@SRM:
No, we all starve. You are going to have the same problem as the socialists - your economy will not be able to calculate resource usage. Nothing good will come of it.
And don’t mischaracterize me. Charity is perfectly moral.
MeanMrMustard
JoinedPosts by MeanMrMustard
-
226
Wealth, Poverty, and Morality
by SecondRateMind ini am interested in the approach this forum takes to money.
apart from sex, (which i am quite relaxed about) it seems to me that wealth is the surest divider between those who are moral, and those who are not.. it seems jesus thought so, also.
luke 16:19-31 kjv describes well enough his dusty attitude to the rich who do not succour the poor.. and this world has many poor: so many, it might seem that we can do nothing about it, and twist his words; 'the poor ye shall have always with you, but me, ye shall not have always.
-
-
-
226
Wealth, Poverty, and Morality
by SecondRateMind ini am interested in the approach this forum takes to money.
apart from sex, (which i am quite relaxed about) it seems to me that wealth is the surest divider between those who are moral, and those who are not.. it seems jesus thought so, also.
luke 16:19-31 kjv describes well enough his dusty attitude to the rich who do not succour the poor.. and this world has many poor: so many, it might seem that we can do nothing about it, and twist his words; 'the poor ye shall have always with you, but me, ye shall not have always.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Then we have no common ground. If you would rather see people starve, than for the rich to become less rich, I have to wonder what your criteria far morality actually are.
No SRM,
Read it again. If we eliminate capital investment, we starve. I am saying that your position will result in starvation. Free market capitalism is moral and results in actual prosperity. Your system would result in death. Why do you feel you hold the moral high ground?
-
226
Wealth, Poverty, and Morality
by SecondRateMind ini am interested in the approach this forum takes to money.
apart from sex, (which i am quite relaxed about) it seems to me that wealth is the surest divider between those who are moral, and those who are not.. it seems jesus thought so, also.
luke 16:19-31 kjv describes well enough his dusty attitude to the rich who do not succour the poor.. and this world has many poor: so many, it might seem that we can do nothing about it, and twist his words; 'the poor ye shall have always with you, but me, ye shall not have always.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Interesting. Let's turn this question around. Do you think that if someone has a large amount of money, and decides not to use it to rescue our poorer brethren from starvation, they can consider themselves moral?
Yes, they are perfectly moral.
Now, if you please, will you answer my questions?
As I recall, I referred to a massive charitable exercise on behalf of the rich, to succour the poor. By which, at the time, I meant by the rich, for the poor. But, I also think that a voluntary devestment of the assets of the rich would not do them any spiritual harm, and might even, come judgment day, do them some favours.
And we are back talking about capital investment. If the rich divest themselves of capital, and instead of putting it toward productive measures, gives it away for consumption only, then they are dooming our economy completely. Do you feel the rich would incur spiritual harm by causing millions more to starve?
-
226
Wealth, Poverty, and Morality
by SecondRateMind ini am interested in the approach this forum takes to money.
apart from sex, (which i am quite relaxed about) it seems to me that wealth is the surest divider between those who are moral, and those who are not.. it seems jesus thought so, also.
luke 16:19-31 kjv describes well enough his dusty attitude to the rich who do not succour the poor.. and this world has many poor: so many, it might seem that we can do nothing about it, and twist his words; 'the poor ye shall have always with you, but me, ye shall not have always.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
@SRM:
Right, and you also said the redistribution would be “on behalf of” the rich. The seemingly contradictory statements need clairification.
Assuming we are past this, what is immoral (since this thread is about morality) about someone being rich? Also, if someone has a large amount of money, do you view that person as immoral if he/she refuses to divide it equally among the world’s population?
-
226
Wealth, Poverty, and Morality
by SecondRateMind ini am interested in the approach this forum takes to money.
apart from sex, (which i am quite relaxed about) it seems to me that wealth is the surest divider between those who are moral, and those who are not.. it seems jesus thought so, also.
luke 16:19-31 kjv describes well enough his dusty attitude to the rich who do not succour the poor.. and this world has many poor: so many, it might seem that we can do nothing about it, and twist his words; 'the poor ye shall have always with you, but me, ye shall not have always.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
@SRM: Just to be clear - you are backing off of this original position:
Let us take all the world's wealth, and divide it equitably amongst all the world's people. And let us take all the world's annual production, and divide it equitably amongst all the world's people.
“On behalf of” rich people...
-
226
Wealth, Poverty, and Morality
by SecondRateMind ini am interested in the approach this forum takes to money.
apart from sex, (which i am quite relaxed about) it seems to me that wealth is the surest divider between those who are moral, and those who are not.. it seems jesus thought so, also.
luke 16:19-31 kjv describes well enough his dusty attitude to the rich who do not succour the poor.. and this world has many poor: so many, it might seem that we can do nothing about it, and twist his words; 'the poor ye shall have always with you, but me, ye shall not have always.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
@SRM:
Glad to hear your father is OK.
However, you are still not stating your position very well. If you are speaking of charity, then fine. This is no difference than our current situation, in which charity can be given freely by anyone. Although you could do well to encourage charity by getting the government out of the charity business.
But if your “charity” is taking the money of the rich, then it is theft, and you are back to our original problem.
-
16
I got my first teaching job!
by paradiseseeker inin case you haven't read me, i am a spanish pimo who is preparing himself to become an english teacher.
well, i just wanted to share with you that i've been called to work in a high school and my first week of work has been amazing!
this job is not permanent, it will end in july, but finally i got rid of many doubts about my adequacy for this job: i love it!
-
-
-
25
Can You Make Sense Of Jehovah’s Witnesses?
by minimus inas a child growing up, i would see different arguments to defend a certain belief.
it may have required mental gymnastics in order to make a point but there was an actual attempt to explain, teach, and educate....even if the belief or teaching was bogus.. nowadays, it appears that jws couldn’t explain any belief.
they are drones and do as “mother “ has directed..
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Fred Franz was one of the masters, coming up with all sorts of strange and complicated rationalizations. But the GB were, at least, attempting some rationalization. Once he died, the art started to fade.
-
226
Wealth, Poverty, and Morality
by SecondRateMind ini am interested in the approach this forum takes to money.
apart from sex, (which i am quite relaxed about) it seems to me that wealth is the surest divider between those who are moral, and those who are not.. it seems jesus thought so, also.
luke 16:19-31 kjv describes well enough his dusty attitude to the rich who do not succour the poor.. and this world has many poor: so many, it might seem that we can do nothing about it, and twist his words; 'the poor ye shall have always with you, but me, ye shall not have always.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Wow. A few weeks. Well, looks like there is another “ridicule-trump-and-his-supporters” thread. So, there’s that...
-
226
Wealth, Poverty, and Morality
by SecondRateMind ini am interested in the approach this forum takes to money.
apart from sex, (which i am quite relaxed about) it seems to me that wealth is the surest divider between those who are moral, and those who are not.. it seems jesus thought so, also.
luke 16:19-31 kjv describes well enough his dusty attitude to the rich who do not succour the poor.. and this world has many poor: so many, it might seem that we can do nothing about it, and twist his words; 'the poor ye shall have always with you, but me, ye shall not have always.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
@SRM. You wrote:
Hmmm. MeanMrMustard, I presume you mean 'Thou shalt not steal' (the 8th) and 'Thou shalt not covet...' (the 10th)
Yes. Lovely how they are numbered differently depending on where you look. Let me re-introduce the question in a different way: Do you feel the 10 commandments, especially the ones surrounding theft and covetousness are a good standard for morality? If one were to violate these commandments, would we have a good foundation for claiming the actions of such an individual are "immoral"?
So, a) I am not proposing anyone steals anything. Only a massive charitable effort, on behalf of the rich, to succour the poor. I do not see how that might be construed as 'stealing'.
These are incredible weasel-words. This is a "charitable effort" ... "on behalf of" the rich? On behalf of ... That sounds a lot like an explicit contradiction, SRM. You can't do this "on behalf of" the rich without taking it from them. And it can't be charitable unless it is voluntary. This is exactly the reason why taxes are theft. What moral difference is there between these two situations:
1) Pull a gun, put it in your face, take your money, pocket your money, run away.
2) Pull a gun, put it in your face, take your money, pocket your money, give it to the guy next to me, take a cut (for the service/theft I provide), run away.
In both cases, it is theft. Your proposal is hovering around #2, and this brings us back whether you think the commandment against theft is morally binding.
and b) I am not proposing that anyone covets anything. Only that those who have more wealth than they need, donate it, directly or indirectly, to those who have less wealth than they need.
Right. Let's say I am worth $25 billion. And I say to your proposal: "No". What say you?
Nevertheless, they are the theoretical underpinning of what economists call 'a free market'.
No way. You are reading the wrong economists. I can tell by what you say next....
So, I infer that you don't actually want a free market, at all. Just a whole load of oligopolies and monopolies, (which is what suppliers of non-identical commodities are) that will inevitably exploit their market leverage to extract wealth from the poor to deposit with the wealthy.
Yes, some main stream economists do this. Some of them claim that they know its absurd, and just use for modeling. Other take it much further, as you are doing. "Look monopolies everywhere! The free market is flawed. Regulate!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g7vkb_f89s
A free market, characterized by voluntary transactions, stable money, and private property rights works because of these things, not in spite of them.
This is to misunderstand my position, as I hope the two posts above will help demonstrate. Nothing I propose will wipe out capital, just distribute it more equitably.
Not capital. The investment of capital. If you move it around, you move the investment of such around. Upon doing so, you undermine the reason why it was placed in that investment position. You've wiped out the capital investment.
Nothing I propose involves arbitrary calculations, just a whole load of people helping out a whole load of other people. Nothing I propose will destroy motivation, unless you are so crass as to suppose that the only motivation that matters is selfish, personal, financial gain.
Ok, before we can go forward with talking about this, you need to clarify the above posts.