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.
Many, many problems still to be overcome.
Indeed so, Xanthippe. I do not deny that. Nor do I pretend I have all the solutions. However, I am trying to present a moral overview of the state of the world, from which strategies and tactics may be derived and developed. And I think this might even be a somewhat useful contribution to make.
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.
Why, thank you. There are a number of microfinance charities operating this kind of scheme in the UK. I use a local organisation called Deki.
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.
War - imagine if every hate filled religious lunatic world wide had $33,000 to pool into cult, hatred, jihad, proselytizing, - power is the currency here not money.
Overpopulation - we are on the brink of extinction right now because we already consume more than the world can supply - $33,000 of "security" could lead to more reproduction, not less...
Environmental destruction - is $33,000 given to a consumer society likely to go to even more consumerism/profit at the expense of the natural world..
Good points.
In response:
War. If all the world's money were to be equitably distributed, then a lot of the economic causes of conflict would evaporate instantly. Inequality is often the recruiting sergeant for terrorist organisations.
Overpopulation. In the developed world, the birth rate is roughly around the replacement rate. The population is not growing, because women are educated and in control of their fertility and do not need to breed excessively to be sure of a few survivors to keep them in their old age.
Environmental Destruction. Much of this is caused by the poor, because they have no choice. They have to take bad short-termist environmental decisions because they are better than just not surviving. Again, in the developed world, we have the wealth to afford a more enlightened, long term perspective, and look after the environment so that it continues to look after us.
Thank you for your compliment.
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.
2RM, everyone l know would rather have a way to make a living. Neither man nor woman wants a handout. We need a living. Why can’t THAT happen?
I think this is entirely correct. People generally do want an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. But my contention is that the reason they often don't get it is largely because the rich have claimed a prior right to the money, which they are unwilling to relinquish, even when the consequences may be fatal for the poor.
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'm just trying to figure out how 2RM justifies time spent online when he should be spending that time making money to send to the poor. That internet connection and web capable device must cost too. Seems like they're pretty rich compared to some. Even the poor in developed nations are in the top percentage of wealth comparatively. Put your money up and start being equitable. Take the lead.
I do not generally respond to ad hominem aspersions. They are logical fallacies that do not merit a reply. I could be the worst hypocrite in the world, as you imply, and still what I say could be true and moral.
But in this instance I will break my rule, and explain my circumstances. I live happily and contentedly within the financial constraints I proposed in the OP. And I still find a little money every so often to lend to budding entrepreneurs in the poorer parts of Africa. Sometimes this money is repaid, sometimes it isn't. When it is, I re-lend it to someone else. In this way, even what little I can afford stretches a long way, and helps a number of people help themselves. I realise such virtue might make you all want to puke, but there it is.
As for being online; well, if I can achieve a little by myself, together we could all achieve a whole lot more. But first the awareness must be raised, and the arguments won. And that is what I am doing here, on this thread.
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.
When I was active in the JW religion there was an attitude among the have-nots (who chose NOT to work), that the “haves” somehow owed them something. If you were affluent and didn’t throw money around to the deadbeats like it was confetti - you were considered “selfish”. Lots of envy along with laziness there!
You touch on what is known as the free-rider problem. The analogy is made with a train fare dodger, who does not pay his fair share towards the running of the service, because he can get away with it. I admit this to be a genuine issue. I can only suggest that when such a free-rider is identified, there should be a gradual, progressive, withdrawal of privileges until such time as he gets the message and starts to make a proper contribution.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
