journey into the wilderness.  I wish I could take off for 40 days to do anything.  But I don't have the resources you have.  You say you're rich.  Well, I'm happy for ya.  (Honestly.)  But admit it:  You were able to save that person's life because your personal wealth enabled you to be there in the first place.

And if you weren't yet well off when this happened, well at least you were in a point in your life when you could get away without dropping your responsibilities and obligations.  That moment in life is fleeting and most of us aren't in it, so what else are we to do if we want to help but can't get away?  

Money is a tool.  It is neither inherently  good nor evil.  It can be used for good or for ill.  Don't let your personal hatred of it blind you to its nobler uses. 

[Traveler]

19 hours ago, unixknight said:

@Traveler,

  That sounds like a really awesome experience, and I'd sincerely be interested in hearing more about it.  That sounds like the sort of life changing experience that really helps a person's perspective and I respect you for that.

  That said, It's not obvious to me how that experience taught you all these broader lessons about money being a useless form of charity.  Just because money would have been useless in the experience you described doesn't mean it's useless generally, or that other people in need couldn't benefit from having access to it.  

I don't know if you were already wealthy at the time of the story you shared, but if you were then...  let's be honest, @Traveler, most of us middle class folks can't afford to just pack up and take a 40 day journey into the wilderness.  I wish I could take off for 40 days to do anything.  But I don't have the resources you have.  You say you're rich.  Well, I'm happy for ya.  (Honestly.)  But admit it:  You were able to save that person's life because your personal wealth enabled you to be there in the first place.

And if you weren't yet well off when this happened, well at least you were in a point in your life when you could get away without dropping your responsibilities and obligations.  That moment in life is fleeting and most of us aren't in it, so what else are we to do if we want to help but can't get away?  

Money is a tool.  It is neither inherently  good nor evil.  It can be used for good or for ill.  Don't let your personal hatred of it blind you to its nobler uses. 

Couple of points - When I returned from my mission I was not married and did not have any commitments.  I had spent nearly all my savings on my mission but my parents lived just a few blocks from BYU and I had a scholarship.   As I said - I was not adjusting well and I left in the middle of my school semester (which ended my scholarship).  I had counseled with my parents and then left.  I am leaving out a lot of details like I had attempted to extend my mission but had been denied and a close friend and fellow I baptized in the army was killed in Vietnam leaving behind a young wife and infant daughter.  

I should explain one other thing - perhaps my biggest struggle was (and is) with the obsession (in school and it seemed everywhere else) with money.  Everyone in school seem more fixated on money and students studying to someday make money rather than to learn.  Maybe I have never quite gotten over why people think money is so important.  Money motivates too many things and because people focus on money they think everything should revolve around it - from where they work, to where they live and who they make their friends and associations and even what they think is theirs.  

But there is something else - In economic terms there is a "propensity to spend" notion that defines how a individual will use money.  It is well defined that a propensity to spend will govern spending habits.  Especially in a opulent society as ours - it means that regardless of what someone makes a consistent % will go into savings and "charity".  Most people think they have needs that are not met - in essence that they do not have enough $$$$$.  This is a bad assumption - and I believe that if I can convince people that charity is service and we all have the same amount of time in a day - that everybody is capable of the same amount of service.  $$$$$ does not equal charity.  We all have time to give and any one that gives an hour gives the same as a widow's mite (or hour).

 

The Traveler

 

[unixknight]

@Traveler Sorry to hear about your friend.  😕 That really bites.

I agree that people get obsessed over money and the accumulation of it.  I also agree that people far too often put money ahead of every other priority.  And yes, I agree that if somebody who's massively well off just tosses a bunch of money at a charity (like Mr. Lucas) but it doesn't really mean much in terms of sacrifice, then the spiritual benefits are negligible.  (Like Mr. Lucas.  He still had $2B from that transaction plus whatever wealth he already had at that point.  It's true... he probably ain't missin' that $2B very much.)

So if the point you've been making is that in order for something to count as true charity then it has to include genuine sacrifice, which gains a spiritual benefit, then I see where you're coming from.  Maybe with that in mind I can restate my argument in a way that aligns with that better.  

I believe that money can be charity because some really do sacrifice in order to  give it.  If I'm a minimum wage guy and I barely have enough to pay my rent, cover my basic needs and have a crummy old TV,  then for me to donate the cash I could have used to buy more luxuries or upgrade my housing WOULD be making a legitimate sacrifice, and that has spiritual value.  I concede that Bill Gates giving a few million to a cause isn't much sacrifice for him, but I still see good in it for those who receive that benefit, even if Mr. Gates doesn't benefit spiritually.  Where's the line between sacrificing a nicer apartment vs. donating a bunch of money one wouldn't miss anyway?  Well, that's not in the realm of mortals to judge, IMHO.  

So if Bill Gates gives $100M to some hospital, yeah... he's probably not gonna miss it much, but I still praise the act, because regardless of his motive, somebody is gaining that benefit they wouldn't have otherwise.

Does that make sense?  I'm trying not to overstate it.

 

[Traveler]

3 hours ago, unixknight said:

@Traveler Sorry to hear about your friend.  😕 That really bites.

I agree that people get obsessed over money and the accumulation of it.  I also agree that people far too often put money ahead of every other priority.  And yes, I agree that if somebody who's massively well off just tosses a bunch of money at a charity (like Mr. Lucas) but it doesn't really mean much in terms of sacrifice, then the spiritual benefits are negligible.  (Like Mr. Lucas.  He still had $2B from that transaction plus whatever wealth he already had at that point.  It's true... he probably ain't missin' that $2B very much.)

So if the point you've been making is that in order for something to count as true charity then it has to include genuine sacrifice, which gains a spiritual benefit, then I see where you're coming from.  Maybe with that in mind I can restate my argument in a way that aligns with that better.  

I believe that money can be charity because some really do sacrifice in order to  give it.  If I'm a minimum wage guy and I barely have enough to pay my rent, cover my basic needs and have a crummy old TV,  then for me to donate the cash I could have used to buy more luxuries or upgrade my housing WOULD be making a legitimate sacrifice, and that has spiritual value.  I concede that Bill Gates giving a few million to a cause isn't much sacrifice for him, but I still see good in it for those who receive that benefit, even if Mr. Gates doesn't benefit spiritually.  Where's the line between sacrificing a nicer apartment vs. donating a bunch of money one wouldn't miss anyway?  Well, that's not in the realm of mortals to judge, IMHO.  

So if Bill Gates gives $100M to some hospital, yeah... he's probably not gonna miss it much, but I still praise the act, because regardless of his motive, somebody is gaining that benefit they wouldn't have otherwise.

Does that make sense?  I'm trying not to overstate it.

 

Let me try something - many years ago when I lived in Maryland I would go to the Church welfare farm on the Eastern Shore.  The welfare farm was a dairy farm.  One time I was wearing rubber boots and was about 8 inches deep in cow s--t cleaning it out of a barn.  There were two other guys working with me - one was in his military class C's (hold over from WWII and Korean  War - it is working or deployment).  But he had a star on his shoulder (meaning he was a brigadier general) - the other guy was a US senator.  We spent our Saturday cleaning out the barn.  It was such a crappy job that I threw up.  I do not believe I have ever had a worse job.  I believe that is donating to Charity.  Cleaning toilets at a homeless shelter also counts.

I do not care how much money some yo yo gives - if they are not willing to crap jobs - I do not believe it is charity.  I also do not believe that folks the have their nanny change the diapers on their biological kids should be called mom or dad.  I truly believe if we knew Jesus - we would know that he was not the kind of guy that gave money to charity and proudly proclaimed he had accomplished charity.  Rather, he was willing to go where no respectable person with money would go and actually do service.  You think my thoughts about money are harsh - you ought to hear what he had to say.

My father was very wealthy.  He always paid cash.  He could have purchased any house in town or driven any car he wanted.  He never purchased a "new" car when he was raising his boys.  We lived in a small lower middle class neighborhood and our family had one junker car.  Every Saturday we (my father and brothers) were the first to arrive at the welfare farm and the last to leave.  To me - rich is when you spend money on things you cannot or will not take care of yourself so you are not thankful for it.  Wealth is when you learn that you have more than you need but not so much that you won't or can't take good care of yourself.

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

On 1/1/2019 at 10:22 PM, Scott said:

If that were true there would be no vacuums since it's impossible to actually reach absolute zero (see the third law of thermodynamics), at least in the physical universe.  The coldest temperature that can be reached naturally in the physical universe is 2.7K due to background radiation.  Only artificial experiments can produce temperatures below 2.7K.  Still, 2.7K is very cold, but that's not the temperature of space around the moon.  The temperature of space around the Moon and Earth is well above absolute zero.  Several types of wine would not freeze or vaporize instantaneously.  

You're not addressing the vacuum effect.  It doesn't need to be a "perfect" vacuum.  We replicate this phenomenon in high school labs.  We have a vacuum chamber with a beaker full of various liquids.  We prende the pump until the pressure drops to below the vapor line.  As high energy molecules leave, it absorbs the heat of vaporization from the fluid.  Eventually the fluid freezes.

Why is this even an argument?

[unixknight]

On ‎1‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 5:42 PM, Traveler said:

I do not care how much money some yo yo gives - if they are not willing to crap jobs - I do not believe it is charity. 

From Sunday's lesson:

Matthew 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

What's your take on this?  Sounds like the Lord finds monetary donations to be worthy to me.

[unixknight]

On ‎1‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 9:50 AM, Carborendum said:

You're not addressing the vacuum effect.  It doesn't need to be a "perfect" vacuum.  We replicate this phenomenon in high school labs.  We have a vacuum chamber with a beaker full of various liquids.  We prende the pump until the pressure drops to below the vapor line.  As high energy molecules leave, it absorbs the heat of vaporization from the fluid.  Eventually the fluid freezes.

Why is this even an argument?

I've been wondering that  myself since, as I mentioned, space isn't cold.  A vacuum cannot have a temperature, by definition.