Ship of Fools: The opiate of the people.

Thread: The opiate of the people. Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020438

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

So, what else would you call a pass-time that encourages people to sit on their couch, drink beer, and crunch potato crisps (chips). At least, in the time of Marx, religion could be said to foster virtue, and make people better than they were before. The same cannot be said, in our age, of the 'consumption' of sport.

In the long term, does it really matter whether Aston Villa beats Manchester United, or who wins the ashes, or how well the Boston Red Sox do?

On the other hand the estimate is that global expenditure on sport amounts to some $91 billion. That would go a long way towards providing the absolutely poor people in Africa, Asia, and South America, with clean water, sanitation, primary health care and education.

Seems to me like some people's priorities are skewed.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
So, what else would you call a pass-time that encourages people to sit on their couch, drink beer, and crunch potato crisps (chips). At least, in the time of Marx, religion could be said to foster virtue, and make people better than they were before. The same cannot be said, in our age, of the 'consumption' of sport.

To be comprehensive, one should broaden it to entertainment.

quote:

On the other hand the estimate is that global expenditure on sport amounts to some $91 billion. That would go a long way towards providing the absolutely poor people in Africa, Asia, and South America, with clean water, sanitation, primary health care and education.

Seems to me like some people's priorities are skewed.

Pretty much. Though money alone will not change the world. If we want change, it has to include changing politics as well as what we, personally, spend our money on.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Pretty much. Though money alone will not change the world. If we want change, it has to include changing politics as well as what we, personally, spend our money on.

Hmmm. Seems to me like this comment raises the issue of whether forcing people to be virtuous makes them virtuous, or whether virtue is necessarily related to a voluntary disposition.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[ 14. January 2018, 19:53: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Pretty much. Though money alone will not change the world. If we want change, it has to include changing politics as well as what we, personally, spend our money on.

Hmmm. Seems to me like this comment raises the issue of whether forcing people to be virtuous makes them virtuous, or whether virtue is necessarily related to a voluntary disposition.

Well, that was not the intention of it. What affects the prosperity of the areas you mention is, in part, how our political policies affect them. Without fundamental change in those and in how we assist, all more money does is put a plaster on the problems. Still better than doing nothing, but not in minimising the problems.

True virtue is within. Practical virtue is often from without as well.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

There are vast amounts of money spent on weapons which would be better spent on basics for people, by our own governments. Sport is surely better than conflict.

There are many virtues. It's virtuous to stand up for justice and to work toward a better world for all people. This is possible while also watching TV at times.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
On the other hand the estimate is that global expenditure on sport amounts to some $91 billion. That would go a long way towards providing the absolutely poor people in Africa, Asia, and South America, with clean water, sanitation, primary health care and education.

So would the money spent on art galleries, museums, libraries and concert halls.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

As would the money spent on paying incompetent politicians and rapacious televangelists....

IJ

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

When I first saw this thread, I naturally thought of Karl Marx's comments, but then I began to wonder about the current opioid crisis we are experiencing here in the United States. Big Pharma convinced the medical profession that it was okay to use opioid-based painkillers for palliative care. They said if used properly no one would get hooked.

Well, that is not the way it happened. People started combining opioids with anti-anxiety meds (benzos in particular): and, even when used as prescribed people do develop a tolerance to them and have to take more to get the desired effect.

Myself, I have chronic back pain. I use a hydrocodone/acetaminophen combination to get by. I have used it for two years. My doctor gives me a 30 day supply which I can stretch to a little over 50 days since I do not take it in the evenings or on most weekends.

But people are having problems with it Stateside. How is it in your country?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I can't answer that, but I can say for myself that I am now dependent on hydrocortisone (for adrenal insufficiency) and Levetiracetam (sometimes known as Keppra) to prevent seizures.

ISTM that a fair proportion of the population of the UK relies on pills for one thing or another, but, naturally, the drug companies don't want us to get better - they want us to be dependent.

Perhaps the same applies to the importance of Sport, Slebrities, and Shopping - it's the old ploy of providing Bread and Circuses to keep the peasants happy whilst the Filthy Rich get ever richer...

IJ

IJ

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

A big problem in regional Australia, Gramps. Not sure about cities but I would not be surprised.

I have even heard in the news of grannies getting opioids for addicts and making some money (pensioners get quite cheap medications).

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

Back to the first post, I don't get sport and really don't get why people watch it or listen to it on the radio. I curse each night it is on a national station instead of the BBC World Service. I also shudder at the money involved.

But that is me. I didn't appreciate someone telling me fiction was not worth reading when I could read Jobs' autobiography or some management / self improvement time. I would not appreciate someone telling me walking in the bush or watching a foreign film is my opiate.

When I've seen people watch sports they are engrossed. Or chatting with a friend next to them, sharing a shared interest. Or texting someone. Much like I do with Eurovision (there's something to call an opiate!!!)

To each his own. Not a good statement for a discussion board, but it's mine.

Re the money, where to stop? We should look to ourselves and make sure we give what we can.

[ 15. January 2018, 05:58: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Let people enjoy things.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

I agree with mousethief.

Unless the obsession with sports is hurting society in some manner the enjoyment someone else gets from sports is simply none of my business. If it makes someone happy to be a sports fan more power to that person.

As to hurting society ISTM that a multi billion $/£ industry probably boosts the global economy.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:

On the other hand the estimate is that global expenditure on sport amounts to some $91 billion. That would go a long way towards providing the absolutely poor people in Africa, Asia, and South America, with clean water, sanitation, primary health care and education.

Seems to me like some people's priorities are skewed.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Don't forget that Africans, Asians and South Americans enjoy sport as much as anyone. When electricity arrives the village TV set is often the first thing connected.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

And what has created the internet? There's even a song that tells you the answer. Yes, the internet is for porn!

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I agree with mousethief. I think football (soccer) gives people great joy, and of course, great disappointment. And there is a community aspect that is good.

Also remember Camus: “Everything I know about morality and the obligations of men, I owe it to football (soccer).” He was a goalkeeper.

One can criticize the huge amounts of money, of course, but is that particularly about sport?

I have to quote Simone Weil: 'revolution is the opium of the people'.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Let people enjoy things.

Absolutely. The entire topic has echos of the 'rational recreation' movement.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

A claim I have encountered is that when Marx referred to religion as "the opiate of the people", he was saying it was a pain-reliever, not a vice. He apparently believed that with communism the pain would disappear and there would be no need for religion. Are you saying that the same is true of sports?

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

What about you, 2RM, do you have entertainment expenditures? Do you feel guilty about yours?

Seems to me we all do, and probably sometimes do feel guilty about them but most of us shouldn't usually.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

Television the drug of the nation

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

When I was a kid, parents used to say "Eat your food. Think of all the starving children in China."

The thing is not one morsel left on one plate ever made it to China. The way to have helped the starving children in China might have been to send food before it was cooked. Not that Mao would have let it in.

The point is just condemning spotrs does not automatically direct aide to deserving groups.

If you want aide to go to the deserving group of your choice do something positive in support.

For instance every time anyone feels like showing off their newly acquired philosophy that person could donate cash to a NGO charity that delivers food to a famine striken region.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
When I was a kid, parents used to say "Eat your food. Think of all the starving children in China."

The thing is not one morsel left on one plate ever made it to China. The way to have helped the starving children in China might have been to send food before it was cooked. Not that Mao would have let it in.

AIUI, you were meant to think of the starving children, realise your good fortune and be grateful. Then eat your dinner.

Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :

Just looking back at the original post for a moment, the oddest assumption here for anyone who has lived or travelled in Africa is the idea that spectator sports today are primarily a Western phenomenon.

Both soccer (football) and cricket are global forms of entertainment. Most African countries have large numbers of sports-lovers who support local teams, attend international matches in local stadiums and watch sport played in the UK, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean on TV. (Manchester United has a strong following in Nairobi.) The OP might not care for sport, but it seems a little punitive to suggest African populations should have to choose between aid for social upliftment and the right to watch one's favourite game on TV.

And initiating policies or aid packages that effect profound and lasting social change (or betterment) is a really complicated issue.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

I am not very interested in sport, but here it is difficult to avoid mention of it and a large proportion of the daily news filtered through radio and TV is about sport. It bores me rigid and I hate it.

When the 2010 earthquake (and the subsequent thousands of other aftershocks and quakes followed) hit Christchurch it meant that Rugby World Cup games scheduled to be played here were diverted elsewhere. I knew some people were disappointed, but I really didn't appreciate the impact on their lives until the first international match was played here after the quakes.

There were tough rugby supporters interviewed on TV with tears streaming down their faces with joy. A large proportion of them were blokes - and NZ blokes don't cry.

I think it took that for me to become far less dismissive of the part sports played in their lives and for their well being. I would still not attend a match myself unless I were bound, gagged and dragged there at gunpoint, but I realised that their involvement in sport was as strong as mine in the books I read, and at least small branch libraries became available after about a month.(And the new Central Library opens later this year [Yipee]

).

Before that I think it would have been easy for me to decide that something in which I had no interest could cease to exist and the money be re-directed to a for more noble cause, but I've realised that reality is far more complicated than that.

If you asked me if I were willing to forgo the building of the new Central Library in Christchurch to feed starving children that would be a much more uncomfortable question for me to answer, and I don't see that I could demand it of sports lovers without being willing to make an equal sacrifice.

Huia

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Re OP: Just supposing we all channelled all the money we spend on entertainment into a huge fund to be spent on providing water, medical care and food to third-world countries, How much of it would actually get to where it is needed most, and then of course there would need to be support for maintaining and supplying the facilities and equipment on a regular basis. ... ...
It is an almost impossible task.

We can only do what we can ... and it is fortunate that so many people work to get things done in spite of the overwhelming obstacles they face.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

It's also not a zero sum game. In railway preservation, there's a well-known argument between those funding new build replicas of lost steam locomotives, and those who think "the money would be better spent on restoring what we've already got."

Without praying Mrs Thatcher too much in aid, that makes the error of assuming that there is such as thing as "the money" and if it wasn't being spent on building a new steam engine, it would be being spent on restoring a derelict carriage...

In reality, if you stop Dave from say watching Villa, that doesn't then compel Dave to give the money he would otherwise have spent watching the Villa to eg Tearfund. The money could just stay in his pocket, or be spent on beer.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
What about you, 2RM, do you have entertainment expenditures? Do you feel guilty about yours?

Seems to me we all do, and probably sometimes do feel guilty about them but most of us shouldn't usually.

Well, that's a valid challenge. I like to talk to people on discussion forums, and read stuff. Oh yes, and I drink for more than is good for me.

Nevertheless, I have arrived at a formula that quiets my conscience.

Let $X be the amount of wealth in the world.
Let $Y be the annual Gross World Product.
Let Z be the number of people in the world.

Then an (approximately) equitable distribution of the world's wealth is $X/Z, and an (approximately) equitable distribution of the world's annual income is $Y/Z.

That works out to be around $33,000 per person net worth, and around $15,000 annual income.

I live quite comfortably within these limits, so I am not appropriating anyone else's 'fair share'.

I contend that if we all lived within such boundaries, and stopped spending so extravagantly on frivolities, the world might be a happier, fairer place.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Well, lucky old you.

A fair proportion of the world's population would be glad of even a fraction of $15000 per annum.

IJ

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Damn right they would. Median income was about $1300 in 2012 and I doubt it has changed much. Half the world's population receive more than that while the other half receive less than, get this, about $100 per month.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Who was it who said, perhaps rather wryly, 'the poor you will always have with you', or words to that effect?

I envy those who can quiet their consciences by means of a formula.

IJ

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

The point being, that I can justifiably say, if everyone lived as I do, there would be no poor among us. ie, I generally comply with both Jesus' Golden Rule, to do unto others as I might wish to be done by, and Kant's categorical imperative, to act according to the maxim as I might wish to be the general rule.

Not many people in the rich, allegedly Christian, West, can claim that. Your opprobrium might better be aimed at millionaires who hog the wealth others need for a decent standard of living.

Best wishes, 2RM

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
The point being, that I can justifiably say, if everyone lived as I do, there would be no poor among us. ie, I generally comply with both Jesus' Golden Rule, to do unto others as I might wish to be done by, and Kant's categorical imperative, to act according to the maxim as I might wish to be the general rule.

Not many people in the rich, allegedly Christian, West, can claim that. Your opprobrium might better be aimed at millionaires who hog the wealth others need for a decent standard of living.

Best wishes, 2RM

well no, because the money isn't there for everyone to live as you do - because even on your own sums a lot of that would need to be siphoned off for infrastructure and services*. Which means the true sum available for each person is probably some way below what you're living on. You're an exploiter, just of a lesser category than the billionaires.

*most of the world doesn't have round them the infrastructure that you likely do, the functioning state you likely have, the long-sunk capital costs which no one is now paying for. Eg, in the UK we've got a great railway network (in terms of mileage). The maintenance costs are crippling enough, but if it wasn't there I genuinely doubt we could afford to build it now from scratch. That's before we get onto schools, roads, hospitals, etc - and way before we get onto what would have to be nice to haves - libraries, museums, leisure/fitness centres.

If your conscience is going to be salved, you need to work out what needs to be spent to make everyone's life exactly like yours - rather than just handing them the same amount of money that you can live on. Then allow for that in the division of the global wealth, or even just the global product. I would expect that to produce a share of money (in crudest terms) somewhere well below your above calculation. So you're still (relatively) profiteering.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Yeah but...

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Yeah but...

No Martin, not "Yeah but."

You can agree with the principle while pointing out that the maths *as presented* aren't right...

The sort of settlement aimed for by the OP is completely laudable, but it's ok to say that their methodology to get there is flawed (at best).

Of all things, eradicating global inequality shouldn't be a competition, or an exercise in virtue signalling. It's got to be about what works. I don't know what will work, but I sincerely doubt it's this.

If you know what will work then I'm very happy to hear it.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

I'd just like to say that I am entirely happy for the forum to point out the flaws in my formula, and thinking. That is the advantage of the 'Great Debate', that we can all learn from each other, and the result is a ratchet towards virtue.

Nevertheless, I am also entirely happy to have presented a 'first approximation' for your criticism and comment.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[ 16. January 2018, 13:59: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

The arrogance of this post from N00B 2RM is almost breath-taking:

quote:
The point being, that I can justifiably say, if everyone lived as I do, there would be no poor among us. ie, I generally comply with both Jesus' Golden Rule, to do unto others as I might wish to be done by, and Kant's categorical imperative, to act according to the maxim as I might wish to be the general rule.

Not many people in the rich, allegedly Christian, West, can claim that. Your opprobrium might better be aimed at millionaires who hog the wealth others need for a decent standard of living.

And ITTWACW!

IJ

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

So, I'm arrogant. So what? Does that, in any way, contradict the thought that the best way to distribute wealth, is equitably? That maybe people just shouldn't be hungry, and malnourished, and starved, while others spend money on 'sport'?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[ 16. January 2018, 15:31: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Major problems are who has the money, how it is redistributed from those who have lots of it to those who don't, why we should or shouldn't force the issue. Myself, I think we have to force the issue by tax laws, regulations and enforcement.

I'd start off by addressing homelessness by taxing and regulating non-resident real estate ownership. I'd follow it up with getting the large corporations out of government, stop sponsoring and getting naming rights etc to anything, and pay this in taxes instead so we can pay for public service. We must ensure we do not privatise profit and socialize debt. As for military, obviously the oil companies need to pay for it, and also for cleaning up carbon pollution.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
So, I'm arrogant. So what?

My experience is that my point comes across better if it is not coated in arrogance. YMMV.

Also, my experience is that humility allows me to experience life more fully and freely than I experienced life when I was completely ruled by an ego driven by self centered fear.

Many of us here have found that life experience tends to round sharp stones into stones that fit more easily amongst their companions.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Just so.

I was reminded of the Pharisee in the Temple, thanking God that he was not like other people, especially that publican over there....

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

Being helpful then...

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
So, I'm arrogant. So what? Does that, in any way, contradict the thought that the best way to distribute wealth, is equitably?

No.

However, where you're falling down is that what you're proposing is the redistribution of *money* rather than *wealth.*

There is a crucial difference, not least because money is tangible (ok, electronically these days it isn't but let that pass), and wealth isn't. What does that mean? Well, you say you can live perfectly well on $x, which is your share of global product, so that's what everyone else should have.

Ok, but to arrive at $x you've literally just divided global product by global population.

There are several problems with this:
- even as you've done it, there are wide global variations in the generation of that product per capita. This therefore doesn't take into account eg Norway (small population, vast oil wealth), or China (vast economy, but also vast population).

- you're not taking into account productivity by nation (which is a slight red herring, but we may as well include it). UK productivity is lower than France, for example. However, that's partly because unemployment in France is higher, so fewer people are making more... See the problems with raw multiplication/division?

- most problematically, as I said upthread, you're not taking into account the fact that massive investment would be needed into most of the world's countries in order to get them to a state where your purchasing power for $x would give everyone there the same standard of living you have. Consequently, the division of global product by global population needs to account for that. Which is where your $x is inaccurate. If your "fair share" of global product is therefore $x-60% (say), leaving your conscience aside for a minute, can you still live your life the way you do now?

As I say, I'm not complaining about your aim, I just think you've gone bit wrong on the calculations, and therefore where you currently sit vs your aims.

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
That maybe people just shouldn't be hungry, and malnourished, and starved, while others spend money on 'sport'?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Hmm, this is actually where I think you've gone even more off-piste. Do you appreciate how national product (and therefore global product as a sum of national products) is calculated?

It's the sum of the sale of goods and services within an economy. There is some international variation on whether black market work sch as prostitution or the drug trade is included.

Consequently, if you start telling people they can't do sport, or decrying the amount of money spent on that then, unless you're seizing their money and hosing it out again on your own projects, then you're actually just hitting the national product! Which is then further reducing global wealth and hence the share per capita of that wealth.

Some people like to spend money on sport. If you close down sport, that doesn't guarantee that they then spend that money on *anything* else. They could just put it under the mattress.

In the meantime, that action has consequences beyond the savings of the consumer. Some peoples' productive work is *through* sport. OK we all know about celebrity players on millions, but there is a whole army of others who earn their modest salaries (or indeed minimum wage salaries) operating the turnstiles, sweeping the terraces, etc. Ban sport and you have to find them other work. OK, if you're running a command economy then you can maybe do that, otherwise you're adding to unemployment.

In the meantime, while you're celebrating closing down sport because you can't see the worth in it, you've admitted you quite like a drink. Well, I don't like the alcohol industry so we can close that down too...

The problem is you want a more equal society - well that's where international aid comes in, and international/overseas development projects. If you start closing down industries because you don't see the worth in them then that's not a workable plan, it's just holier-than-thou grandstanding. Tobacco should be closed down because it kills people. There is a workable case to be made for closing down alcohol on the same lines. Sport is in a different category ISTM. It has excesses, but at the same time it's probably a good overall if it's encouraging fitness.

At the same time, the dilemma is compounded when you factor in the damage to the global economy if tobacco, alcohol and sport were all closed down tomorrow...

I'll actually say, having thought very much as I'm typing that your system will only work if the UN takes full control of money and issues people with tokens which can only be used to buy approved goods from approved retailers. I'm really struggling to see how otherwise you go about stopping people from spending money on things that aren't dealing with "hungry, malnourished and starved."

Football is huge amongst the starving in Africa. Not just playing it, but following Arsenal, etc.

Cricket is dominant among the poorest in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh - even popular in Afghanistan. Not just playing - watching, and betting, on TV matches.

Gambling is massive in China (regulated or otherwise).

How do you deal with the many "hungry, malnourished and starved" who want more in their lives than just food, water and medicine? Ten to one that a large number of them want sport, cinema, books, etc as well as the basics. That they haven't (many of them) even got the basics now doesn't mean that they would be happy just to have the basics. Aspiration is hard wired into humans, as is meaningless diversion. Just read The Theory of the Leisure Class - Veblen was right in 1899, and IMO he's right now.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

@betjemaniac - I COMPLETELY agree with you. I was replying on behalf of the eponymous 2ndRM. He didn't disappoint.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Yes, what betjemaniac and Martin60 have both said.

[Two face]

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

Hmmm. Can't help thinking that your collective problem is not my supposed arrogance, or that my mind is 2nd rate, (both of which I freely admit), but that you all know that in a fundamental way that I am hitting on an important issue, and one that's uncomfortable for you.

Meanwhile. and by the way, thank you Betjemaniac, for your intervention. I think it was constructive.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[ 16. January 2018, 19:26: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Reading the Gospels doesn’t give the whole impression that Jesus was totally pro the equality/distribution of wealth.
It could be argued that His advice to dump one's possessions was necessary for an individual to get closer to God, not a measure towards achieving some sort of monetary ideal among the World's population.

I will agree that it is peculiar (for want of a better word), to live in a World and see unimaginably large sums of money spent on luxuries, entertainment, etc. while, at the same time, seeing situations where a relatively small proportion of those sums could significantly improve the lot of many many others.

Then there is the matter of throwing tons tons of money at shit situations, only to discover those situations don’t become magically fixed for ever and ever into the future.

Magic wands anyone?

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

I think that's right. Even in the case of the rich young ruler, Jesus wasn't advocating that everyone should give away everything to the poor.

He just said that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

There are, it seems to me, two moral principles in tension, here. If I gave away all my wealth, that would be foolish, and only serve to increment the number of poor people in the world by one. But if I am so attached to my wealth, so that I cannot countenance the equitable distribution of it, even while war, famine, pestilence and premature death stalk the world, then I am no better than the young ruler, who 'went away (from Jesus) sorrowful, for he had great possessions'.

I have found a general compromise that suits me, in those simple formulae, $X/Z and $Y/Z. If you all can contrive a better moral compromise, (and I am quite prepared to consider the forum's suggestions), I'd be interested to hear it.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

I deeply regret responding to you second rate and assure you that I shall not make the same mistake in future.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Being helpful then...

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
So, I'm arrogant. So what? Does that, in any way, contradict the thought that the best way to distribute wealth, is equitably?
No.

However, where you're falling down is that what you're proposing is the redistribution of *money* rather than *wealth.*

There is a crucial difference...

I would tend to challenge this assertion. Whereas 'wealth' might be considered to be oysters you can eat, champagne you can drink, and the fridges you can buy to optimise the temperature and storage life of the two, money is the way that wealth is rationed. The estimated $241 trillion in the world, however distributed, determines who gets the oysters, champagne, and fridges.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I deeply regret responding to you second rate and assure you that I shall not make the same mistake in future.

Fair enough. Your responses thus far have not been very helpful, anyway. But nevertheless, I hope you have a nice life.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Reading the Gospels doesn’t give the whole impression that Jesus was totally pro the equality/distribution of wealth.
It could be argued that His advice to dump one's possessions was necessary for an individual to get closer to God, not a measure towards achieving some sort of monetary ideal among the World's population.

No, that would mean that the giving is the important bit, rather than some poor bugger actually being helped. That's not love and care, that's getting a warm fuzzy and conscience salving. I'd be really disappointed if Jesus were like that.

quote:
I will agree that it is peculiar (for want of a better word), to live in a World and see unimaginably large sums of money spent on luxuries, entertainment, etc. while, at the same time, seeing situations where a relatively small proportion of those sums could significantly improve the lot of many many others.

Then there is the matter of throwing tons tons of money at shit situations, only to discover those situations don’t become magically fixed for ever and ever into the future.

Magic wands anyone?

Of course not. Dives and Lazarus though indicates we'd better bloody make sure we try. And not because it's good for us, but because the people getting the shitty end of the stick need us to.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I deeply regret responding to you second rate and assure you that I shall not make the same mistake in future.
Fair enough. Your responses thus far have not been very helpful, anyway. But nevertheless, I hope you have a nice life.

Best wishes, 2RM.

You do.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No, that would mean that the giving is the important bit, rather than some poor bugger actually being helped. That's not love and care, that's getting a warm fuzzy and conscience salving. I'd be really disappointed if Jesus were like that.

Hmmm. I'd be disappointed if giving wasn't important. Seems to me that while there are people in need, succour is good, not only for the people that receive, but also for the spiritual statue of those with the courage and humanity to donate. I take your point though, that donating for some perceived personal benefit is not charity, just self-interest.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
...but also for the spiritual statue...

Should read, spiritual stature.

We really need more time to edit typos.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
We really need more time to edit typos.

We have infinite time to edit typos. It's called "Preview Post."

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
The point being, that I can justifiably say, if everyone lived as I do, there would be no poor among us. ie, I generally comply with both Jesus' Golden Rule, to do unto others as I might wish to be done by, and Kant's categorical imperative, to act according to the maxim as I might wish to be the general rule.

Not many people in the rich, allegedly Christian, West, can claim that. Your opprobrium might better be aimed at millionaires who hog the wealth others need for a decent standard of living.

Best wishes, 2RM
well no, because the money isn't there for everyone to live as you do - because even on your own sums a lot of that would need to be siphoned off for infrastructure and services*. Which means the true sum available for each person is probably some way below what you're living on. You're an exploiter, just of a lesser category than the billionaires.

... So you're still (relatively) profiteering.

Well, yes and no. The Credit Suisse estimate of the world's wealth at $241 trillion is a financial one, covering discretionary wealth. It's liquid assets, that can be spent, saved, or traded. In that sense you are quite right. And, infrastructure is a sunk cost, a public good, from which I will readily admit I benefit considerably, but which I have no personal control over.

Nevertheless, the clue is in the word 'discretionary'. This is the wealth that could, relatively easily, be distributed more equitably. All that is required is for people with a greater net worth than $X/Z, or a greater income than $Y/Z, to give the excess to people with lesser resources. That might not solve all the world's inequities, but it would be a pretty good first attempt, to be refined and perfected in due course.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

That's nice dear.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
You do.

Indeed so. And I can, without any inconsistency, commend it to anyone and everyone.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Major problems are who has the money, how it is redistributed from those who have lots of it to those who don't, why we should or shouldn't force the issue. Myself, I think we have to force the issue by tax laws, regulations and enforcement.

I'd start off by addressing homelessness by taxing and regulating non-resident real estate ownership. I'd follow it up with getting the large corporations out of government, stop sponsoring and getting naming rights etc to anything, and pay this in taxes instead so we can pay for public service. We must ensure we do not privatise profit and socialize debt. As for military, obviously the oil companies need to pay for it, and also for cleaning up carbon pollution.

Hmmm. I'm not generally in favour of 'compulsory virtue'. Nevertheless, I think there is a case to be made for it here, given the dire consequences of global inequality. But, as a first step, I would prefer to see the simple public attitude towards excesses of wealth change. When we cease to admire such excesses, and instead disparage and denigrate them, then I think we would be making progress towards both the voluntary and compulsory redistribution of the world's resources.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Society is compulsory virtue. It cannot exist without it. For all our moral codes, we are good only because we have to be. When societal rules fail, chaos is inevitable.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

...while we're waiting for the world to get its act together, we can donate for *free* at click-to-donate sites. A couple of examples:

Free Rice.
There are quizzes on all sorts of things.

quote:
For each answer you get right, we donate 10 grains of rice to the United Nations World Food Program.

You can brush up on things you once knew, and learn new things. It can be addictive.

Greater Good.
This is an umbrella site for several click-to-donate pages, including The Hunger Site. You can also buy things that will benefit the different causes.

Care2.
There are all sorts of ways to do good here. Click-to-donate is on the "Causes" pull-down menu. You can get reward points for things like sending Care2 e-cards. (On the "Healthy Living" menu.) Once you earn enough points, you can use them to buy something for a charity. And there's also a link to their petition site.

I've used each of these, at various times. They're especially nice if you want to give to charity, but can't afford it. (And, as in the OP, if you're a sports "couch potato", you can use these sites during commercials! [Biased]

)

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
There are vast amounts of money spent on weapons which would be better spent on basics for people, by our own governments. Sport is surely better than conflict.

Agreed. The only thing is, it's not either/or. Judging by the ridiculous pay-scales of soccer players in my small country, and ongoing conflicts around the world, we seem to have too much of both. If there is a relationship such that more sport correlates to less conflict, I have yet to see it statistically proven. What might more plausibly reduce conflict is the eradication of economic inequalities, between nations, and between individuals.

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
There are many virtues. It's virtuous to stand up for justice and to work toward a better world for all people. This is possible while also watching TV at times.

Also agreed.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
You do.
Indeed so. And I can, without any inconsistency, commend it to anyone and everyone.

Best wishes, 2RM.

That's nice dear.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Society is compulsory virtue. It cannot exist without it. For all our moral codes, we are good only because we have to be. When societal rules fail, chaos is inevitable.

lilBuddha, I like your posts. Nevertheless, I prefer to think society is more about the prohibition of destructive vice, rather than the enforcement of virtue. Provided no-one else is harmed by their eccentricities, (which cannot be said of hoarding wealth), I will parade in the streets with a suitable banner protesting the right of anyone to go to Hell in their own damned way.

Let virtue be it's own reward, and the preserve of those who know its cost, and value.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
...while we're waiting for the world to get its act together, we can donate for *free* at click-to-donate sites.

Lend With Care funds loans made by microfinance companies in the developing world. I'm not trying to persuade you to try it (well, a bit) but it's made me think more about motivating giving. There are pictures on the site of people wanting loans, a couple of paragraphs about what they do and why they want the money.

This has several effects: you are supporting specific individuals, you can choose who you support maybe because you identify at some level with them and their problems. You get some feedback and the money can be invested over and over again (only a handful my loans have defaulted).

Giving a few quid to DEC or Oxfam now and then is almost a conditioned response for a lot of us. But there is something about feeling some, however slight, connection with specific people which to me seems different.

Is it a good way to encourage people? Or just a misguided paternalism? I can't decide - but at a selfish level it's become more important to me that what I give to other causes.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Society is compulsory virtue. It cannot exist without it. For all our moral codes, we are good only because we have to be. When societal rules fail, chaos is inevitable.
lilBuddha, I like your posts. Nevertheless, I prefer to think society is more about the prohibition of destructive vice, rather than the enforcement of virtue. Provided no-one else is harmed by their eccentricities, (which cannot be said of hoarding wealth), I will parade in the streets with a suitable banner protesting the right of anyone to go to Hell in their own damned way.

Let virtue be it's own reward, and the preserve of those who know its cost, and value.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Now we how your priorities are skewed.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Now we how your priorities are skewed.

That's nice, dear.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[ 17. January 2018, 10:34: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Marvellous. So why did you raise the OP? You know what you think but you just wanted to know what others think?

About our collective problem, an important issue that we all know that in a fundamental way that you are hitting on, and one that's uncomfortable for us?

Whatever that is?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:

Is it a good way to encourage people? Or just a misguided paternalism? I can't decide - but at a selfish level it's become more important to me that what I give to other causes.

There's been extensive discussion on the effectiveness of microfinance in its various forms on a number of effective altruism forums. For some more on this consider the comment on this blog post together with the post itself http://insights.careinternational.org.uk/development-blog/private-sector-engagement/is-peer-to-peer-lending-an-efficient-way- to-support-microfinance-and-to-achieve-development-objectives

Leaving these aside, the problem with the LWC model is that there is a definite bias towards western ideas of a 'deserving poor' and a bias towards comfortable/easy to understand narratives [see the issues with donating animals such as goats/donkeys etc. which used to be all the rage a few years back]

[ 17. January 2018, 10:49: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Marvellous. So why did you raise the OP? You know what you think but you just wanted to know what others think?

About our collective problem, an important issue that we all know that in a fundamental way that you are hitting on, and one that's uncomfortable for us?

Whatever that is?

Ah! It speaks! In (semi)grammatical sentences! Maybe, if we poke it some more, it will think, as well.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

SecondRateMind:

Careful now, you're nearly a Shipmate ...

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

Thanks for the link, chris, it seems to be saying 'more could be done' rather than 'this is bad'. With which I agree. The posted comment also seems quite reasonable. I don't know what any of the organisations have done in the 4 years since the post was made.

there is a definite bias towards western ideas of a 'deserving poor' and a bias towards comfortable/easy to understand narratives [see the issues with donating animals such as goats/donkeys etc. which used to be all the rage a few years back]

True but I was thinking more of how people might be motivated to give rather suggesting a model for all donors. I agree that I might choose borrowers who want something I also think has value (though sometimes not). What is the alternative? Don't microloan organisations themselves have a view: do they lend to those they consider as undeserving poor?

Donating goats/donkeys is a bit different surely. In LWC, individuals say they want a goat and will pay for it - it isn't a donation.

I agree it isn't clear cut, and I'm not suggesting it as a one size fits all solution. But if people are to give up some buying in favour of giving they must be motivated in some way. This does it for me.

What would you suggest?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Some churches (Our Place is one) have 'link missionaries', working in a specific field e.g. building/maintaining an orphanage.

This sort of thing focusses the mind, as it were, and gives people something concrete (often literally!) towards which to contribute.

Alternatively, there may be a special effort made (during Lent, perhaps) to encourage people to give to a designated charity or missionary effort.

(BTW - @Sioni Sais, should I buy the popcorn soon?).

IJ

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
Ah! It speaks! In (semi)grammatical sentences! Maybe, if we poke it some more, it will think, as well.

We have a Hell board on which personal attacks are allowed. You can go there, start a thread called "Calling N to Hell", and accuse them of obscurity, idiocy, or incivility at your discretion.

It's good form, though not required, to send them a PM alerting them to the Hell thread.

Personal attacks are not allowed on any other board. This is a rule you agreed to when you signed up. Please comply with it.

Eliab
Purgatory host

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
there is a definite bias towards western ideas of a 'deserving poor' and a bias towards comfortable/easy to understand narratives [see the issues with donating animals such as goats/donkeys etc. which used to be all the rage a few years back]

True but I was thinking more of how people might be motivated to give rather suggesting a model for all donors. I agree that I might choose borrowers who want something I also think has value (though sometimes not). What is the alternative? Don't microloan organisations themselves have a view: do they lend to those they consider as undeserving poor?

Donating goats/donkeys is a bit different surely. In LWC, individuals say they want a goat and will pay for it - it isn't a donation.

The donkey/goat example was meant to illustrate how the attractiveness of a particular narrative can skew what people will give towards. In the same way there are probably certain types of lending appeals that are more attractive purely because their narrative is compelling.

This kind of direct P2P lending is going to suffer from similar biases to hiring people.

It may be worth looking into the effective altruism movement - even if you don't accept their conclusions, the issues and debate raised can be useful to pondering over these ideas.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
Ah! It speaks! In (semi)grammatical sentences! Maybe, if we poke it some more, it will think, as well.
We have a Hell board on which personal attacks are allowed. You can go there, start a thread called "Calling N to Hell", and accuse them of obscurity, idiocy, or incivility at your discretion.

It's good form, though not required, to send them a PM alerting them to the Hell thread.

Personal attacks are not allowed on any other board. This is a rule you agreed to when you signed up. Please comply with it.

Eliab
Purgatory host

I apologise. I will try to do better, in future.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Marvellous. So why did you raise the OP? You know what you think but you just wanted to know what others think?

About our collective problem, an important issue that we all know that in a fundamental way that you are hitting on, and one that's uncomfortable for us?

Whatever that is?
Ah! It speaks! In (semi)grammatical sentences! Maybe, if we poke it some more, it will think, as well.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Touché mon brave. Sorry to have provoked an apparent ad hominem. Please think for me.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

Touché mon brave. Sorry to have provoked an apparent ad hominem. Please think for me.

A most gracious reply, that I am not at all sure I deserve. Truces and olive branches and pure white doves from me to you. But I would still prefer for you to think for yourself, with all your knowledge and experience brought to bear, than that you delegated the task to me.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Nice one, Martin.

[Biased]

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Nice one, Martin...

Maybe, but then, my intention is not to score petty points, merely to raise a topic for debate that might, just, save lives and save the world. If you're not supportive of that, then you are part of the problem, not the solution.

But I would prefer not to think that of you. So, I tend to err on the presumption of righteousness.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

[Killing me]

[ 17. January 2018, 14:11: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

I have to ask, Martin60, are you capable of expressing yourself in cogent English?

And Bishops Finger, do you have a point to make, pertinent to the theme of the thread, or is the best you can do, to mock?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Yes.

But I have better things to do with my time.

IJ

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Society is compulsory virtue. It cannot exist without it. For all our moral codes, we are good only because we have to be. When societal rules fail, chaos is inevitable.
lilBuddha, I like your posts. Nevertheless, I prefer to think society is more about the prohibition of destructive vice, rather than the enforcement of virtue.

So you are saying that you are cool with compulsory morality, but only to a certain point? That is only a matter of degree.
Don’t kill each other and take care of each other are not different things. They are what is necessary for a stable society.
And most religions, including Christianity, are compulsory morality. You are a decent human being* because your parents, and society, used compulsory morality.

*Making an assumption here, of course.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Addendum to my last post.

We evolved to be in small, hunter-gatherer groups. The natural sympathy/empathy we have is related to that. Small groups. In order to function in societies of hundreds, then thousands, then millions and now billions; we had to learn behaviours that allow us to function together. Caring for people you have no contact with, or connection to, is not part of our character naturally. That is the point of the Good Samaritan: to extend the connection.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

I have to ask, Martin60, are you capable of expressing yourself in cogent English?

And Bishops Finger, do you have a point to make, pertinent to the theme of the thread, or is the best you can do, to mock?

Best wishes, 2RM.

I wouldn't dream of it. Oh all right then, the risible but forgivable ineluctable un-self-aware presumptuous sanctimony of your post makes me ultimately puke. Cogent enough?

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Yes.

But I have better things to do with my time.

IJ

Fair enough. I can relate to that.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

I have to ask, Martin60, are you capable of expressing yourself in cogent English?

...

Best wishes, 2RM.
I wouldn't dream of it. Oh all right then, the risible but forgivable ineluctable un-self-aware presumptuous sanctimony of your post makes me ultimately puke. Cogent enough?

It's a good start. Now try justifying all those adjectives.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

You can carry on doing your homework here.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

I have to ask, Martin60, are you capable of expressing yourself in cogent English?

...

Best wishes, 2RM.
I wouldn't dream of it. Oh all right then, the risible but forgivable ineluctable un-self-aware presumptuous sanctimony of your post makes me ultimately puke. Cogent enough?
It's a good start. Now try justifying all those adjectives.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I will when you answer my question cogently.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Now we [know] how your priorities are skewed.
That's nice, dear.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Bugger. There's incogency and uncogency.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha: Society is compulsory virtue. It cannot exist without it. For all our moral codes, we are good only because we have to be. When societal rules fail, chaos is inevitable.
lilBuddha, I like your posts. Nevertheless, I prefer to think society is more about the prohibition of destructive vice, rather than the enforcement of virtue.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So you are saying that you are cool with compulsory morality, but only to a certain point?

Yup.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That is only a matter of degree.

Indeed. Though even matters of degree can eventually become matters of principle.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Don’t kill each other and take care of each other are not different things.

Are you sure about that? One is a matter of moral prohibition, the other a matter of moral injunction. They are the difference between the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) and the Silver Rule (Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you). Seems to me, these positive and negative formulations are significantly different.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
They are what is necessary for a stable society.

I wouldn't disagree.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And most religions, including Christianity, are compulsory morality.

Not my Christianity. Let others speak for themselves.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You are a decent human being*
*Making an assumption here, of course.

Don't assume too much.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
Are you sure about that? One is a matter of moral prohibition, the other a matter of moral injunction.

Semantics.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
Are you sure about that? One is a matter of moral prohibition, the other a matter of moral injunction.
Semantics.

I don't think so.

The other day, I was in my local pub. A group of ladies had inadvertently sat in my usual place, so I took another table. Eventually, however, they left. As I was reclaiming my chair, I noticed that one of them had left her handbag behind.

I had three options:

1) Rifle the handbag for any money and valuables it might contain.
2) Do nothing, on the grounds that I do not own any handbags, and whatever happens to handbags is no concern of mine.
3) Give the handbag up for safe-keeping to a member of staff, so that the lady concerned might be reunited with her property, when she realised she had mislaid it.

The silver rule disposes of option 1)
The golden rule disposes of options 1) and 2), and commends option 3)

I think this is more than just a semantic difference.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Now we [know] how your priorities are skewed.
That's nice, dear.

Best wishes, 2RM.
Bugger. There's incogency and uncogency.

This one.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
Are you sure about that? One is a matter of moral prohibition, the other a matter of moral injunction.
Semantics.
I don't think so.

The other day, I was in my local pub. A group of ladies had inadvertently sat in my usual place, so I took another table. Eventually, however, they left. As I was reclaiming my chair, I noticed that one of them had left her handbag behind.

I had three options:

1) Rifle the handbag for any money and valuables it might contain.
2) Do nothing, on the grounds that I do not own any handbags, and whatever happens to handbags is no concern of mine.
3) Give the handbag up for safe-keeping to a member of staff, so that the lady concerned might be reunited with her property, when she realised she had mislaid it.

The silver rule disposes of option 1)
The golden rule disposes of options 1) and 2), and commends option 3)

I think this is more than just a semantic difference.

Best wishes, 2RM.

You are confusing legal and moral.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

I have to ask, Martin60, are you capable of expressing yourself in cogent English?

And Bishops Finger, do you have a point to make, pertinent to the theme of the thread, or is the best you can do, to mock?

Best wishes, 2RM.

SecondRateMind, you were already told once by a host not to make personal attacks. Watch yourself.

And do not ignore the orders of the crew. It is not safe.

Gwai,
Purgatory Host

[ 18. January 2018, 02:21: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Martin,

Stop being provoking. You know better.

Gwai,
Purgatory Host

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

que sais-je--

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
...while we're waiting for the world to get its act together, we can donate for *free* at click-to-donate sites.
Lend With Care funds loans made by microfinance companies in the developing world. I'm not trying to persuade you to try it (well, a bit) but it's made me think more about motivating giving. There are pictures on the site of people wanting loans, a couple of paragraphs about what they do and why they want the money.

Kiva is similar.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Kiva is similar.

Up to a point. However LWC is trying to be truly peer-to-peer lending (i.e the little picture and story told relates to the actual person you will be financing), in Kiva's case they lend to intermediaries who supply a set of profiles of the sorts of borrowers they have on their books.
(more here https://www.cgdev.org/blog/kiva-not-quite-what-it-seems )

There's still plenty to criticise about the microfinancing model itself - the interest rates are frequently very high and it's based on the dubious premise that poor people can make themselves richer through access to credit (which comports with the just so stories we often tell ourselves in the West about the ability of people to succeed and become entrepreneurs).

The Chang/Bateman paper on microfinancing is available online and explores the issues above (and others) in more depth:

http://wer.worldeconomicsassociation.org/files/WER-Vol1-No1-Article2-Bateman-and-Chang-v2.pdf

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Interesting - I've not come across these microfinancing bodies before.

Earlier upthread, lilBuddha said:

quote:
Caring for people you have no contact with, or connection to, is not part of our character naturally. That is the point of the Good Samaritan: to extend the connection.

ISTM that microfinancing may be one way of extending the connection, but it also be done in churches by having (as many do) 'link missionaries' with whom the congregation is in frequent contact.

These 'link missionaries' may well be involved in specific work e.g. building/running an orphanage or a hospice, and so those who support them will know how their £££ is being spent.

IJ

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Gwai.

Acknowledged with apologies.

Also secondarily for the confusion of my last post with the link to my question to 2RM.

I thought I was quoting myself in the one ending, 'I will when you answer my question cogently.'.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
Are you sure about that? One is a matter of moral prohibition, the other a matter of moral injunction.
Semantics.
I don't think so.

~~snippity snip~~

I think this is more than just a semantic difference.

Best wishes, 2RM.
You are confusing legal and moral.

Actually, I think 2RM is right about this, albeit perhaps not being as clear as possible.

We have two subtly different injunctions:

"Don't do anything to someone else that you wouldn't want them to do to you"
"Do those things to others that you would want them to do to you"

To reference the movie Batman Begins, Batman's statement "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" is perfectly compatible with injunction 1. Injunction 2, however, would require Batman not only to refrain from killing Ra's Al Ghul but also to save him from dying in the train crash. I do think that's more than just a semantic difference.

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You are confusing legal and moral.

I can see why you might say that.

There is some overlap between ethics and the law.

Seems to me, it is a proper function of the law to discourage me from harming others, or their interests. Or to prevent me from doing so. And to punish me if I do. The silver rule applies.

However, it is not a proper function of the law to try to make me virtuous, and punish me if I am not. The application of the golden rule must be voluntary, or virtue becomes an onerous duty, inflicted by a paternalist government in a patronising way on a disparate citizenry who may well have a justifiably different conception of the ethical from the establishment 'great and good'.

For a government to say 'Don't be bad, or we will stop you', is not the same thing as saying, 'You must be good, as the nation-state determines goodness'. The first is acceptable, and in all our interests; the second is not far different to slavery.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[ 18. January 2018, 13:13: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Most nation states do go beyond don't harm and most people want that. The difference is in which things different people want enforced.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I noticed that Coldplay made $500 million from their recent tour. It's a ton of money, and I suppose you could criticize it, along the same lines as huge fees in sports, can be criticized.

Fair enough, but I don't see anybody coming up with solutions to this. What do we do, cancel music tours? Tax the guys at 98%?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I noticed that Coldplay made $500 million from their recent tour. It's a ton of money, and I suppose you could criticize it, along the same lines as huge fees in sports, can be criticized.

Fair enough, but I don't see anybody coming up with solutions to this. What do we do, cancel music tours? Tax the guys at 98%?

Ah ha, Mr. Wilson...

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I noticed that Coldplay made $500 million from their recent tour. It's a ton of money, and I suppose you could criticize it, along the same lines as huge fees in sports, can be criticized.

Fair enough, but I don't see anybody coming up with solutions to this. What do we do, cancel music tours? Tax the guys at 98%?

Stop paying ridiculous prices for tickets.

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

As long as those who choose to enjoy sport or entertainment are the ones who finance it, I have no issue. As soon as governments, by way of taxes or otherwise, force their entire citizenry to finance it, those who do and those who do not want to, then I have a problem.

If the government were to cut support for sport, culture, and entertainment, think of all the money freed up to "feed the poor".

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

When it's reported that Coldplay earned $500 million, pretty certain that's without disbursements. So all the engineers, cooks, roadies, techies, PAs, hire companies, teamsters, etc etc, are all getting paid out of that, for months of hard work at often unsociable hours.

What Chris Martin will have personally earned will be significantly south of the headline figure. Paying creative artists is a positive thing. And yes, people like a show.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I noticed that Coldplay made $500 million from their recent tour. It's a ton of money, and I suppose you could criticize it, along the same lines as huge fees in sports, can be criticized.

Fair enough, but I don't see anybody coming up with solutions to this. What do we do, cancel music tours? Tax the guys at 98%?
Ah ha, Mr. Wilson...

How can you KNOW that?!

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
When it's reported that Coldplay earned $500 million, pretty certain that's without disbursements. So all the engineers, cooks, roadies, techies, PAs, hire companies, teamsters, etc etc, are all getting paid out of that, for months of hard work at often unsociable hours.

What Chris Martin will have personally earned will be significantly south of the headline figure. Paying creative artists is a positive thing. And yes, people like a show.

All that is true. It is also true that ticket prices are on the rise and that even if Martin only earned 1% of that, it isn't nothing. Musical artists make very little, if anything, from recording. The money is in the touring. But how much depends on one's fame.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

At least musicians can tour, and monetise their performances.

Us writers have nothing but easily pirated words.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
At least musicians can tour, and monetise their performances.

Us writers have nothing but easily pirated words.

Take music lessons? [Two face]

Huia

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I noticed that Coldplay made $500 million from their recent tour. It's a ton of money, and I suppose you could criticize it, along the same lines as huge fees in sports, can be criticized.

Fair enough, but I don't see anybody coming up with solutions to this. What do we do, cancel music tours? Tax the guys at 98%?
Ah ha, Mr. Wilson...

Hmm...is this Mr. Wilson, next-door neighbor to Dennis the Menace (IIRC)?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Most nation states do go beyond don't harm and most people want that. The difference is in which things different people want enforced.

...which usually apply to those irresponsible so-and-sos over there, not to us decent people...and, of course, the decent people are deeply shocked if someone tries to apply laws/rules to the decent people.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
At least musicians can tour, and monetise their performances.

Us writers have nothing but easily pirated words.

Words are just words. Even plots and characters are hard to protect, cf Jeffrey Archer.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

sharkshooter said, a while back:

quote:
If the government were to cut support for sport, culture, and entertainment, think of all the money freed up to "feed the poor".

Yes maybe, but, even with increased private sector spending on bread and circuses, there would probably be even more 'poor', i.e. those whose jobs depend on the culture, sport, and entertainment industry.

This really isn't a black-and-white issue...
[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

And there you're getting down to the root problem of democracy. People vote for what they want. But do they vote for what is best for them? Clearly money diverted to luxe football stadiums would be better spent clothing the naked and feeding the hungry. But the voting populace wants football. And so they vote to fund that stadium, constructing whatever rationale you like (they're lazy! stadiums create jobs! We need to field a team for the Olympics!) to justify the vote.

But, if we then accept that the voters do not always vote wisely (and you need only look at the US for proof, that is if you don't want to talk about Brexit) then what should be done? Rely upon wise legislators to guide decisions? Look at the US Congress today and try not to fall on the floor laughing. A prudent chief executive? Oh please.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Anarchy - but only under a wise, and benevolent, Anarch.

I'll get me coat...

IJ

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

OK, I thought it may be useful just to summarise this thread, as I see it, in the hope of keeping it on track:

1) I started with the suggestion that too much money is spent on sport, and not enough wealth is distributed to those that need it.

2) Challenged as to my personal circumstances, I asserted that a 'fair' distribution of the world's wealth, such that anyone and everyone could own a decent standard standard of living, would be all the world's wealth, divided by all the world's people.

3) That amounts to some $33,000 net worth, and $15,000 income per year, per person.

4) I asserted that I live within these boundaries, and that made some of you 'want to puke' at my sanctimonious, holier than thou, position.

5) However, I further advocated that that (re)distribution of the world's wealth should be voluntary, even if I advocate a general denigration and disparagement of the avaricious few who are millionaires and more, and hoard wealth others need more.

If you disagree with this summary of the thread, or think it in some way an unethical position, now is the time to comment.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

(This is not a direct response to your last post 2RM.)
I'm not one for quoting parables, but there is the one about the servants (?) who were given so many talents each. When the money-giver returned to find out what had happened, one had spent it, one had hidden it, but the third had made the money work and now had more than he started with.
Even if everyone was given an equal share of the world's money and resources, , the same results would apply. some would fritter it away, some would hoard it, others do something useful.
Yes, I know that is stating the obvious!

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

Are you saying that the poor are poor through their own fault?

I prefer to see the parable of the talents as a parable of opportunities. Some get more, some less. Some fritter them, some bury them, some take advantage of them.

None of which determines, to my my of thinking, that some should starve, while others feast.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
OK, I thought it may be useful just to summarise this thread, as I see it, in the hope of keeping it on track:

1) I started with the suggestion that too much money is spent on sport, and not enough wealth is distributed to those that need it.

2) Challenged as to my personal circumstances, I asserted that a 'fair' distribution of the world's wealth, such that anyone and everyone could own a decent standard standard of living, would be all the world's wealth, divided by all the world's people.

3) That amounts to some $33,000 net worth, and $15,000 income per year, per person.

4) I asserted that I live within these boundaries, and that made some of you 'want to puke' at my sanctimonious, holier than thou, position.

5) However, I further advocated that that (re)distribution of the world's wealth should be voluntary, even if I advocate a general denigration and disparagement of the avaricious few who are millionaires and more, and hoard wealth others need more.

If you disagree with this summary of the thread, or think it in some way an unethical position, now is the time to comment.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Hey 2RM, may be you and Russ should get a room in Hotel Marriage-Made-In-Nemesis.

[ 20. January 2018, 16:20: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

Basically, you presented this thread as a 'gotcha'. Either people agreed with you (and are hypocrites for not acting accordingly) or they are monsters who hate the poor.

And you wonder why folk here have reacted strongly to your thesis?

Not really. In the western world, people's wallets are probably the most sensitive part of their anatomy. And, we are talking about why people waste and die needless, preventable deaths in the developing world. If these two factors combine to arouse strong feeling, it is because they jolly well should.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[ 20. January 2018, 17:22: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

It's not so much the question you raise, but the way in which you treat those who disagree with your binary view....

IJ

Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
It's not so much the question you raise, but the way in which you treat those who disagree with your binary view...

It's not binary. I am quite prepared to admit that some are more culpable than others, for the holocaust of poverty, in proportion to their wealth. And, I am quite prepared to countenance disagreement. I just want it properly and justifiably argued, before I will admit an objection is sound and valid.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[ 20. January 2018, 18:46: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

*sigh*

I can only reiterate, and agree with, what Doc Tor said earlier:

quote:
Basically, you presented this thread as a 'gotcha'. Either people agreed with you (and are hypocrites for not acting accordingly) or they are monsters who hate the poor.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I think that will do for this thread. The recent exchanges underline my growing judgement that there is no real prospect of serious discussion here, as opposed to tedious repetition of entrenched positions.

Serious discussion is the fundamental aim of Purgatory.

Thread closed.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0