Is it bad to be rich?

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

I don’t have a problem with people who collect them as ‘things’.  Or even target shooting if kept very safe. That is just a hobby. Many hobbies are dangerous, including several I would be doing if my health and head cooperated, but I doubt I can handle heights these days.

Oh, gosh yes, dangerous hobbies! Two of the items in my bucket list were to jump out of an airplane using a parachute, and to fly either an ultralight or hang glider. So when I got to the point where I might actually try either of them, my back was in too bad shape to be doing stuff like that. 

The first time I saw a video taken by someone flying a wing suit, too -- oh man, that looked like a real thrill! Here's a crazy guy flying through a 2 meter wide hole in a rock wall:

8 hours ago, Calm said:

 My problem is when they foresee a need to use large amounts of guns (as in more than one hand gun and one rifle for each adult) for defense or offense now or in the future, talk about arming themselves. 

I'm not so sure that foreseeing a societal breakdown and preparing for it is problematic. I know that "preppers" are generally looked upon as having more than one screw loose, but if one is a believer in scripture, both the Bible (Revelation) and Doctrine and Covenants (section 45) seem to say that there will (not may, will) come a time when things will be in great commotion. D&C 45 has some scary passages. Some of which may refer to the US Civil War, and some of which suggest a more generalized or widespread violence:

33 And there shall be earthquakes also in divers places, and many desolations; yet men will harden their hearts against me, and they will take up the sword, one against another, and they will kill one another.

63 Ye hear of wars in foreign lands; but, behold, I say unto you, they are nigh, even at your doors, and not many years hence ye shall hear of wars in your own lands.

This was given in 1831, so definitely the Civil War, but then there is this, speaking of the New Jerusalem: 

67 And the glory of the Lord shall be there, and the terror of the Lord also shall be there, insomuch that the wicked will not come unto it, and it shall be called Zion.
68 And it shall come to pass among the wicked, that every man that will not take his sword against his neighbor must needs flee unto Zion for safety.
69 And there shall be gathered unto it out of every nation under heaven; and it shall be the only people that shall not be at war one with another.
70 And it shall be said among the wicked: Let us not go up to battle against Zion, for the inhabitants of Zion are terrible; wherefore we cannot stand.

If you cannot flee to Zion for safety because, say, the roads are blocked, you may be reduced to defending yourself as you may.  Other verses in that section (recommended reading!) make it very clear that normal social order will have broken down in many places, preparatory to the Lord's coming. 

Interestingly, we also have this:

31 And there shall be men standing in that generation, that shall not pass until they shall see an overflowing scourge; for a desolating sickness shall cover the land.

Does this refer to Covid-19, or something worse? If worse, I am definitely not looking forward to it! 

All of this reminds me of the ancient Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times."

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The eye of the needle being a Jerusalem gate you had to crawl under was invented by a medieval priest to make his wealthy congregation feel better. There is nothing backing up the idea. Also if that was what Jesus was talking about then why were the disciples “astonished”?

I'm not so sure that this medieval priest was trying to make his wealthy congregation feel better. I do understand that the story about the Jerusalem gate was a later add-on (no such gate has been shown to have existed), but...

Quote

The "Eye of the Needle" has been claimed to be a gate in Jerusalem, which opened after the main gate was closed at night. A camel could not pass through the smaller gate unless it was stooped and had its baggage removed. The story has been put forth since at least the 15th century and possibly as far back as the 9th century. However, there is no widely accepted evidence for the existence of such a gate. - From Wiki

The intent of the apocryphal story was that the camel had to be relieved of its burden to get through, just as a rich man had to divest himself of his property. Which would presumably not have soothed his rich (and presumably greedy) parishioners' feelings.

Edited December 31, 2021 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I was making a joke about beating swords and other weapons into plowshares. Somehow target shooting came along and people insisting on keeping their gun collection in the Millenium.

No, I wasn't insisting on it, LOL! Just one of those "it would be nice" kind of things.

[Stargazer]

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I am living in the UK, where people can own rifles and shotguns (not handguns), but only after jumping through a very long series of hoops. And the only two excuses for owning a firearm are: (1) to hunt; and (2) to target shoot. If you put "self defense" on your application it will automatically be denied. I don't know about the regs for when someone goes hunting, but to target shoot you must go to a legally registered firing range (whose club you must belong to), and every round you bring in or buy there will be counted (and you can only buy ammo at these clubs), and every round you shoot will likewise be counted. If you own a firearm, you must have two safes, one for the firearm, and one for the ammo. Nobody, including if you're married, your spouse, is allowed to have access -- he or she must not know the combination (I suppose, if your spouse has a firearms permit then you can share the safes, but I have no idea if this is the case). At any time you may be inspected by a special police officer who may arrive at any time to check if your arsenal is still being kept safe. He won't need a warrant, because you signed that away with the firearms licence. 

Quoting myself just because I did some further checking on the laws here, and just to vent, I asked this on Reddit:

I am an American living in the UK at this time. My British wife, who is aware of my interest in firearms (I own several that I keep in the US), happened to find a 12 gauge shotgun shell in the glove box of the car she bought just before I came back from a trip to the US. She gave it to me as a souvenir, and I've kept it in the drawer of my nightstand so in case we were burglarized during the night I could throw it at the intruder (well, it was funnier when I told her that's what I would do).

However, after I did some looking up of UK gun laws on a shooting club website, it occurred to me that, since when a gun owner here goes to his shooting club to indulge himself, the club has to keep track of all the rounds he shoots and buys, that my possession of a shotgun shell might actually be illegal without being a registered gun owner. Is that the case?

And would throwing the shell at an intruder be a criminal offense? <-- that's a bit of a joke, too, but for all I know it might not be.

I was relieved to discover that mere possession of a shotgun shell containing more than 5 balls (yes, it gets that detailed) was not illegal -- but mere possession of a shotgun shell containing a slug, for example, or a rifle cartridge definitely is, if you are not licensed to own a firearm. Holy cow. One of my respondents, who said he was a police officer, said "Throwing a small object like that at an intruder is highly unlikely to amount to an offence." Note carefully the likelihood of being charged with an offence if throwing a shotgun shell at a burglar or home invader is "highly unlikely". Not, you will observe, impossible. 

Another respondent wrote: "Throwing it at an intruder would be an offence if it was proven you possessed it for the purpose of self defence. We aren’t allowed to use self defence weapons here at risk of being accused of pre-meditated assault. You should defend yourself with an item you have reason to own otherwise (eg as an American, a baseball bat)".

In most ways, the UK is highly rational and civilized. In some particularly ways, however, it's absolutely nuts. My son-in-law told me that if I ever got mugged here, I should be careful not to say something rude to the robber during the event to offend him, or I might get charged with an offence. I am not sure if he was joking, but he didn't sound like it. Perhaps he was exaggerating a bit.

But there was a recent case where a 78 year old man was arrested and held for murder after killing a home invader with the crook's own weapon (a screwdriver). He was later released and finally not charged, but the point is, defending oneself against a deadly weapon is a chancy business here. Apparently, besides trying to rob him the two crooks were also threatening his bed-ridden wife. 

Edited December 31, 2021 by Stargazer

[Eph2,8]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Economics was once coined "the dismal science", but I suppose simple economics is instead the humorous science to some... 

[BRMC]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Oh, gosh yes, dangerous hobbies! Two of the items in my bucket list were to jump out of an airplane using a parachute, and to fly either an ultralight or hang glider. So when I got to the point where I might actually try either of them, my back was in too bad shape to be doing stuff like that. 

 

I was a skydiving coach for years, and just recently started flying Paramotor.   You can do Paramotor or powered parachute with a crap back.

[rodheadlee]

FYI we had 29k in our first "yacht" home. It was less expensive than most new cars. 

 

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Oh, gosh yes, dangerous hobbies! Two of the items in my bucket list were to jump out of an airplane using a parachute, and to fly either an ultralight or hang glider. So when I got to the point where I might actually try either of them, my back was in too bad shape to be doing stuff like that. 

The first time I saw a video taken by someone flying a wing suit, too -- oh man, that looked like a real thrill! Here's a crazy guy flying through a 2 meter wide hole in a rock wall:

I'm not so sure that foreseeing a societal breakdown and preparing for it is problematic. I know that "preppers" are generally looked upon as having more than one screw loose, but if one is a believer in scripture, both the Bible (Revelation) and Doctrine and Covenants (section 45) seem to say that there will (not may, will) come a time when things will be in great commotion. D&C 45 has some scary passages. Some of which may refer to the US Civil War, and some of which suggest a more generalized or widespread violence:

33 And there shall be earthquakes also in divers places, and many desolations; yet men will harden their hearts against me, and they will take up the sword, one against another, and they will kill one another.

63 Ye hear of wars in foreign lands; but, behold, I say unto you, they are nigh, even at your doors, and not many years hence ye shall hear of wars in your own lands.

This was given in 1831, so definitely the Civil War, but then there is this, speaking of the New Jerusalem: 

67 And the glory of the Lord shall be there, and the terror of the Lord also shall be there, insomuch that the wicked will not come unto it, and it shall be called Zion.
68 And it shall come to pass among the wicked, that every man that will not take his sword against his neighbor must needs flee unto Zion for safety.
69 And there shall be gathered unto it out of every nation under heaven; and it shall be the only people that shall not be at war one with another.
70 And it shall be said among the wicked: Let us not go up to battle against Zion, for the inhabitants of Zion are terrible; wherefore we cannot stand.

If you cannot flee to Zion for safety because, say, the roads are blocked, you may be reduced to defending yourself as you may.  Other verses in that section (recommended reading!) make it very clear that normal social order will have broken down in many places, preparatory to the Lord's coming. 

Interestingly, we also have this:

31 And there shall be men standing in that generation, that shall not pass until they shall see an overflowing scourge; for a desolating sickness shall cover the land.

Does this refer to Covid-19, or something worse? If worse, I am definitely not looking forward to it! 

All of this reminds me of the ancient Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times."

There are many scriptures in the Bible as well:

https://www.openbible.info/topics/earthquakes

 

[bluebell]

This article from the church's website has some good thoughts on the pursuit of wealth.  

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1972/12/what-the-scriptures-say-about-pursuit-of-wealth?lang=eng

Quote

 

What are the dangers of wealth? What is the proper attitude about seeking wealth? Will righteousness bring wealth? For what should riches be used?

In over 100 references the scriptures give answers to these questions. Reviewing some of them may help us maintain our perspective.

1. What are the dangers of wealth? Most scriptures mentioning it give strong warnings about the dangers of riches:

“But wo unto the rich, who are rich as to the things of the world. For because they are rich they despise the poor, and they persecute the meek, and their hearts are upon their treasures. …” (2 Ne. 9:30.)

“Now, I, the Lord, am not well pleased with the inhabitants of Zion, for … they also seek not earnestly the riches of eternity, but their eyes are full of greediness.” (D&C 68:31.)

“They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches; None of them can by any means redeem his brother. …” (Ps. 49:6–7.)

“… and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word. …” (Matt. 13:22.)

“But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.” (1 Tim. 6:9.)

2. What is the proper attitude about seeking wealth? In the eyes of God, other things are of more importance than riches;

“A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches, and loving favour rather than silver and gold.” (Prov. 22:1.)

“… if riches increase, set not your heart upon them.” (Ps. 62:10.)

“… let not the rich man glory in his riches.” (Jer. 9:23.)

“… he that maketh haste to be rich shall not be innocent. … He that hasteth to be rich hath an evil eye. …” (Prov. 28:20, 22.)

“Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God. …” (1 Tim. 6:17.)

3. Will righteousness bring wealth? It may open the door to wealth, but generally riches need to be pursued:

“And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.” (Jacob 2:19.)

“Because … thou hast not asked riches, wealth, or honour … but hast asked wisdom and knowledge for thyself … Wisdom and knowledge is granted unto thee; and I will give thee riches, and wealth. …” (2 Chr. 1:11–12.)

“And now, because of the steadiness of the church they began to be exceeding rich. …” (Alma 1:29.)

4. For what should riches be used? They are to help the poor and build the kingdom and not for personal comfort and luxury when others are going without:

“And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.

“Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—

“But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.” (Mosiah 4:16–18.)

“Impart a portion of thy property, yea, even part of thy lands, and all save the support of thy family.

“Pay the debt thou has contracted with the printer. Release thyself from bondage.” (D&C 19:34–35.)

“Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.

“Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.” (Mal. 3:8, 10.)

“If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven. …” (Matt. 19:21.)

 

I don't think it is impossible for a rich person to enter heaven.  Many of the blessings that are needed by others, require money to provide.  It seems as though what keeps someone from "heaven" isn't how much is in their bank account but their attitude towards it, their reason for seeking it, and what they do with it.

[BlueDreams]

21 hours ago, Eph2,8 said:

I'm a little late to the party, so I apologize if something similar to this has already been said. Also, sorry for the long post. But, it may be of interest to some. 

The thread is called "is it bad to be rich", which could be stated as "is being wealthy immoral?" Or, "is wealth inequality immoral." Libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick provided what I believe to be a pretty decent answer to this question. First, consider a society where every person has been given an equal share of money. Then, imagine someone is really good at basketball - Wilt Chamberlain. Many people will freely give Wilt Chamberlain money to watch him play ball. They have transferred their money to Wilt. Over time, Wilt may end up with more money than everyone else. Thus, the pattern resulting from this transfer of money results in people having varied amounts of wealth. Nozick argues that if the transfer is just (people freely giving Wilt money to watch him play), then the pattern resulting from the transfer is just.

Nozick believes that two people freely transferring money is just, and therefore wealth inequality is also just, so long as it was attained according to the principles of this just transfer. This may not be the case for most places across time, but arguably is the case for modern day America. If this is the case, then Billionaires are not morally obligated to give their wealth, nor is them having wealth immoral in some way. To answer your additional questions:

1. No amount of wealth is too much if the transfers accumulating the wealth are just. 

2. The rich are not obligated to give money away. They can, and it would be frightfully nice of them, but there is no obligation. Plus, developmental economics might suggest that giving money to poor countries/people may not even be a good solution to poverty and other fiscal problems.

I haven't kept up with the thread and randomly landed on this post while scrolling, so this may have been noted before. 

but you scenarios kinda has a huge assumption there about the US that it's riding on that doesn't really hold up under scrutiny IMO. 

The theory relies on an equal starting line, no exploitation, and free giving of one's own wealth to another. None of these circumstances fit the US now. Not even close. Even ignoring historical legacies that carry over, it still doesn't hold up at any stage of life, including at birth. My daughter will have substantially more financial privilege than most children in the us. This family advantage that she did not earn will likely give her a better safety net throughout her childhood and likely some of her young adult years that will reduce the chance of severe problems that take her completely off course. It also has helped increase her resources to manage her genetic disorder via food diversity and access to top medical experts. Other children will not have these resources or safety nets. Some will have substantial safety and resource deficits via birth that will drastically decrease their chances of a stable healthy future. 

On top of that this hypothetical would only hold true for about a generation, maybe 2, before the initial starting requisite would start to fall apart. In order for this to hold, each coming generation would need a mechanism to assure and equitable start for the children. The greater the wealth disparity among their parents the harder it becomes to maintain that equittable starting point. And even though gen1 chose freely to give some of their assets to another, gen2 did not choose their parent's economic situation. Which would mean some children would likely be born into a family with greater access to resources than other children.

This would then lead to the question of whether this system is still fair if some didn't choose to freely give their peers this economic advantage...and how long does this system remain fair? while gen1 is still alive? while the economic imbalance is deemed non-harmful to others? if that, then how is that measured?

If its  the system is only fair with an equitable starting point then there would need to be mechanisms and checks in place in order for that to happen. And it would have to be one with safeguards against corruption to those mechanisms and checks.

The theory, in short, sounds good. Yes, economic inequality if freely chosen isn't necessarily inherently immoral...but maintaining the parameters to keep it so would be extremely hard to do. Insomuch that no large-scale system likely fully pulls it off. So therefore economic inequality that we actually see in society is at best morally murky. 

 

Quote

An interesting counter philosophy is that of Peter Singer. Singer's argument goes something like this:

1. Poverty, suffering, death is bad

2. If we have the power to alleviate poverty, suffering, death without sacrificing anything of comparable moral value, we must do it

3. We do have the power to alleviate poverty, suffering, death without sacrificing anything of comparable moral value

4. Therefore, we must help alleviate poverty, suffering, death. 

Singer argues that we must give until we are at the point of "marginal utility" with those receiving the aid. This would mean that we are exactly equal with them. If they have more than us, we gave too much. If they have less than us, we must give more. Singer believes that we must reshape our moral framework to not think of "charity" as a benevolent act worthy of praise, but rather as a binding moral obligation. Therefore, Singer believes that you absolutely must give aid to the less advantaged, or else you have committed a moral atrocity. To Singer, any amount of unequal wealth is immoral and wrong. 

I suspect that most would categorize Jesus' moral philosophy close to Singer's. And they may be right. 

One could also say that if base line needs are met so that those with least resources still live comfortably and fulfill the "measure of their creation" than it is a healthy society, even if others may have a little more. You don't need absolute equality in order to extinguish poverty, suffering, and unnecessary death. You probably just need more equality than our current system tends to give. 

 

With luv,

BD

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I haven't kept up with the thread and randomly landed on this post while scrolling, so this may have been noted before. 

but you scenarios kinda has a huge assumption there about the US that it's riding on that doesn't really hold up under scrutiny IMO. 

The theory relies on an equal starting line, no exploitation, and free giving of one's own wealth to another. None of these circumstances fit the US now. Not even close. Even ignoring historical legacies that carry over, it still doesn't hold up at any stage of life, including at birth. My daughter will have substantially more financial privilege than most children in the us. This family advantage that she did not earn will likely give her a better safety net throughout her childhood and likely some of her young adult years that will reduce the chance of severe problems that take her completely off course. It also has helped increase her resources to manage her genetic disorder via food diversity and access to top medical experts. Other children will not have these resources or safety nets. Some will have substantial safety and resource deficits via birth that will drastically decrease their chances of a stable healthy future. 

On top of that this hypothetical would only hold true for about a generation, maybe 2, before the initial starting requisite would start to fall apart. In order for this to hold, each coming generation would need a mechanism to assure and equitable start for the children. The greater the wealth disparity among their parents the harder it becomes to maintain that equittable starting point. And even though gen1 chose freely to give some of their assets to another, gen2 did not choose their parent's economic situation. Which would mean some children would likely be born into a family with greater access to resources than other children.

This would then lead to the question of whether this system is still fair if some didn't choose to freely give their peers this economic advantage...and how long does this system remain fair? while gen1 is still alive? while the economic imbalance is deemed non-harmful to others? if that, then how is that measured?

If its  the system is only fair with an equitable starting point then there would need to be mechanisms and checks in place in order for that to happen. And it would have to be one with safeguards against corruption to those mechanisms and checks.

The theory, in short, sounds good. Yes, economic inequality if freely chosen isn't necessarily inherently immoral...but maintaining the parameters to keep it so would be extremely hard to do. Insomuch that no large-scale system likely fully pulls it off. So therefore economic inequality that we actually see in society is at best morally murky. 

 

One could also say that if base line needs are met so that those with least resources still live comfortably and fulfill the "measure of their creation" than it is a healthy society, even if others may have a little more. You don't need absolute equality in order to extinguish poverty, suffering, and unnecessary death. You probably just need more equality than our current system tends to give. 

 

With luv,

BD

I appreciate that Jesus taught that the lazy was not worthy to eat the bread of the laborer, something which it doesn't sound like Singer takes into consideration.

Obviously, Jesus's words are no justification for withholding support just because someone isn't working or because we think someone doesn't deserve it.  But I appreciate that they outline that we all (poor, middle, and rich) must contribute to society and our own welfare when and where we can.

Choices do have consequences and it's not the responsibility of those who have chosen responsibly to remove the negative consequences from those who haven't, when both have the ability to choose and act for themselves in positive ways.

I say this in part because I have a sister who complained to my parents that she couldn't afford to get internet so that her daughters could access their schooling from home (an absolutely necessity in their school district), but who spends 4 times the amount that internet cost each month on cigarettes.  She also routinely spends her tax returns (which almost always end up being close to $10,000) on new phones and other crap while letting her rent, utilities, and car payment become overdue.  Then she goes to my parents or the church to ask for assistance and can get incredibly upset when she doesn't get it.  I love my sister and we are on excellent terms.  But she is irresponsible and immature with money.

There are the poor that are poor through little fault of their own and the poor that are poor because they make horrible financial choices.  Most of the time we cannot tell the difference just by looking at them, and it's rarely our job to judge them or deny what we can to help.  But I do believe that Christ recognizes that both groups are not the same and do not need the same treatment.  

I don't know that that's something that Singer's theory recognizes or accounts for.

[BlueDreams]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I appreciate that Jesus taught that the lazy was not worthy to eat the bread of the laborer, something which it doesn't sound like Singer takes into consideration.

Obviously, Jesus's words are no justification for withholding support just because someone isn't working or because we think someone doesn't deserve it.  But I appreciate that they outline that we all (poor, middle, and rich) must contribute to society and our own welfare when and where we can.

Choices do have consequences and it's not the responsibility of those who have chosen responsibly to remove the negative consequences from those who haven't, when both have the ability to choose and act for themselves in positive ways.

I say this in part because I have a sister who complained to my parents that she couldn't afford to get internet so that her daughters could access their schooling from home (an absolutely necessity in their school district), but who spends 4 times the amount that internet cost each month on cigarettes.  She also routinely spends her tax returns (which almost always end up being close to $10,000) on new phones and other crap while letting her rent, utilities, and car payment become overdue.  Then she goes to my parents or the church to ask for assistance and can get incredibly upset when she doesn't get it.  I love my sister and we are on excellent terms.  But she is irresponsible and immature with money.

There are the poor that are poor through little fault of their own and the poor that are poor because they make horrible financial choices.  Most of the time we cannot tell the difference just by looking at them, and it's rarely our job to judge them or deny what we can to help.  But I do believe that Christ recognizes that both groups are not the same and do not need the same treatment.  

I don't know that that's something that Singer's theory recognizes or accounts for.

It’s a really hard balance to strike when we’re not god. I’ve found people in our super individualistic society tend towards over-emphasizing personal responsibility and under valuing social and structural responsibilities. Meanwhile there are those like your sister who take little personal responsibility for their finances and over expect the systems around them to care for them. 
 

Personally I’ve seen more of the former…but that could tie to the cultural reference points that lead me exposed more to people who are individualistic, veer perfectionistic, and extol values such as self-reliance excessively. But there’s definitely harm there either way. Namely more criticism (both of others and self), less empathy, and ofte some unchecked mental health issues. 

 

with luv, 

BD 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

It’s a really hard balance to strike when we’re not god. I’ve found people in our super individualistic society tend towards over-emphasizing personal responsibility and under valuing social and structural responsibilities. Meanwhile there are those like your sister who take little personal responsibility for their finances and over expect the systems around them to care for them. 
 

Personally I’ve seen more of the former…but that could tie to the cultural reference points that lead me exposed more to people who are individualistic, veer perfectionistic, and extol values such as self-reliance excessively. But there’s definitely harm there either way. Namely more criticism (both of others and self), less empathy, and ofte some unchecked mental health issues. 

 

with luv, 

BD 

I like how the BOM talks about meeting the wants of the poor, and doesn't use the word "needs".  I don't think it is saying that the wealthy owe the poor big screen tvs or the newest iphones, but I do think it's trying to make the point that the Lord doesn't just focus on meeting our needs, but also our wants as well, and that we should be as generous with others as the Lord is with us.

We don't want to be enabling--and I think the church is legitimately held to a different standard that is based on needs--but there still is a lot of room for individual generosity that can provide joy and humanity to the poor, and not just heat and clothes.

God can sort everyone out, as far as who deserved help and what, at His leisure.

(Full disclosure, I can be much more giving than I am and it is something that I work on and will probably always struggle a little bit with.)

 

[Eph2,8]

 

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

The theory relies on an equal starting line, no exploitation, and free giving of one's own wealth to another. None of these circumstances fit the US now. Not even close.

Nozick's theory of Justice in Holdings does not require an equal starting point, that is just what he used to most clearly articulate the idea. He was trying to object to the "hot new idea of economic equality and justice" founded by John Rawls, which was some form of distributive justice - that we must distribute wealth more equally between members of society in order to benefit the least advantaged. Nozick used the equal starting line to show that even if Rawls got his way, wealth inequality would naturally form - and maybe that's okay. You can have a society that is unequal in wealth but still say that the pattern resulting from free transfers of money is just. (If you have ten dollars and I have two, me giving you one dollar for a cheeseburger is still just)

As for exploitation, you're right. Exploitation is a violation of Nozick's theory, of which he readily admits. I'm curious, who is being widely exploited in the modern USA?

Lastly, free giving of one's wealth to another. I'm again curious. When was the last time a non-government entity forced you to give them money? Was it the McDonald's down the street? Was it the landlord to which I willingly pay for an apartment? Did the Seattle Seahawks hold you at gunpoint until you went to their games? Yes, everyone needs food and shelter - maybe entertainment too - but I fail to see where people in the USA generally are being forced to spend their money in a certain way in the market. Maybe you could help me, since you claimed these things are "not even close" to being a reality. 

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

On top of that this hypothetical would only hold true for about a generation, maybe 2, before the initial starting requisite would start to fall apart. In order for this to hold, each coming generation would need a mechanism to assure and equitable start for the children. The greater the wealth disparity among their parents the harder it becomes to maintain that equittable starting point. And even though gen1 chose freely to give some of their assets to another, gen2 did not choose their parent's economic situation. Which would mean some children would likely be born into a family with greater access to resources than other children.

Again, Nozick's theory is about the initial point of transfer. If people justly transfer ten billion dollars to me and it stays in my family for three generations, there is nothing unjust because the original transfer was made in a just way. In fact, taking the wealth and distributing it would be unjust because it interferes with the original, just transfer of wealth. The system is "fair" in the sense that it respects the individuals ability to choose what happens with his/her money. John Rawls - who Nozick was rejecting - used the word "fair" very differently, which is probably the way you are using it. Fair to Rawls meant that everyone is better off because of the organization of the institutions. Fairness to Nozick meant respecting choice and just transfers. You are absolutely right, it does assume that the money was accumulated according to a just transfer, which may not always be the case. Contrary to your assertion, I would assert that transfer in the US is mostly just. 

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

The theory, in short, sounds good. Yes, economic inequality if freely chosen isn't necessarily inherently immoral...but maintaining the parameters to keep it so would be extremely hard to do. Insomuch that no large-scale system likely fully pulls it off. So therefore economic inequality that we actually see in society is at best morally murky. 

Speaking historically, I think that the checks on just market transfers are a lot more attainable and realistic than systems with heavy forms of redistributive wealth. 

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

One could also say that if base line needs are met so that those with least resources still live comfortably and fulfill the "measure of their creation" than it is a healthy society, even if others may have a little more. You don't need absolute equality in order to extinguish poverty, suffering, and unnecessary death. You probably just need more equality than our current system tends to give. 

I agree completely with most of that. When you say "our current system", are you referring to the USA? I can point to societies that are vastly more equal in wealth, and vastly more impoverished, full of suffering, and unnecessary death. Equality in wealth does not correlate to economic well being. From what I have seen, if you'd like to look at a system which has lifted more people out of poverty and done more to solve all the problems you've listed, the capitalism and just transfers of wealth of western countries is a good place to start. Probably better than most systems around the world today. Perfect? No. 

I appreciate the discourse! Hope your day is going well.

Edited December 31, 2021 by Eph2,8

[Eph2,8]

49 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I appreciate that Jesus taught that the lazy was not worthy to eat the bread of the laborer, something which it doesn't sound like Singer takes into consideration.

From what I've read of Singer, you're right. It is not really something that he takes into consideration. I am assuming that he would respond in some way like this, "the burden of giving does not lie at all in the less advantaged, but completely in him who has more." He would probably still believe the advantaged person is morally obligated to give, and that the behavior of the less advantaged is not an excuse. 

I think that you bring up a really good point. Inequality in any aspect of life is a multifaceted issue, and perhaps Singer's suggested antidote is a little too simple. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, I believe there is a lot of truth in them. 

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, Eph2,8 said:

Economics was once coined "the dismal science", but I suppose simple economics is instead the humorous science to some... 

Economics only supports the statement I laughed at if you are playing with economics in the Economics 101 sense where all things are always equal (lol), externalities don’t exist (LOL), all consumers have perfect knowledge of quality of product and all alternatives (LOLOL), and people are perfectly rational (BWAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHA). It is a starting point but it doesn’t work beyond that. For example in the most basic economic model money spent on advertising is wasted but real life doesn’t show that to be the case.

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I'm not so sure that this medieval priest was trying to make his wealthy congregation feel better. I do understand that the story about the Jerusalem gate was a later add-on (no such gate has been shown to have existed), but...

The intent of the apocryphal story was that the camel had to be relieved of its burden to get through, just as a rich man had to divest himself of his property. Which would presumably not have soothed his rich (and presumably greedy) parishioners' feelings.

If the disciples understood that to be the meaning then they would not have been “astonished”.

The more usual use of the apocryphal story (and the one used in the medieval era) was that the camel had to bow down and crawl through. So it really just required you to be humble before God and that is easy. I mean, not really but it is easy to imagine you are doing it. It is a spiritual thing and like Laman and Lemuel many people want everything to be spiritual so they don’t have to do as much.

I doubt the priest in question was calling on his wealthy patrons to give up all their wealth and if the priest was doing that that says more about the priest since the logical place for those poor camels to deposit those goods they need to get rid of would be with the priest. Chaucer’s pardoner strikes again!

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Eph2,8 said:

From what I've read of Singer, you're right. It is not really something that he takes into consideration. I am assuming that he would respond in some way like this, "the burden of giving does not lie at all in the less advantaged, but completely in him who has more." He would probably still believe the advantaged person is morally obligated to give, and that the behavior of the less advantaged is not an excuse. 

I think that you bring up a really good point. Inequality in any aspect of life is a multifaceted issue, and perhaps Singer's suggested antidote is a little too simple. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, I believe there is a lot of truth in them. 

D. Todd Christofferson told this story a few years ago:

Quote

The story is told of a man who simply would not work. He wanted to be taken care of in every need. To his way of thinking, the Church or the government, or both, owed him a living because he had paid his taxes and his tithing. He had nothing to eat but refused to work to care for himself. Out of desperation and disgust, those who had tried to help him decided that since he would not lift a finger to sustain himself, they might as well just take him to the cemetery and let him pass on. On the way to the cemetery, one man said, “We can’t do this. I have some corn I will give him.”

So they explained this to the man, and he asked, “Have the husks been removed?”

They responded, “No.”

“Well, then,” he said, “drive on.”

It is an extreme example obviously but I don’t know what to do in this case. I generally don’t know what to do in cases less extreme either.

[Chum]

16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is an extreme example obviously but I don’t know what to do in this case. I generally don’t know what to do in cases less extreme either.

Imperfect distribution is a necessary price for welfare.

I went off once when I learned our bishop had auth'd payment on someone's $300 cable bill - while my family had no (as in none at all) food in our home. I hadn't asked for assistance because I felt it was our problem to solve. He setup a food order.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Chum said:

Imperfect distribution is a necessary price for welfare.

I went off once when I learned our bishop had auth'd payment on someone's $300 cable bill - while my family had no (as in none at all) food in our home. I hadn't asked for assistance because I felt it was our problem to solve. He setup a food order.

I have never been asked to do that thankfully. I doubt I would be willing to sign that check unless it was a bill for cable that they had since cancelled but still owed on.

Fun Fact: Since we can still only move money via paper check this slows and sometimes prevents the Church from being able to help with some bills since many companies (wisely) refuse to take paper checks.

[Stargazer]

36 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If the disciples understood that to be the meaning then they would not have been “astonished”.

Yes, I got that. I recognize that they were responding to the literal meaning, not the figurative, which I'm pretty sure was the intent of it.

36 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The more usual use of the apocryphal story (and the one used in the medieval era) was that the camel had to bow down and crawl through. So it really just required you to be humble before God and that is easy. I mean, not really but it is easy to imagine you are doing it. It is a spiritual thing and like Laman and Lemuel many people want everything to be spiritual so they don’t have to do as much.

I doubt the priest in question was calling on his wealthy patrons to give up all their wealth and if the priest was doing that that says more about the priest since the logical place for those poor camels to deposit those goods they need to get rid of would be with the priest. Chaucer’s pardoner strikes again!

Your hypothetical priest is just that, hypothetical. I don't know why you think it's necessary to invent someone just so you can disparage them.

Do you wish to take Christ's statement as literal, that is, no rich person can go to heaven? Because camels surely can't go through the eye of the needle. I guess, unless God can push them through -- which was also expressed in the story.

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, I got that. I recognize that they were responding to the literal meaning, not the figurative, which I'm pretty sure was the intent of it.

Your hypothetical priest is just that, hypothetical. I don't know why you think it's necessary to invent someone just so you can disparage them.

Do you wish to take Christ's statement as literal, that is, no rich person can go to heaven? Because camels surely can't go through the eye of the needle. I guess, unless God can push them through -- which was also expressed in the story.

No, it is not hypothetical. My guess at the motive is hypothetical but it is also logical. I don’t feel bad about disparaging him because he made up the Jerusalem gate so he wasn’t mistaken. It was deliberate deception.

I take it very seriously. I don’t believe Jesus was resorting to what we would call hyperbole. His comment that only with God is it possible is not reassuring. I think we miss a lot of the point of the exchange if we water it down to a metaphor and are not “astonished” like the disciples wondering who can be saved. Of course it is also reasonable to argue that no one gets into heaven without God making it possible but Jesus seems to know it is ‘more’ impossible for the wealthy.

[Chum]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Do you wish to take Christ's statement as literal, that is, no rich person can go to heaven?

I think Christ's point was that the pitfalls that unavoidably accompany wealth, each serve to keep men from fitting thru the straight and narrow gate. I think His statement allows that for rare exceptions to exist. Maybe like profoundly developmentally disabled children who inherit from their parents.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

No, it is not hypothetical. My guess at the motive is hypothetical but it is also logical. I don’t feel bad about disparaging him because he made up the Jerusalem gate so he wasn’t mistaken. It was deliberate deception.

Well, don't hold us in suspense! Who was it?

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I take it very seriously. I don’t believe Jesus was resorting to what we would call hyperbole. His comment that only with God is it possible is not reassuring. I think we miss a lot of the point of the exchange if we water it down to a metaphor and are not “astonished” like the disciples wondering who can be saved. Of course it is also reasonable to argue that no one gets into heaven without God making it possible but Jesus seems to know it is ‘more’ impossible for the wealthy.

So, the poor can get in for being poor, then. If being rich makes it impossible, this seems to suggest that being poor has a virtue all its own. 

 

[Stargazer]

20 minutes ago, Chum said:

I think Christ's point was that the pitfalls that unavoidably accompany wealth, each serve to keep men from fitting thru the straight and narrow gate. I think His statement allows that for rare exceptions to exist. Maybe like profoundly developmentally disabled children who inherit from their parents.

I agree. But The Nehor clearly thinks that riches are an automatic disqualification. I wonder if he knows the cutoff? Because if I know the cutoff, I can ensure that I never have that much wealth. But if I don't know -- and I've read all the scriptures -- then how can I be saved?