What are the media’s moral obligations in making society aware of extreme poverty in the world?

[Jozefo]

True warfare can inflict starvation on innocent people in some societies, but the primary problem is unfair economic systems and apathy, such as in the US and and India.

Sorry about the eyes; I will not use them on you posts.

Thank you for no longer using the eyes. I really do appreciate it. Now back to your post…

Unfair economic systems are unjust precisely because they are instituted by force and coercion. This is the very heart of the discussion about poverty. There would be no poverty if people were economically free. There is no free enterprise anywhere, except in very limited circumstances, like people trading tomatos for squash over their back fence.

I keep coming back to the money, because lack of money is the definition of poverty. Money is generated by people, not banks or governments. Yet the people are the ones having their life’s work stripped, and some are even put on starvation over it.

Poverty is the symptom of force and coercion used by a few people to exploit the many.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Thank you for no longer using the eyes. I really do appreciate it. Now back to your post…

Unfair economic systems are unjust precisely because they are instituted by force and coercion. This is the very heart of the discussion about poverty. There would be no poverty if people were economically free. There is no free enterprise anywhere, except in very limited circumstances, like people trading tomatos for squash over their back fence.

I keep coming back to the money, because lack of money is the definition of poverty. Money is generated by people, not banks or governments. Yet the people are the ones having their life’s work stripped, and some are even put on starvation over it.

Poverty is the symptom of force and coercion used by a few people to exploit the many.

As long as you’re using force and coercion in relation to unfair economic systems which causes lack of opportunity, education and decent-paying jobs, then I agree!

 

[Jozefo]

As long as you’re using force and coercion in relation to unfair economic systems which causes lack of opportunity, education and decent-paying jobs, then I agree!

I’m glad we’re finally on the same page.

The monetary system is wholly unjust. It truly is a horror. But as long as a majority of people find something to gain from it, I’m afraid we’re stuck with it.

 

[Jozefo]

On doing some research into the Noahide laws, I find that in Judaism, gentiles who adhere to these laws are considered righteous, and assured a place in the World to Come.

That seems different than all gentiles being bound to those laws. But I’m interested in anyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut about this, because I think the concept of consenting to be governed is a radical one these days, and almost completely foreign to the average person.

 

[ishii]

True warfare can inflict starvation on innocent people in some societies, but the primary problem is unfair economic systems and apathy, such as in the US and and India.

Sorry about the eyes; I will not use them on you posts.

What kind of economic system do you think would help “end extreme poverty” and how would that work? As has been pointed out, the extreme poverty in places like Africa and North Korea is the fault of evil leadership on those countries. The leaders are evil - they steal and oppress the public in order to live lives of luxury. Is the problem the economic system per se or the morality of the local leadership?

Ishii

 

[Jozefo]

What kind of economic system do you think would help “end extreme poverty” and how would that work? As has been pointed out, the extreme poverty in places like Africa and North Korea is the fault of evil leadership on those countries. The leaders are evil - they steal and oppress the public in order to live lives of luxury. Is the problem the economic system per se or the morality of the local leadership?

Ishii

Can I offer my opinion? I think the problem encompasses both the economic system and the morality of local leadership, but the greater rvil is the economic system. This is because the monetary system in place over then entire world except Iran, and other smaller Muslim countries, demands money scarcity as the price for putting value into the money. It is made deliberately scarce, from the time interest is charged on any bank loan or investment.

This small thing leads to dictators and despots gaining power and exploiting entire populations. Money becomes a weapon of war, when in reality it’s supposed to be the blood coursing through the veins of society.

 

[tabycat]

The bottom line is the relative cost of living in each nation, not just the earnings. Do you see people sleeping on the streets in China or in Cuba?

Again, the relative cost of living must be taken into account. Are you inferring that the CIA is gathering information that is superfluous?

I was using the UN as an example for alleviating poverty in third-world nations, not Western nations.

If there are people sleeping on the streets in Cuba or China, do you think/believe that either country would let be known? I do not think so.

As for the UN, when has it ever done anything that turned out right? A few years ago, the head’s (of the UN) made millions off of a UN hunger program. npatrol:

 

[ishii]

Can I offer my opinion? I think the problem encompasses both the economic system and the morality of local leadership, but the greater rvil is the economic system. This is because the monetary system in place over then entire world except Iran, and other smaller Muslim countries, demands money scarcity as the price for putting value into the money. It is made deliberately scarce, from the time interest is charged on any bank loan or investment.

This small thing leads to dictators and despots gaining power and exploiting entire populations. Money becomes a weapon of war, when in reality it’s supposed to be the blood coursing through the veins of society.

Hmmm. I will have to dwell on that…

But weren’t there dictators and despots before the monetary system? And don’t dictators use their military to maintain power?

Ishii

 

[Jozefo]

Hmmm. I will have to dwell on that…

But weren’t there dictators and despots before the monetary system? And don’t dictators use their military to maintain power?

Ishii

Yes, but look at the 20th century, when this monetary system came into being. Well, actually it was invented by John Law in the 17th century, if I remember correctly. But it was in the 20th century it really got going.

Two world wars, and untold suffering and death of millions and millions, all enabled by credit. That’s how it was all paid for. Money creation by debt. In the US, it began in 1913, and was fully instituted in 1933.

Years ago, I wondered why the 20th century was so violent. I looked for the one common denominator, and it’s the money. Legal tender. It’s all credit/debt, and is created on promises to pay, even though the promises are impossible to keep unless - and this is key - someone is exploited unfairly, or new debt is created.

Here’s another wrinkle: usury is forbidden in Islam (Catholicism too, but that’s another story), and look at which countries are in turmoil. Qadaffi was taken out, at about the same time he was starting a new currency backed by gold. Iran is part of the axis of evil, and their banking system does not have usury. See the pattern? The WTC was the heart of the financial world, and what happened to it?

 

[ishii]

Yes, but look at the 20th century, when this monetary system came into being. Well, actually it was invented by John Law in the 17th century, if I remember correctly. But it was in the 20th century it really got going.

Two world wars, and untold suffering and death of millions and millions, all enabled by credit. That’s how it was all paid for. Money creation by debt. In the US, it began in 1913, and was fully instituted in 1933.

Years ago, I wondered why the 20th century was so violent. I looked for the one common denominator, and it’s the money. Legal tender. It’s all credit/debt, and is created on promises to pay, even though the promises are impossible to keep unless - and this is key - someone is exploited unfairly, or new debt is created.

Here’s another wrinkle: usury is forbidden in Islam (Catholicism too, but that’s another story), and look at which countries are in turmoil. Qadaffi was taken out, at about the same time he was starting a new currency backed by gold. Iran is part of the axis of evil, and their banking system does not have usury. See the pattern? The WTC was the heart of the financial world, and what happened to it?

But we can’t forget the impact of relativism. The moral “unmooring” of the modern world. Paul Johnson describes it as “a world cast adrift.” And he says it was a summons to the gangster statesmen who rose to prominence in the 20th century. Men such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. Together they killed over a hundred million. Do NOT underestimate the impact of ideas and individuals to have an impact on history. They are just as relevant as the shadowy conspiracies.

Ishii

 

[Robert_Sock]

What kind of economic system do you think would help “end extreme poverty” and how would that work? As has been pointed out, the extreme poverty in places like Africa and North Korea is the fault of evil leadership on those countries. The leaders are evil - they steal and oppress the public in order to live lives of luxury. Is the problem the economic system per se or the morality of the local leadership?

Ishii

If WWII was partly justified to end the Holocaust of the Jews, surely the overthrow of the evil dictators in Africa would be warranted, either covertly or overtly, after peaceful means proved unsuccessful. After all, both the Holocaust and the intentional starvation of one’s citizens are most definitely crimes against humanity. Back to the key question of this thread, the media would certainly have the moral responsibility to report such starvation as a crime against humanity.

 

[Jozefo]

But we can’t forget the impact of relativism. The moral “unmooring” of the modern world. Paul Johnson describes it as “a world cast adrift.” And he says it was a summons to the gangster statesmen who rose to prominence in the 20th century. Men such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. Together they killed over a hundred million. Do NOT underestimate the impact of ideas and individuals to have an impact on history. They are just as relevant as the shadowy conspiracies.

Ishii

Yes, certainly you’re correct, but credit money enabled them. And what shadowy conspiracy? It’s common knowledge the money system came on full force in the 20th century, and paid for “progress”. And what a strange progress it is.

Entire nations are held in debt slavery. The power to create money is the power to make war. Citizens the world over are neck deep in debt, with no way out. And the banking system needs new customers. The only ones left are in Muslim countries.

The enormity of the evil is mind blowing to me. The debt money is at the heart of everything wrong in the world. It breeds distrust, fractures families, and drives social anxiety.

 

[gracepoole]

I don’t mean to muddy the waters, but are we as individuals acting immorally when we, say, purchase a myriad of unnecessary luxuries with excess wealth rather than using it in some fashion to combat poverty? Certainly there are those who own multiple homes, cars, etc., and this question most obviously applies to them. But what of the rest of us? Are we morally justified when we eat out at restaurants, buy brand new when we could usually buy used, spend on cable television, etc.? Is there a moral justification for ignoring the reporting that *is *done on poverty?

 

[ishii]

Yes, certainly you’re correct, but credit money enabled them. And what shadowy conspiracy? It’s common knowledge the money system came on full force in the 20th century, and paid for “progress”. And what a strange progress it is.

Entire nations are held in debt slavery. The power to create money is the power to make war. Citizens the world over are neck deep in debt, with no way out. And the banking system needs new customers. The only ones left are in Muslim countries.

The enormity of the evil is mind blowing to me. The debt money is at the heart of everything wrong in the world. It breeds distrust, fractures families, and drives social anxiety.

Okay. But people have a choice to go into debt, don’t they? If you look at America’s debt, its easy credit (before anyway) that allowed people to purchase beyond their means. Big huge McMansions, 3 car garages, all kinds of gadgets, etc. that no one really needs but feels they must have. Materialism.

And don’t forget the entitlement spending in this country that is out of control. This is way more than military spending - and is responsible for much of our debt.

I think you are underestimating the role of individuals and free will.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

I don’t mean to muddy the waters, but are we as individuals acting immorally when we, say, purchase a myriad of unnecessary luxuries with excess wealth rather than using it in some fashion to combat poverty? Certainly there are those who own multiple homes, cars, etc., and this question most obviously applies to them. But what of the rest of us? Are we morally justified when we eat out at restaurants, buy brand new when we could usually buy used, spend on cable television, etc.? Is there a moral justification for ignoring the reporting that *is *done on poverty?

That is a very good question, gracepoole. We are called upon to give to the poor. But how much? Just our surplus that allows us to continue a lifestyle of relative luxury? I read that if you are too comfortable, then you aren’t giving enough to charity. Not pointing fingers, mind you. Just thinking out loud. If anything, pointing the finger at myself.

Ishii

 

[gracepoole]

Okay. But people have a choice to go into debt, don’t they? If you look at America’s debt, its easy credit (before anyway) that allowed people to purchase beyond their means. Big huge McMansions, 3 car garages, all kinds of gadgets, etc. that no one really needs but feels they must have. Materialism.

And don’t forget the entitlement spending in this country that is out of control. This is way more than military spending - and is responsible for much of our debt.

I think you are underestimating the role of individuals and free will.

Ishii

So are we as individuals responsible for the United States’ debt to China, for example?

That is a very good question, gracepoole. We are called upon to give to the poor. But how much? Just our surplus that allows us to continue a lifestyle of relative luxury? I read that if you are too comfortable, then you aren’t giving enough to charity. Not pointing fingers, mind you. Just thinking out loud. If anything, pointing the finger at myself.

Ishii

Oh, certainly – I’m a regular giver but I don’t know that I’ll ever feel it’s “enough.” I am continuously astonished by the blessing of having been given the life I have, rather than, say, being born into poverty in Cambodia and being sold by my parents into sexual slavery. I consider Christ’s statement that we’ll always have the poor with us as a call to do as much as possible to care for these people, as He would have and still does.

 

[Jozefo]

Okay. But people have a choice to go into debt, don’t they? If you look at America’s debt, its easy credit (before anyway) that allowed people to purchase beyond their means. Big huge McMansions, 3 car garages, all kinds of gadgets, etc. that no one really needs but feels they must have. Materialism.

And don’t forget the entitlement spending in this country that is out of control. This is way more than military spending - and is responsible for much of our debt.

I think you are underestimating the role of individuals and free will.

Ishii

The money is debt. There is no other currency in circulation but debt. All money is created by borrowing it into existence. Technically there is no money at all, only promises to pay money, but we call it money.

Think about personal debt and government debt together. All of it - every red cent of it - is guaranteed by the US.

Now about free will: I’m saying that the monetary system feeds people’s base desires. it enables them to do things they otherwise couldn’t do. But at what cost? No, not the dollar amount, but that by borrowing now to pay later, it feeds the debt/credit creation cycle. People borrow at interest, but the money for the interest payments does not yet exist. The only way to make the payments is to create another loan, or exploit someone.

It’s like an enormous game of musical chairs. When the credit flows the music plays, but when the credit tightens, the music stops and some people are left without a chair. This means more money needs to be created so they can get the things they need, and the cycle begins again.

 

[ishii]

So are we as individuals responsible for the United States’ debt to China, for example?

I don’t know. I suppose party, yes. We like our cheap imports, right? Beyond that I don’t really feel qualified to answer your question. But I will say that we as individuals are responsible for our own debt. And here I’m not talking about the hard luck cases who have health issues or lose their job and go into debt for that reason to make ends meet. There are those cases and that’s pretty sad. But what I’m talking about are the ones who go into debt in order to finance a lifestyle beyond their means. Not good.

Oh, certainly – I’m a regular giver but I don’t know that I’ll ever feel it’s “enough.” I am continuously astonished by the blessing of having been given the life I have, rather than, say, being born into poverty in Cambodia and being sold by my parents into sexual slavery. I consider Christ’s statement that we’ll always have the poor with us as a call to do as much as possible to care for these people, as He would have and still does.

Ishii

 

[St_Francis]

If WWII was partly justified to end the Holocaust of the Jews, surely the overthrow of the evil dictators in Africa would be warranted, either covertly or overtly, after peaceful means proved unsuccessful. After all, both the Holocaust and the intentional starvation of one’s citizens are most definitely crimes against humanity. Back to the key question of this thread, the media would certainly have the moral responsibility to report such starvation as a crime against humanity.

The entry into WWII was not justified by the killing of 12 million in concentration camps by the Nazis. In the case of the US, our entry was justified by the attack on our nation by an ally of the Nazis. In the case of other nations, their entry was justified by treaties they had with nations which were invaded by the Nazis, or the invasion itself.

The killing of so many people was, afaik, unknown at the time the war started, and what little came out was pretty much ignored during the war. When the Allied soldiers arrived at the concentration camps att the end of the war, they were completely shocked.

 

[Robert_Sock]

The entry into WWII was not justified by the killing of 12 million in concentration camps by the Nazis. In the case of the US, our entry was justified by the attack on our nation by an ally of the Nazis. In the case of other nations, their entry was justified by treaties they had with nations which were invaded by the Nazis, or the invasion itself.

The killing of so many people was, afaik, unknown at the time the war started, and what little came out was pretty much ignored during the war. When the Allied soldiers arrived at the concentration camps att the end of the war, they were completely shocked.

I agree, but I meant partly justified after the fact.

If our president can declare war in Syria over their use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians, and justify it because it was a crime against humanity, how much more so the elimination of African dictators who starve its citizens?