Islam's Peace Offensive

[Plane]

But where does the idea of rewarding the productive have its roots?

Let me look around a bit.

[][][][][][][][][][]


Proverb    22: 16 Proverbs 31:31  James 5 : 4  It is a bad idea to withhold earnings from someone who has earned them.


1 Kings 11:28  Promote the talented.


Proverbs 12:14  Proverbs 14:23  Proverbs 16:26  Proverbs 18:9 Proverbs 21:25
Proverbs 28:19
Don't be lazy


1 Chronicles 4:10   Pray for success.

][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][

I didn't find direct support for the idea with a cursory scripture search , I found a few things that support it tangentally.

I don't know the real origion of enlightened self intrest tho I suspect it is older than Adam Smith.

 Smith wrote: "How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others and render their happiness necessary to him though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it."


 http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Enc/bios/Smith.html


   Perhaps the best reson to allow Lazie Fare economic rules is that they work better than the alternatives we know of  in terms of the greatest benefit to the greatest number. It seems to be the rule in modern times and anchient that a land with few rich has plenty of poor and that a land with many wealthy still has the poor but they are not as poor as they would be with out the presence of the rich.

    I feel as though some people would level the playing feild to the point that everyone was earning the same wage even if they knew for a fact that this would cause famine.

   I am gonna have to admit tho , that I can't really answer the question you asked.

[Plane]

  That ideal is perfectly available , if you and your Church are agreed on it as a course of action then you may establish a Kibbutz or Commune where that sort of social interaction commenses tomorrow.

    But it would not be ideal to force anyone to enter that deal now would it?

    There are several religious communitys that do operate in that manner and I wish more power to them , but if they were comeing round to demand the tithe from me at gun point I would have little respect for their rightousness afterwards.

I don't recall threatening anyone.

But where does the idea of rewarding the productive have its roots?

   If you would base tax collection policy and wealth redistribution policy in government programs that are based on these principals then you are threatening the non- co- operative with ruin , prison  and death.

[Plane]

In my opinion it is an issue of equality. It is simply inequality to have a small core of elite who own such a large percentage of the wealth, while most own so little (and many own nothing at all).

Indeed what makes this a bad idea?
One of the alternatives is that we all starve together and that seems like the most likely alternative .

[_JS]

  That ideal is perfectly available , if you and your Church are agreed on it as a course of action then you may establish a Kibbutz or Commune where that sort of social interaction commenses tomorrow.

    But it would not be ideal to force anyone to enter that deal now would it?

    There are several religious communitys that do operate in that manner and I wish more power to them , but if they were comeing round to demand the tithe from me at gun point I would have little respect for their rightousness afterwards.

I don't recall threatening anyone.

But where does the idea of rewarding the productive have its roots?

   If you would base tax collection policy and wealth redistribution policy in government programs that are based on these principals then you are threatening the non- co- operative with ruin , prison  and death.

That doesn't fly. Then any tax is coerced and anyone who thinks of any government policy is threatening someone else.

[_JS]

In my opinion it is an issue of equality. It is simply inequality to have a small core of elite who own such a large percentage of the wealth, while most own so little (and many own nothing at all).

Indeed what makes this a bad idea?
One of the alternatives is that we all starve together and that seems like the most likely alternative .

You keep mentioning starvation and famine. I don't recall the last famine to hit Norway, Sweden, Denmark...can you point that out to me?

[_JS]

I wanted to say something else here as Bt's statement on envy got me to thinking.

Envy really works both ways doesn't it? On one hand I'm sure there are those in the lower classes who resent that Richard Cory is the big man about town and can throw his money down anywhere he goes.

On the other hand, what about the people in the upper classes and upper middle classes, who loathe the idea that a garbageman or a bus driver should be making above $X in salary? So there is a feeling of entitlement that runs the other direction as well. "I went to school, I worked hard, I deserve the money I'm making. Why should the garbagemen have a union and make so much money? Why does a factory worker make Y% of my salary?"

I think a lot of people in the middle class (and I'm using rather standard American terms for ease of use, not really preferred terms to speak on class) have that thinking process. It is very much one of entitlement and also envy, it just happens to run the other direction.

The elite classes, the billionaires and those with a lot of clout and power likely have a completely different outlook. The view from the top, as it were, is entirely different.

[_JS]

Here are some quotes that you all might find interesting:

We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.

Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.

As soon as the idea was introduced that all men were equal before God, that world was bound to collapse.

Pure Christianity? the Christianity of the catacombs? is concerned with translating the Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics.

Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. To-day, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday, the instigator was Saul: the instigator to-day, Mardochai. Saul has changed into St. Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea.

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity. Christianity is a prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society.

[Plane]

  That ideal is perfectly available , if you and your Church are agreed on it as a course of action then you may establish a Kibbutz or Commune where that sort of social interaction commenses tomorrow.

    But it would not be ideal to force anyone to enter that deal now would it?

    There are several religious communitys that do operate in that manner and I wish more power to them , but if they were comeing round to demand the tithe from me at gun point I would have little respect for their rightousness afterwards.

I don't recall threatening anyone.

But where does the idea of rewarding the productive have its roots?

   If you would base tax collection policy and wealth redistribution policy in government programs that are based on these principals then you are threatening the non- co- operative with ruin , prison  and death.

That doesn't fly. Then any tax is coerced and anyone who thinks of any government policy is threatening someone else.

Yes every tax is coerced and every government expenditure is use of money earned in other hands , this is exactly so.

[Plane]

In my opinion it is an issue of equality. It is simply inequality to have a small core of elite who own such a large percentage of the wealth, while most own so little (and many own nothing at all).

Indeed what makes this a bad idea?
One of the alternatives is that we all starve together and that seems like the most likely alternative .

You keep mentioning starvation and famine. I don't recall the last famine to hit Norway, Sweden, Denmark...can you point that out to me?

Its coming.

The Scandinavian countries built wealth in a very capitalistic way for a long time and can afford to coast a while now. A country with plenty of wealth percapata can coast  a while without worrying about being extremely efficient. But in a country with little to spare inefficiency kills people.

Imagine China becoming more capitalistic or more socialistic , they had more famine when they were more Communist and less famine as they become more capitalistic , in which direction do they find progress now?

It is a mistake for North Korea to be extremely socialist ,they have had famine in a major way on account of it , if they wanted to be socialist in the way that Scandinavia is they should be Capitalistic for a couple of century's first so that they can afford it as well as Scandinavia.

[Plane]

Here are some quotes that you all might find interesting:

Who is being quoted?

Oh here it is ,Adolph again.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0149-7952(200310)26%3A3%3C561%3A%22TTTF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2


I think of Adolph as arrogant beyond anything his understanding warranted, he was wrong more often than he knew , but who was going to correct the great man?