Re: Not to be smug or anything, but...


"[none]" <name@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:I2q3j.48430$eY.42015@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Alex W. wrote:

"[none]" <name@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:VP53j.65990$RX.59426@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



as a matter of personal conscience i find it none of my business what a
person does with that which is his. it bothers me that some feel it
incumbent on themselves to demand that others do according to their
conscience rather than leave it to the conscience of the person to whom
an item belongs (be it wealth of any other property).


Why does it bother you? We all do this, all the time. We judge people.
We hold them to certain standards of thought and behaviour. If a guy
beats his wife or employs illegals, we do not dismiss it as "it's his own
business" either, do we? If I post a message claiming that I regularly
beat my dog with the business end of my belt, half the group will be
ready to come over to my place and express their deep moral disapproval
in no uncertain terms and possibly a fist or two. We certainly judge
people and their money by the way they came to acquire it: an inherited
fortune is less respectable than self-made money (unless hallowed by
age), and the Kennedy family is regularly disparaged because Joseph made
his pile running booze.

er... no... i can't speak for anyone but myself. unless it directly
affects me, i see it as media hype to stir up the masses. if i am selected
as a member of a jury on certain of those issues, then i will give them
due consideration.

No media hype without willing consumers. A media outlet is a commercial
enterprise: they produce what they think will induce as much of their target
audience as possible to become consumers. IOW, people generally *want* to
read about murder most foul and extravagant social behaviour. Any hype only
works because we respond to it.



perhaps you have a screwed perspective of "we"? could it be that you are
using the "royal we" when it would be more appropriate to use "me"?

Nope, I meant "we" as in the general "we the public".



Where do such people find the inspiration and encouragement to change a
lifelong paradigm, a cardinal virtue of today's society? Chances are
their local churches have no problem overlooking relevant Biblical
passages (often in exchange for suitable donations). The media adore
and adulate wealth and all its representatives, the more excessive and
conspicuous the consumption the better. Personal modesty and frugality
in a wealthy person is ignored or viewed as charming eccentricity rather
than behaviour to be emulated. Value and social standing are determined
and ranked by their dollar value. Given this pressure, where does a man
turn who has made his pile if he wants to find a yardstick by which to
measure whether he really does have enough?

i find it none of my business what they do with their wealth. if they buy
12 super cars then all the people who work at the dealership, the
shipping companies, the manufacturing companies and other such businesses
all benefit by having jobs and earning a living. if they choose to save
their wealth then the people who work at banks, and the people who work
at the companies providing services to those banks, all have jobs and
earn livings. if they invest their wealth then the people who work at the
investment company, and all the companies with those those investments
are trusted, all have jobs and earn livings. many families benefit from
the creation and maintenance of wealth. if the person of wealth stuffs it
all in a mattress and does nothing with it, then it's still none of my
business simply because it is not mine on which to make demands. to claim
a stake in someone else's property is arrogant and addle pated.


Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
I know that wealth largely remains in circulation.
I was not even concerned about making claims.

I want to know how and where a man is supposed to develop the conscience
to recognise and decide such a question on a moral level;

from his family and his spiritual beliefs.

I was born into the largest Christian sect, the one and only holy and
Apostolic Catholic Church. Their attitude to the morality of wealth largely
consisted of heavy hints regarding camels and eyes of needles whenever the
church roof needed re-doing. Not that they could really say much,
considering they are the largest private landowner in the world and run a
business empire that would make the Dow Jones the moment it is listed on the
NYSE. Is this the sort of source of spiritual beliefs you were thinking of?



beyond that, how he is supposed to grow the backbone to go against one
of the strongest social imperatives we have.

yet you leave this imperative undefined. at least you left me wondering
about what it might be.

The imperative to consume, consume, consume. Last season's jeans are no
good, have to have the new model. Mustn't drive last year's model, it shows
you are a professional failure. If you have to have a puny 34-inch plasma,
you had better buy three of them (kitchen and kids). Buy this, buy that.
Get it NOW. What, you don't have an iPhone yet? You must be a misfit.
Being maxed out on your plastic is not a cause for worry but a dinner-table
topic, even a source of pride. We buy *** because the neighbour has it,
because we are told we MUST HAVE IT RIGHT NOW, because we are told this is
the ONE THING which guarantees eternal happiness and makes our lives
complete. Our children compare parental earnings and possessions in the
playground to determine bragging rights. That's when they are not being
bullied or mugged for wearing this rather than that brand of expensive
sneaker.

That imperative.



One would imagine that such vastly successful people have the insight and
the strength to do just that, but all too often, they don't. Do you know
the biggest concentration of Lamborghinis in the world? It's Southern
Florida -- even when they decide to shop until they drop, they still go
with the herd and buy the same supercar as everybody else.

and your point? i still don't see how any of this is anyone's business
except for the person who chooses to spend his/her money as they see fit.

Money in and of itself is pointless.

to you. what about to someone else?

In and of itself? To everyone. In themselves, a few quarters are just a
bunch of mixed-metal discs, not even as useful as a washer or a nail; to the
derelict, they are a cup of coffee. A $10 bill is only a dirty piece of
paper; to you, it may be a small tip, to the waitress it's halfway to a pair
of shoes for her kid.



It acquires value only with the purpose to which we set it. So when we
have enough to satisfy our needs and then our desires, what then? Is
there a purpose to simply use it as a way of keeping score, of measuring
success? Is the man with two billion more successful than the man with
one?

again, who cares? if they accumulate a million lifetimes more than basic
needs require, it's there's to acquire and use as they see fit. i find the
it most inappropriate for people to exert their energy and frustration
toward what others do with their property than anything the actual owners
might do (or not do) with what is theirs.

I care, not least because it's helping to *** up our society. When money
is all that everything boils down to, when all that counts is who has how
much (or not), we lose our collective soul. What price civic and social
virtues? How will kids grow up if all their parents can think about is
making more money? What is left if we reduce everything down to a balance
***? Hell, most of the kids dealing drugs on the streets do so because
they have been taught that the money it brings is the only thing that
counts. Do you want everybody to think that way?



.