Anything in “theory” can be reasoned flawless. Anyway, that is not the point.
You cannot eliminate human nature from any system since operation of the system relies on the people involved. As you stated:
You could quite possibly make this argument for almost any economic system. It’s a moot point. "Give to Ceasar…but Give to God…"as Scripture has it, renders it moot.
But you can show that some systems always produce bad results – communism is a case in point. The reason is simple – in order to make communism and other utopian systems work, you must have an all powerful state, able to reach into every aspect of the individual’s life. And when you have that, you have a dictatorship.
You couldn’t make this statement about any system based on communist or socialist theory.
In practice for the reasons I mentioned, (Human Nature, original sin), yes I agree… However in a purely theoretical sense, communism or socialism, absent the spectre of a darkened human nature, they can perhaps operate in a Christian mindset. Their operation extends from the heart of the individual not the state. No enforcement from a state entity would be necessary when the the effect of original sin is removed.
Once there was a man who had a recipe for chocolate cake – “Mix mud and straw and bake it in the oven”
Actually I did in my previous post with a major exception given for theoretical argument
The theory is not inherently flawed, the practical application always is by reason of the exception given.
It’s sad how that happens in certain systems when human nature is thrown into the works. It becomes a paradox that the very thing they try to eliminate becomes the vehicle for oppression by usurping the main concept to accomplish it.
The British have a saying about this, “How does it work when it’s Buggins’ turn?”
Many people choose to work below their potential? That could be true in some cases. Have you ever interviewed someone for a job and they were “overqualified” for the job? I have. I didn’t hire them - simply because they would be disgruntled after a while probably. They would find the job mundane and beneath them and only applied because they were out of work and needed something to get them by till something better came along.
What’s your point here?
So you denied them a job because it was to your advantage to do so?
You disagree that people should strive? That a person has a duty to use the talents that God gives him?
And that is justification for locking the sewers into their jobs for life? That sounds like exploitation to me!!
Let me – without intending to offend – offer you some implications of your argument:
They were denied for being overqualified. Would you hire a doctor to scrub the floors? You are actually holding THEM back by accepting them to do so. If you reject them hopefully they will go back to saving people’s lives.
I disagree that EVERYONE should strive. Some should if they want to and have the capabilities to do so. I ask you again the question you refused to answer - If you have a sewing factory of 100 people - how are you going to get sewing done if you have all chiefs and no indians??? According to your plan everyone would be in management in charge of a sewing factory that doesn’t do any sewing!!! Everyone stands around in a suit and tie and expects the sewing machines to miraculously sew things themselves.
Who is talking about “locking the sewers into their jobs”??? I worked my way from the bottom to where I am today. I value people who want to strive. But, I don’t condemn those who don’t. Why should I?
Why not – other than they might, as said earlier, move on to better things soon, which would be inconvenient for the employer.
How so? I’m not putting them in chains, am I? They can move on whenever they want, can’t they?
So who shouldn’t?
And I pointed out you assume a static analysis. The person who is stitching a shirt today may be a foreman next year, a manager a couple of years later, a vice-president some time after that, and so on.
Did you not later in this post accuse me of twisting what you said? And are you not doing the same thing here? I said nothing at all about “standing around in suits.”
No one said there is anything “wrong” with a factory job. I merely point out that everyone has a right to work to better himself.
First of all, I think I’m entitled to an apology for that remark. I have not called you names, now have I?
Then why do you oppose the notion that people should strive to reach their full potential?
Once again, you substitute a personal attack for reasoned argument.
For the same confounded reason you gave me - they would be held back! It works both ways. It’s not a matter of convenience for the employer - not one bit. I would be glad to have a doctor on staff, but in reality is that in HIS BEST INTERESTS? Second, is it in the best interest of the company? An employer-employee relationship should be beneficial to both. If it’s not, then a change is in order.
You accuse me of holding people back from striving but fail to realize that you would be holding people back if you allow overqualified people to take lesser jobs. Again, does it make sense to have a doctor scrub floors or in the ER saving lives??
Those who are satisfied with what they are doing already - refer to example above.
That’s fine if he wants to move up. I welcome it in my own organization. The point remains that not everyone is management material nor is everyone interested in becoming managers. Your point SEEMS to be that EVERYONE must strive or they are sinful at worst or lazy at best. Notice I said SEEMS that way. I’m trying to bring you back to the middle.
That’s simply the mental picture in my head in response to your post - right, wrong or indifferent.
Well, by golly we agree!
Again, we wholeheartedly agree with each other.
Not until I get an apology for being an exploiter - refer to quotes from you below. You basically accused me of exploiting people and liking it.
Again I agree if they WANT TO.
I don’t. But I don’t think every person MUST try to reach this idealistic “full potential” you speak of.
I regret saying that about your political views.
Why would you presume to know his best interests better than he knows them himself?
And did you actually have a doctor apply for a floor-scrubbing job?
And when you fail to encourage people, you abet their failure.
And yet you wouldn’t allow that “physician” to be satisfied with the job he applied for.
Who says they aren’t?
What is the “middle?” Do we decide that some people “aren’t management material” and write them off? Do we decide that we need shirt stitchers and fix it so they can’t be anything else?
Wrong and personal.
So why raise this argument about them not being able, suited, or otherwise unqualified?
Where did I attribute that personally to you?
There is an old saying, “Most people don’t plan to fail, but many fail to plan.” We should encourage people, give them a little push now and then.
Thank you.
When and where?
You will not that I did not create a list of your “supposed positions.” I listed the logical implications.
No, I did not accuse you of exploiting anyone – I pointed out that the rationalle you gave is exploitative.
Thank you – I think we should try not to personalize debates.
And so you presume to think a doctor scrubbing floors is in his best interest? I would think you would be making the case that he is wasting his experience and knowledge
I’ve had mechanical engineer with years of college apply for a general labor position - same difference in my book.
No, see above.
So, the carpenter who loves his job making homes for people and the teacher who loves seeing children’s faces light up are failures?? Is that what you are saying???
I don’t understand your meaning.
There’s this fallacy going around that anybody can be anything they want. That’s not true. That’s a fantasy that people teach their kids with the intent to encourage them. And what happens to the kid who no matter how hard he studies cannot pass the bar exam? JFK Jr. is an example. The middle is that it isn’t your extreme or mine. The answer lies somewhere in between our viewpoints.
Give me a break.
Who did you mean? Tom Delay?
Failing to plan has nothing to do with encouraging people. We should encourage people to do what they want to do - not what any of our silly notions are that they should do.
You’re very welcome.
post at 1:47 - “Let me – without intending to offend – offer you some implications of your argument:”
You listed the logical and false implications of a view that I did not hold.
If you say so.
It was implied.
No, but you sure come across very strong and seem to revel in belittling opponents.
Give me the doctor’s email (if he exists) and I’ll talk it over with him and get back to you.And so you presume to think a doctor scrubbing floors is in his best interest? I would think you would be making the case that he is wasting his experience and knowledge
And did you hire them?
Have they lived up to their potential?
On the one hand you are extolling those who are satisfied with their jobs, and never want to move up – and on the other you make up a story about a physician who wants a menial job, and you oppose him because he’s supposed to – guess what? http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
It is true – but you can make it not true by discouraging people when they try to move up.
JFK, Jr should have studied harder.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
No. I’ve never had a cross word with Tom.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
Even if what they want to do is skip school and take drugs?
There you have it – a direct statement that I do not intend to offend, and that the list that follows is not meant to say you believe these things, but only to show the logical implications.
If you do not hold the implications, then you should change your view.
I am sorry if you feel I have belittled you. But it is perfectly fair to explore a statement in debate and see where it leads. I don’t call anybody names, I don’t attack their motives. I merely use logic in a legitimate manner.
See, it’s hard to converse with someone who mocks so openly.
Provide for everyone the Biblical basis and/or Traditional basis for such a philosophy which says that people should not be content with their jobs even if it fulfills a positive role in society and they are happy with it. I believe any teacher who loves their job and makes a difference every day in the lives of our kids has definitely fulfilled what God would have them do. Who are you to say that they haven’t lived up to this utopian potential? Incredible - simply incredible philosophy.
Absolutely can not. Catholic and traditional christian teaching hold that an individual has god given human rights to own property and individually profit from their labor. Communisn and Socialism hold that no such rights exist and that all property and labor exist for the betterment of common good.
Then what you are describing is something other than Communism or Socialism, which by definition are centered around governments that make decisions for individuals that church teaches are reserved by god for the individual to make.
