Wealth, Poverty, and Morality (page 16)

SecondRateMind

Cofty, I'm afraid, if you have to resort to personal abuse, then this tangent to the discussion has no further to go because you have nothing further of interest to contribute.

Best wishes, 2RM.

sparky1

"I just think we should help them out, right up to the point where we would become equally disadvantaged, if we gave any more." - SecondRateMind

No one is stopping you from taking your own advice. But your hubris in suggesting that others should do your bidding is sanctimonious claptrap.

So you are offended by me calling you a sick bastard but it's okay for you condemn everybody who disagrees with you to eternal torment - all the while you hide behind a facade of phony politeness? Nobody should tolerate arrogant people like you threatening them with eternal torment. What could possibly be more offensive?

Typical obnoxious evangelical xtian behaviour.

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.

SecondRateMind

Guy and gals, I'm so sorry. I've just had an emergency call from my aged parent, who has had a fall. It seems I shall need to be away for a few days, maybe a few weeks. Whatever, it's been fascinating discussing with you all, even if you generally seem to thoroughly disagree with everything I say.

Best wishes, and take care, everyone. 2RM.

cofty

You thought you would parade your virtue on a religious discussion forum. Turns out there were people here who challenged your politics, your economics and your theology and you were unprepared to defend any of it.

If you come back try showing a bit more humility.

_Morpheus

Lol and now the troll runs away. Cant say im sorry.

MeanMrMustard

Wow. A few weeks. Well, looks like there is another “ridicule-trump-and-his-supporters” thread. So, there’s that...

SecondRateMind

Well, thank you all for your best wishes concerning my father's health. No doubt you will be pleased to learn that he was not badly hurt, just, perhaps, a little shaken. Anyway, I'm back now.

And perhaps it was a timely interruption, anyway. The thread was becoming a little, shall we say, overheated?

So, I have had a little time to regain perspective. Perhaps you all have, also.

My central contention is, of course, that the rich, by saving the poor in this life, save themselves in the next. Clearly, if one does not believe in the next life, then this is a position that will not persuade. And even if one does believe in the next life, then there is a further necessary qualification. One also has to love the world, and love the people in it. If one does so love, no sacrifice is too great. If one doesn't, no sacrifice makes any kind of sense.

Best wishes, 2RM.

LongHairGal

SECOND RATE MIND:

Knock YOURSELF out slaving for the poor. That is, if YOU are sincerely honest about helping the poor...I mean, if you are telling everybody else they should be.

I wonder though if you just learned to covet while being in the JW religion and imagine that taking from “affluent” (like a Robin Hood) was a good idea.

Did you ever read the book Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand? Try it sometime instead of the religious garbage. There is a character named John Galt that I relate to who dropped out of society rather than work to support the lazy and the worthless.

Giving charity is designed to get people on their feet, not working like a slave to support THEM. I’d just as soon burn my money rather than give it to them.

This will be my last post on this topic. Have a nice life slaving for the poor.

Wealth, Poverty, and Morality

Share this