Wealth, Poverty, and Morality (page 8)

cofty

my thought when reading the Bible, is that the prophet's families shunned and left them for going against their beliefs at the time, not the other way around with the prophets wishing to abandon their own families. - NonJWSpouse

No this is to read back into the NT something that isn't there.

Peter for example literally walked out on his wife and children in order to FOLLOW Jesus. His promise to them was that nobody would give up wives or families or fields or anything esle who would not get a thousand fold when he arrived in his kingdom.

He was a dangerous wrecker of families and a false prophet.

Xtians were not thrown out of the synagogues until after his death.

Sanchy

Well, I meant in terms of the actual logistics of such a redistribution.

For instance, how do you redistribute real estate property equally? Do houses bigger than what can be afforded by a $16k salary get demolished so that everyone live in an equally sized living unit?

What about other material possessions such as electronics. Is it fair that some have an iPhone X while others have only a flip phone?

Splash

2RM Sanchy, when you have the time and inclination to scan in more depth, you will find ...

In case no-one has pointed it out to you, your superior, patronising tone is on par with the WT. You may be impressing yourself but noone here is impressed by it.

2RM I commend that this redistribution to occur voluntarily and charitably, according to the promptings of each individual's conscience, and with the encouragement of society in general.

Doesn't this already happen? What's different about your "commendation" compared to people already giving voluntarily according to the promptings of each individual's conscience?

SecondRateMind

In case no-one has pointed it out to you, your superior, patronising tone is on par with the WT. You may be impressing yourself but noone here is impressed by it.

Splash, I am not here to be nice. Just to save the world.

I am particularly not here to repeat myself to those have have not read, or have not understood, what I have expressed in perfectly clear, plain English. That would not move the conversation forward, and risk boring those who have read, and have understood.

Doesn't this already happen? What's different about your "commendation" compared to people already giving voluntarily according to the promptings of each individual's conscience?

Indeed it does. But obviously not to a sufficient extent, or we would not have 2 billion absolutely poor, of whom 36 million a year die of preventable starvation, and countless others from other poverty related aspects of want. So, I have specified what an equitable distribution of wealth would be, in the OP, for everybody's ease of reference.

Best wishes, 2RM.

SecondRateMind

Well, I meant in terms of the actual logistics of such a redistribution.
For instance, how do you redistribute real estate property equally? Do houses bigger than what can be afforded by a $16k salary get demolished so that everyone live in an equally sized living unit?
What about other material possessions such as electronics. Is it fair that some have an iPhone X while others have only a flip phone?

It's voluntary, Sanchy. Everyone makes their own decisions on how to deploy their excess of wealth, and how to deploy the equitable allowance of wealth they are morally entitled to keep, according to their own circumstances and priorities.

Best wishes, 2RM.

SecondRateMind

This whole "1%" vs "99%" is nothing more than a tiresome attempt to divide people and it fails miserably. To make wealth you have to work. The greater the wealth, the more work.

truth-b-known, this is a fairy story, like santa claus. Fact is, the poor tend to work longer hours, in adverse conditions, for subsistence reward or less, with more inconvenience, than the rich, many of whom do not actually work at all, and when they do, occasionally and for a few hours, in air conditioned offices, furnished with antiques and ridiculously expensive artworks, and never even raise a sweat. I am not attempting to divide the rich from the poor; they do that perfectly effectively by themselves.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Splash

2RM I am not here to be nice. Just to save the world.

Sounds like you have a mental illness. Moving on...

2RM But obviously not to a sufficient extent, or we would not have 2 billion absolutely poor, of whom 36 million a year die of preventable starvation, and countless others from other poverty related aspects of want. So, I have specified what an equitable distribution of wealth would be, in the OP, for everybody's ease of reference.

You must have comprehension difficulties if you think your answer was related to the question, so let me repeat something for you, and I will try to simplify it to match your thinking ability.

If you wish for something which is already voluntary to be (more??) voluntary, or if you want people who can already choose to do something, to choose, if you want people to decide for themselves when they are already deciding for themselves, in this case I have the unfortunate task of telling you that your plan to "save the world" may just be the simplistic reasoning of a deluded mind due to an obvious (to most) flaw in your ground breaking master plan.

Just because you don't like the informed and calculated decisions some people take regarding their own personal financial affairs, it does not mean your simplistic opinion is better. Maybe, perish the thought, it's much, much worse and the consequences of your fantasy dreaming would be quite the opposite of what you wish for.

Youdon't get to keep asking people to choose to do something voluntarily until they do it your way. They've chosen. Your grand scheme is nonsense. Deal with it.

Take care, Splash

SecondRateMind

Splash, you are long on bluster and short on logic.

To the best of my knowledge, no one on this thread, or even this forum, has proposed an alternative to resolve the scandalous state of the poor, the marginal, the vulnerable and the dispossessed of the world. So, I have set down a first approximation. You may not like it, but that does not mean it to be nonsense. Often the moral is unpopular; generally, people prefer to be comfortable and complacent than face inconvenient truths.

You take care, too.

Best wishes, 2RM.

hoser

There are more obese people in the world than starving people.

SecondRateMind

There are more obese people in the world than starving people.

Then the solution is obvious. The starving people should be given the obese people to eat. That would solve both problems in one go...

But more seriously, in the developed world, it is often the poorer people who are obese, because they can only afford rubbish, junk food, and unhealthy lifestyles.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Wealth, Poverty, and Morality

Share this