Arguments on poverty and fair distribution have a long history. A corrollary to Wyclif's axiomatic position that all just human dominium derives from God is that no private property relations, which serve as the underpinnings for all human mastery, are just without grace. Following Augustine, private property is a direct result of the Fall of man, the ideal state is one of communal ownership. Since the Church is the re-established ideal state, grace does not provide for its just ownership of any property whatsoever. Because Wyclif saw the fourteenth-century church enjoying the lion's share of property ownership in England, he argued that the king was bound by God to relieve the church of its property, and to rule over it as a divinely appointed steward. There were questions as to whether Christ owned the clothes he wore. Wyclif's bones were eventually dug up and burned. Beneficent actions and motives occupy a central place in morality. Common examples are found in social welfare schemes, scholarships for needy and meritorious students, communal support of health-related research, policies to improve the welfare of animals, philanthropy, disaster relief, programs to benefit children and the incompetent, and preferential hiring and admission policies. What makes these diverse acts beneficent? Are beneficent acts obligatory or rather the pursuit of moral ideals? Such questions have generated a substantial literature on beneficence in both theoretical ethics and applied ethics. In theoretical ethics, the dominant issue in recent years has been how to place limits on the scope of beneficence. Enacting a social minimum may well be a demand of social justice. Indeed, it may well be one of the most urgent demands of social justice. But, challenging as this demand may be, it could be that social justice requires even more of us than this. Theories are everywhere. The theory of inequality and poverty measurement, welfare economics, the theory of social choice, the theory of bargaining and of cooperative games, and the theory of fair allocation are just some. Many people make livings from this industry of debate and I hope the above indicates this isn’t new. Wyclif was from around 1300 as I remember. In the West we have soaked up much propaganda about the munificence of capitalism. We would no doubt feel differently if we had survived childhoods in Bangladesh. Mao, of course, took the role of Wyclif's king in China. He starved 30 million of his own. There is much to beware in all of this.
On 9 Dec, 10:49, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Brilliantly picked images Francis! I fear the problem is even greater > than here to there. I think many believe even trying will destroy > everything, not least what cosiness they have. I used to think > education brought people to understanding of what is fair, but if this > was ever the case it's gone to pot. We are Rome in decadent phase by > the looks of things. I think economics does little other than keep > this going - through forms of slavery. Although Plato and Aristotle's > societies would rely on slaves and those prepared to scar there souls > with real work (the 'bronze' people) one might make some kind of > excuse that this was to free-up the contemplative, examined life (I > wouldn't and think such reasoning was probably dross then). These > days, technology can help with a lot of the drudgery - yet some even > turn this to a preference for robots over people. > I'm thoroughly sick of all the media and political class on the > 'news'. It's always news of their dire interests. Yet 'reality TV' > is even worse. I guess our 'gold nosh' might well be the Beethoven's > 9th by a wonderful scratch orchestra in Lagos I mentioned (even more > wonderful that Sue and I got in on OAP tickets!). My intent is that > we should all have to do our share of scut work to qualify. We'd have > relativity theory without Einstein - surely we don't need the > bweankers and would still have Thierry Henri's hand on a reasonably > capped wage. These excesses are the problem not the salvation. We > need to get this. > The thought experiment is Guy Fawkes (at least in idealised, non-anti- > Scot form). What would we lose if Parliament (Rathouse, Congress > etc.) all went up at the same time? Even the twin-towers might have > been a reasonable experiment if full of International Bweankers. I > would not justify violence - it breeds more. Sadly, I expect the > banks and parliaments would just fill up with more of the same, but > this might well prove there is nothing special about those who take > the positions, telling us something about our meritocracies. My > suspicion is that the whole aggrandisement of the individual is > actually anti-individualist, leading to elite monopoly. I suspect the > 'theory' (of management) is based on war not peace. It is coercion > (fascist), not collective, perversely libidinal and not at all mature. > Kenya is selling out its land from under the feet of some of its > tribes. Britain gave the bweankers £40,000 per family when we need > local, self-sustaining jobs. Elsewhere, a Scottish village buys its > own wind turbine. Freiburg has some wonderful green projects. My > neighbour from across the road smiled hello. I wouldn't trade that > for all the gold dinners in China. Could we get somewhere down the > path to there with more Younus, or do we have to grapple with our > constant fears of needing to stay ahead in case anyone else gets > better at engines of death than us and comes looking? > > On 9 Dec, 09:42, fran the man <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Theoretically, it's all so easy, isn't it? I have no doubt that our > > present global productivity and resources are sufficient to supply > > even our oversized population with secure subsistence; as Neil defines > > it, "enough to eat, shelter, warmth, collectivity, > > education, health care, honest policing and legal protection." The > > current contrast between useless superfluity and want is often > > obscene.http://www.manetti.it/web/eng/edible/bin/ > > > The problem is getting from here to there. > > > Francis > > > On 9 Dez., 09:46, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the concept of karma is > > > not valid. Otherwise all those people would already have > > > metamorphosised into cockroaches. Or perhaps they have, on the > > > inside ... not Gabby, but from a Guardian blog. > > > I have seen a lot of material over the years on getting rid of > > > poverty. 'Critical Perspectives in Accounting' has produced a few, > > > including a penny on income tax as enough (a Foucauldian perspective). > > > There is a critical side to this kind of dream and I wouldn't engage > > > with it to knock the dream. The first horrible fact is that > > > interventions have produced a great many more people in poverty simply > > > through the use of medicine, decent water supply (not always so > > > decent) and improved agriculture. It would have been more sensible to > > > cap the population back in the 1950s. We haven't grasped this nettle > > > even now. > > > Our general notion of improving matters is more of the same through > > > consuming capitalism - this means our thinking is that of idiots. > > > I like the idea of enough to eat, shelter, warmth, collectivity, > > > education, health care, honest policing and legal protection - and > > > that these should come 'free'. They should be free in the sense of us > > > contributing what we can to all this as a 'responsibility' (all of us, > > > with no exceptions - this raising problems with disability, but not > > > insurmountable ones). Freeriding should not be possible either by > > > scrotes or through wealth. This should be national (international) > > > service - something we all do (do, not just pay for). > > > What we do that is more than this should not wreck the world. > > > > Even at this stage there are many objections that can be raised. What > > > would motivation be in such a society, what grim bureaucracies might > > > make things worse, what sadness might we cause for those wanting > > > massive numbers of children and so on? Would we crush the very > > > creativity we need or create more space for it? I'd want to limit any > > > earnings or establish a potlach to allow personal kudos in > > > accumulation, but one that comes to a collective end. Would this > > > destroy the world because bweankers (this sort of describes bean > > > counting and the onamism of bankers) could not be bothered to do > > > anything without motivational bonuses? > > > > On 9 Dec, 07:57, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > This is the position we need to be working from Orn. I was at a > > > > session for self-employed people yesterday and BS aside you could feel > > > > that people present wanted to contribute not just scrabble for cash. > > > > Yet sadly this was what the session was about. My own desire not to > > > > work for anyone else is driven by a desire not to be part of quite > > > > dreadful conditions in employment that deny my integrity (flawed as I > > > > accept it is) and almost any chance to be human. I sort of want > > > > something a bit like the 'free table' of Plato or Aristotle, though am > > > > nauseated by any thought of a slavery base for this. I like Kibbutz > > > > ideas. There are deeper, wider issues though. > > > > I feel privileged when you bring matters such as this to our table > > > > mate. And when Chris brings reminders that there is an industry of > > > > such. By the time I've done my thinking on the ideal, I recognise > > > > there is much organisation to be done and that we do not reach an > > > > ideal. Sooner or later issues like population control enter and one > > > > realises the ideal brings practical responsibilities. This should not > > > > stop us. > > > > > On 8 Dec, 14:18, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > A very interesting view: > > > > > > ... > > > > > MUHAMMAD YUNUS: I believe that, totally, poverty is not part of human > > > > > being, that is my first premise, so if it not part of human being the > > > > > real human being will emerge some day, it is the stupidity of human > > > > > being that created poverty, so stupidity can not go on, the real > > > > > creativity of human being will take over the stupidity and it will > > > > > completely eliminate it and this is the century when it will happen. > > > > > And it can be done, it's not a, a kind of a pipe dream or some > > > > > fantastic thing, it's possible because it's us who make the difference > > > > > and if we can create the structures to do that; people will raise > > > > > themselves out of poverty, just like that. Human beings created to do > > > > > much bigger things than struggle with food and clothes and some tiny > > > > > little thing. These are matters of past, these are pre-historic thing. > > > > > Real history will begin when there are no such things. > > > > > ... > > > > > > The entire interview is > > > > > at:http://www.abc.net.au/tv/elders/transcripts/s2757468.htm -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
