BUT in a healthy economic society there MUST BE inequality.
Uh huh. Why, exactly? Why is it better that 1 person owns a million $ of shares, than a thousand people each own a thousand $ of shares?
Best wishes, 2RM
i 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.
BUT in a healthy economic society there MUST BE inequality.
Uh huh. Why, exactly? Why is it better that 1 person owns a million $ of shares, than a thousand people each own a thousand $ of shares?
Best wishes, 2RM
i 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.
How is it just, fair, and equitable to take what one person earned and give it to another? Reaping and sowing is also a Biblical principle, no?
Uh huh. Where did I say that I wanted to take from some and give to others? Charity is also a Biblical principle, and this is what I advocate. Just on a massive scale. The advantage of charity is that each individual, charitably distributing their own excess of wealth, will want maximum 'bang for their buck', and be very careful about where, and to who, it goes.
Best wishes, 2RM
i 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.
Thank you Alex, for your considered response. In reverse order:
4) Of course we love freedom. There is nothing in my proposal that prevents freedom. I just think free people should freely succour those less fortunate, or they are not, actually, free, but slaves to their wealth.
3) How much to artists and scientists? The same. My proposal should be clear enough, on that.
2) No, we don't need to move people around. Just subsidise them, such that they are in a position to enhance their productivity, and thereby improve the lot of the whole of humanity.
1) I think laziness is a danger overstated by the ideologically driven right-wing of politics. In my experience, most people want to improve their lot, and that of everyone else, but are frustrated by a lack of monies that allow them to invest in themselves and their families and so raise overall standards of living. Doing nothing is, at the end of all considerations, a very boring method of passing one's life away. Mostly, people want to feel they are contributing. Furthermore, I am not suggesting that the world's annual production should be given away for nothing, but that everyone should qualify for an equitable distribution of the world's production, whether they are the CEO of a fortune 500 corporation, or a subsistence millet farmer in sub-Saharan Africa.
Best wishes, 2RM
i 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.
Likely most who have less that $33K of net worth will think this not a bad idea.
I think this is how socialism works.
I think what you Americans call socialism, which is what we Brits call communism, is based on the state ownership of all means of production, political coercion, and the compulsion of it's citizenry. That is quite different to my proposal. Citizenship in kingdom of heaven on earth has always been, and must always remain, an entirely voluntary affair.
Best wishes, 2RM
i 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.
I 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.' to excuse our individual and collective failure to right this wrong.
There are two billion people who are absolutely poor, according the the UN. So poor, they cannot provide food and clean water, secure shelter, sanitation, and primary healthcare and education for their families. They live on the equivalent of less than $1.25 per day. Less than the cost of a starbucks coffee, for all their daily needs.
Meanwhile, the richest 1% of the world own as much as the remaining 99% put together. And, according to Oxfam, last year the rich got even richer, while the poor did not.
I propose a simple, just, fair, equitable solution.
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.
That would allow us each a net worth of some $33,000, and an income per year of some $16,000. Multiply by four, for the the combined allowance of the conventional nuclear family. That is quite sufficient for all of us to live a modest, environmentally sustainable, reasonably dignified way of life.
And let us do this voluntarily, because we think it good and right and just. And, for those of the rich who cannot bring themselves to part with their money, let us pity them the fate that Jesus warned of in the parable of Lazarus, and try to save them from the consequences of their avarice.
Best wishes, 2RM
...which was kind of her.
i find i like most christians, even mormons, and jw's.. she sent me a leaflet, which asks: where can we find the answers to life's big questions?
science?
Really enjoyed your post - both intelligent and humorous "...believing six impossible things before breakfast." yuk yuk
Why, thank you.
History does not, of course, record whether the Rev Dodgson, fortified by his breakfast, went on to believe more, or fewer, impossible things over the course of the rest of the day.
Best wishes, 2RM
...which was kind of her.
i find i like most christians, even mormons, and jw's.. she sent me a leaflet, which asks: where can we find the answers to life's big questions?
science?
[2]RM - It's got nothing to do with your attitude or expectations the woman is in a cult and she was expected by her cult leaders to recruit.
Well, maybe so. Or maybe she genuinely believes that my soul is in mortal danger, and she is morally bound to seek my rescue, and prevent my damnation and torture for all eternity. If this is the case, I cannot find her motivation at fault, only her bleak conception of a God who actually forgives, redeems and loves us all, and whose overriding purpose is the best interests of all His children.
Best wishes, 2RM.
...which was kind of her.
i find i like most christians, even mormons, and jw's.. she sent me a leaflet, which asks: where can we find the answers to life's big questions?
science?
Life itself as a condition has no purpose, it is simply a product of the laws of physics.
That is, of course, a faith position. The fact that you personally cannot ascertain a purpose to life, and find meaning in it, does not necessarily mean that there is no such purpose, no such meaning.
Best wishes, 2RM
...which was kind of her.
i find i like most christians, even mormons, and jw's.. she sent me a leaflet, which asks: where can we find the answers to life's big questions?
science?
FYI - The person who sent you the leaflet wasn't being kind she was doing what she has been trained to do,
I find that whether one thinks the best of people, or the worst of people, either way, they do not disappoint. That is somewhat to do with my expectations, and somewhat to do with their reaction to my expectations. I cannot, therefore, say that it is either right or wrong to find virtue in others wheresoever I can, only that this attitude makes it easier for me to love them, be they friend or enemy, as Jesus informed us we should.
Best wishes, 2RM.
...which was kind of her.
i find i like most christians, even mormons, and jw's.. she sent me a leaflet, which asks: where can we find the answers to life's big questions?
science?
Why, thank you all, for your endorsements. Xanthippe, I sense a meeting of minds. If you have not already read it, I can commend this book, which does not define answers to life's big questions, but does at least provide something of a conceptual map to help in navigating them, in an accessible, readable, entertaining manner.
Best wishes, 2RM.