SecondRateMind

Joined

• started 2 topics
• posted 84 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by SecondRateMind

• 
  226

  Wealth, Poverty, and Morality

  by SecondRateMind in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SecondRateMind

  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?

  
  IT TAKES AWAY INCENTIVE and incentive is the key.

  I think many in public service would be thoroughly insulted by your assumption that the only incentive that matters is a selfish, financial one. On the contrary, such as soldiers, nurses and politicians develop their careers, say from sergeant to colour sergeant, or nurse to specialist nurse, or back-bench MP to junior minister, out of a sense of vocation. Given their skills and aptitudes, experience and contacts, there is no doubt that all these types could take home a bigger pay-packet each month in the private sector. Yet they stay. How do you account for that, in the tawdry, self-centred, money-grubbing little world you propose?

  You say that capitalism works. I agree that it works reasonably well for some. And for a few it works extremely well indeed. But it does not work at all for those in vulnerable penury, who are liable to die from entirely preventable starvation and hunger related disease. And we should not leave them out of the calculus, when congratulating ourselves on how well the system works, just because they do not have the currency to express economic demand.

  Best wishes, 2RM.
• 
  226

  Wealth, Poverty, and Morality

  by SecondRateMind in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SecondRateMind

  Well, guys and gals, it seems I have set the proverbial cat amongst the fictional pigeons. And I am not at all dissatisfied with that result. But, it's now getting on for my bed time. So, I bid you all good night, and look forward to picking up this discussion again, tomorrow.

  Sleep well, and sweet dreams. 2RM.
• 
  226

  Wealth, Poverty, and Morality

  by SecondRateMind in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SecondRateMind

  A nonsensical and nonfactual statement, there are some very moral people with money, in generosity and giving as well retain moral social responsibility.

  Yes. But the thesis of the thread is; if the financially rich were really moral, they wouldn't be materially rich, because they would have already succoured the poor to the limit of their capacity. This is not nonsense, but a simple, direct, comprehensible statement of a moral position. However, it is, of course, non factual, insofar as any moral statement is a matter of opinion, rather than a matter of fact. Unless, that is, one believes one's own moral understanding to be equivalent and identical to that ideal morality sometimes called 'God's Will'.

  Best wishes, 2RM.
  
• 
  226

  Wealth, Poverty, and Morality

  by SecondRateMind in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SecondRateMind

  Not only have I not read Hart, but also I do not propose to judge individuals. What I do think I can reasonably do, however, is suggest an equitable distribution of the world's wealth, spell out approximately what that entails, and leave others, thus informed, to make their own decisions in respect of the deployment of their own souls.

  As for reality; why, people may, or may not, agree with me. I recognise that. But I am not the type who thinks controversy necessarily a bad thing. On the contrary, if it causes people to stop a while, and consider, and try to justify their attitudes to themselves, I think it a good thing.

  Best wishes, 2RM.
• 
  226

  Wealth, Poverty, and Morality

  by SecondRateMind in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SecondRateMind

  Furthermore, some people in the poverty level income live well within their means, and so many others in between the poor-rich spectrum. Not having all the means doesn't mean impossible to live and/or strive.

  Uh huh. This is similar to Dickens' Micawber recipe for happiness: "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."
  

  On the face of it, it is hard to fault. Until one realises that there is a necessary subsistence level of expenditure, that one must spend, to sustain one's own life and that of one's family. Spend less than this, because one has less than this, and one is not just not happy, not just miserable, but outright condemned by an unkind, uncaring world.

  Best wishes, 2RM.
• 
  226

  Wealth, Poverty, and Morality

  by SecondRateMind in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SecondRateMind

  If you make it, it's yours to decide what to do with.

  Indeed it is. But while there is hunger, and malnourishment, and death from starvation, in the world, it will remain a ethical issue for all us moral agents to take a position on. It just is our business, if we wish to think of ourselves as responsible people. In the end, we can meekly accept the world as it is, or join the battle of good against evil, and try to make of our lives something of which we can be proud.

  Best wishes, 2RM.
• 
  226

  Wealth, Poverty, and Morality

  by SecondRateMind in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SecondRateMind

  Nothing is stopping anyone right now from giving whatever they want.

  Indeed not. But there is, in the world, an acceptance, even a sycophantic approval, of people hogging more than their fair share of wealth. Some of these greedy individuals even consider themselves Christian. I think we need to turn this attitude around.

  Best wishes, 2RM.
• 
  226

  Wealth, Poverty, and Morality

  by SecondRateMind in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SecondRateMind

  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
• 
  226

  Wealth, Poverty, and Morality

  by SecondRateMind in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SecondRateMind

  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
• 
  226

  Wealth, Poverty, and Morality

  by SecondRateMind in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SecondRateMind

  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