Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Masonic Perspectives Wanted: Meritocracy

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by KSigMason

There is a flaw in the communal belief since not everyone is created exactly. We all different skills and abilities, and because for such things, we each will accumulate different amounts of property (whether land, material, monetary, etc.). Your and the OPs theory would stifle creativity and innovation because no one will have an incentive to do well.

I try to excel to make a better life, not necessarily for me, but for my family. If my property is going to be stolen from my family why would I continue to gather wealth (in whatever form) if my family will not prosper from it?


I used to hold this opinion, myself, but discovered something totally surprising!
In moving to a country where things are done differently (that the americans call socialist) I found out that we are not all the same, and that money is not the only motivation for the human being!


Even though being an entrepeneur means you will pay enormous taxes and work twice as much for the same money, people still do it (I did it). Why? Because they are people with an innate desire to create and also to be independant.

The system is set up so that the more dependant you are, the less freedom you have. So those on welfare cannot do whatever they want- they are put into a system which limits their movements and choices.

My husband is in the medical field, so most of our friends are doctors. They live okay, but are not rich the way some americna doctors are. So... what motivates them?? What motivated them to spend 10-15 years in Med School? The passion for practicing medicine; the desire to heal people.
Seriously!


In a way, it is interesting to see how this tends to filter out those who would go into medicine just for the money and practice it badly, or those who would try to create a business just for the money, and do it unethically, or go under quickly.
I foudn that an interesting revelation- I grew up believing the idea that only money could motivate human beings- turns out that was a lie.

But I wanted to pose a question to those who are into the Meritocracy idea? I do'nt know anything about it... I am wondering, what does this ideology do with the people in a society who are limited in abilities? The handicapped, for example, or children? I have a retarded sister, so I've always been very aware of this problem.

Oh yeah- and another problem I see- in leaving your earnings to your family or descendants, you defy the idea of individual merit, don't you? I mean, isn't that how you end up with Paris Hiltons and such? A sort of degenerenscence (is that a word? shouldn't have had wine with dinner!) of the bloodline in the rich, makign softer and softer generations, as they didn't have to work for their wealth... I would think that would be contrary to the meritocracy idea??
edit on 6-12-2012 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   

The system is set up so that the more dependant you are, the less freedom you have. So those on welfare cannot do whatever they want- they are put into a system which limits their movements and choices.


Where do you suppose the newly seized assets will go, but increasing this dependence?


In a way, it is interesting to see how this tends to filter out those who would go into medicine just for the money and practice it badly


America's medical schools have a way of weeding these people out already; it's called medical school. The process of taking out massive amounts of debt and studying yourself into the ground is an enormously inefficient way of accruing wealth; anyone who's in it solely for the money learns quickly the amount of time they're wasting. As a result, American doctors have the highest quality rate in the world.


But I wanted to pose a question to those who are into the Meritocracy idea? I do'nt know anything about it... I am wondering, what does this ideology do with the people in a society who are limited in abilities? The handicapped, for example, or children? I have a retarded sister, so I've always been very aware of this problem.


There are very few people advocating "meritocratic" government who think through any of these challenges.


Oh yeah- and another problem I see- in leaving your earnings to your family or descendants, you defy the idea of individual merit, don't you? I mean, isn't that how you end up with Paris Hiltons and such? A sort of degenerenscence (is that a word? shouldn't have had wine with dinner!) of the bloodline in the rich, makign softer and softer generations, as they didn't have to work for their wealth... I would think that would be contrary to the meritocracy idea??


It's always Paris Hilton that gets brought up when someone wants to increase the estate tax. What about Peter Buffett or Bill Marriott or Anderson Cooper? Hell, what about Paris Hilton's father Richard? With the exception of Marriott, all of those names became successful starting their own careers; even as the exception, Marriott has created the Marriott Hotels brand as we know it.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ELectricalApprentice

This is just a thread for any interested Freemasons, willing to discuss some of their beliefs and values with a non-Mason.


I will discuss my beliefs and values. These do not correspond to any lodge or Grand Lodge, and given the subject are not particularly influenced by Freemasonry.


I'm just wondering, how do Freemasons feel about Meritocratic rule, where a person is advanced in life based on his/her achievements.


Increasing central control, for any reason, has a dismal success rate. When that reason is on behalf of equality, the rate gets even more dismal.


I'm also curious to know what Freemasons think about a 100% inheritance tax, in order to ensure that the privileged in the world, don't get to hand down their tremendous wealth to their children, and hopefully, allow every person to start at the same point, have the same opportunity, and prove themselves through their actions.


The ethical concerns are currently being discussed to death, so I'll point out the other three big problems with it:

-It'd be impossible to administer. Anyone facing a significant penalty would just pour their liquid assets into something fixed and sell it to their heirs for a song.

-It'd be inherently unfair. Sure, pure assets whose only value is in their sale can be easily seized or liquidated, but what about family businesses? Family homes? Are you going to force a childhood home to be sold to satisfy the tax man, or make a lifelong employee of a family company get a new boss because he can't take control? Or are you only going to take the assets of those whose assets are liquid or in securities?

-It's a solution in search of a problem. Even the Union for Economic Equality, who supports a substantial if less radical raise of the estate tax and other "equality"-based reforms, concluded in a report on the Forbes 400 that 57% of them inherited less than $1 million (all are billionaires).


i'm curious to know what some of those activities are. I mean personal examples, not what I can find by googling "Freemasons Charitable Work".


I work with my church roughly ten hours a month, and I'm applying to become a reserve (volunteer) police officer. Additionally, my wife and I have rescued a dog and recently discovered the joy of anonymous giving (starting with a case of diapers and $50 cash to a family in need), in addition to our tithe, alumni giving and a small carve-out for Wikipedia.


The Queen of England is the Grand Patroness of Freemasonry


The monarchy is of no relevance to Freemasonry outside England and very little within it.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by OnTheLevel213
Where do you suppose the newly seized assets will go, but increasing this dependence?


Maybe I didn't express clearly what I was saying there- see, if you are dependant here (on welfare...) you do not have freedom, so that is a deterent. It is part of what motivates people to get off the aid.




America's medical schools have a way of weeding these people out already; it's called medical school. The process of taking out massive amounts of debt and studying yourself into the ground is an enormously inefficient way of accruing wealth; anyone who's in it solely for the money learns quickly the amount of time they're wasting. As a result, American doctors have the highest quality rate in the world.



But the healthcare in the US has been rated 37th by the World Healthcare Report,www.businessinsider.com...# and last by the Commonwealth Fund (www.commonwealthfund.org...) so something isn't working right... but I don't want to go too far off subject, just meant to point out, there are humans in the world motivated by things other than money (once their basic survival needs are assured)






It's always Paris Hilton that gets brought up when someone wants to increase the estate tax. What about Peter Buffett or Bill Marriott or Anderson Cooper? Hell, what about Paris Hilton's father Richard? With the exception of Marriott, all of those names became successful starting their own careers; even as the exception, Marriott has created the Marriott Hotels brand as we know it.


Just Paris Hilton is the most publicly known and has become the modern day Marie Antoinette. No real interest in using an example that only a small percentage of readers will recognize.... (but from what you wrote, those don't seem to be examples of what I was refering to- the kids of the rich who are lazy as a result?)
edit on 6-12-2012 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bluesma

Originally posted by OnTheLevel213
Where do you suppose the newly seized assets will go, but increasing this dependence?


Maybe I didn't express clearly what I was saying there- see, if you are dependant here (on welfare...) you do not have freedom, so that is a deterent. It is part of what motivates people to get off the aid.


I would like to hear a bit more about this. Could you start a thread explaining how the dependency system works in your country?

As you may know, in the US, it's become a way of life that get's passed down to future generations.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bluesma
Maybe I didn't express clearly what I was saying there- see, if you are dependant here (on welfare...) you do not have freedom, so that is a deterent. It is part of what motivates people to get off the aid.


It's perfectly clear. It's just that a 100% inheritance tax likely will go to expanding the welfare system, thus disincentivizing people to get off it.


But the healthcare in the US has been rated 37th by the World Healthcare Report and last by the Commonwealth Fund


Both of which are heavily weighted toward access, where the US does poorly. The quality of American doctors is a relatively small factor.


but I don't want to go too far off subject, just meant to point out, there are humans in the world motivated by things other than money (once their basic survival needs are assured)


No one denies this. But denying it's not a factor, and a major factor, is even more misguided. There's a reason the least-taxed countries in the world also have the largest contribution from small businesses to their economies.


(but from what you wrote, those don't seem to be examples of what I was refering to- the kids of the rich who are lazy as a result?)


That's my point; that you presume Paris Hilton is a representative sample. It seems like everyone's mind just defaults to idle, ill-behaved socialites when the children of the rich are mentioned. I don't have statistics on the children of billionaires, but I'd venture a guess that Ms. Hilton is as much an outlier as the criminal element is among the children of the very poor.
edit on 6-12-2012 by OnTheLevel213 because: Format fix



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus



"The Bible speaks of an Omnipotent man in the sky, who had a son who could rise from the dead, but that doesn't make it so."

There is supporting documentation.


and where might that supporting documentation be found aside from the bible Augustus? Please provide a reference or link, or
Do you refer to the light of egypt book?
Or the book which resides in Amenta?
Please tell me if you have seen this with your own eye/s, you must be honest.

You guys portrayed ignorance over my question of the four a while back, now I find that you are fully aware of the fact, which only makes me fearful for you, funnily enough.
leaves a bad taste in the mouth......

Your sig speaks volumes about your mind and your heart, perhaps this is the reason...I don't know.

patiently awaiting your response to my questions



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by AussieAmandaC
and where might that supporting documentation be found aside from the bible Augustus? Please provide a reference or link, or
Do you refer to the light of egypt book?
Or the book which resides in Amenta?
Please tell me if you have seen this with your own eye/s, you must be honest.


My comment was in regards the Regius Poem, I went back and looked at my post and noticed I left off the last part of his remark which is below:


The Bible speaks of an Omnipotent man in the sky, who had a son who could rise from the dead, but that doesn't make it so. To be fair I will certainly check out The Regius Poem.


There is indeed supporting documentation for the Regius Poem and other, similiarly aged manuscripts referencing Masonry.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by KSigMason
Like I said, communal living and wealth redistribution idea is foolish dream and will never work. It stifles innovation, creativity, and will cause nothing, but stagnation economically, technologically, and educationally.

Sorry dude, but that is the most ill-informed, ignorant statement you have made so far.

You claimed previously that the OP would stifle creativity and innovation, now you repeat that but add extra nonsense.

Do you think Newton was motivated by money? How about Einstein? Pick any of the famous thinkers, creators, designers, scientists, artist. You actually believe they were motivated by money?

YOU believe money makes someone MORE creative?


Those people achieved what they did through passion and a love for what they do. Through curiosity of the world around them. Not for riches!

What you have said paints a very clear picture of your mentality and what you think is important in life. If this is how Freemasonry is teaching you how to be a better man, then I would suggest you quit, they aren't helping. You are demonstrating a typical American like mentality, become rich at any 'cost', "to hell with everyone else, the only thing that is important is me-me-self-mine", live the american dream, blah blah blah.

Economically? Because capitalism is doing such a great job of not stiffling the economy right now? /sarcasm

Technologically? Yes, the world really needs a slightly smaller iPad. Changing from tube TVs to flat screen TVs really gave society a much needed boost. Oh, but atleast we can now drop bombs on other people without having to put any of our own in harms way! SCORE!


You pointed out previously that capitalism is fueled by greed. Completely agree. Now, what would people do to satisfy that greed? Does capitalism encourage people to be considerate of others? When companies are given millions per year to find a cure for a disease, is that encouraging them to actually find a cure? Finding a cure results in a significant reduction in that income.

Does greed encourage some to 'create' a problem, so that they can make money by offering a 'solution'?


You should be entitled to what you earn. If you're just going to sit on your ass never doing a thing why should I bust mine just to have my property stolen? That's stupid.

Someone born with limb defects is incapable of doing the same things as those with perfect limbs, does the person with the limb defects DESERVE to have a lesser life through no fault of their own?

As has been pointed out previously, we all have different abilities, so just because someone has lesser abilities, does that mean they DESERVE to have a lesser life than others?

If YOU want to work hard, then work hard. If someone wants to sit on their ass, then let them. As long as it's not impacting your life, why does it matter? Do you actually think that if most sat on their ass and done nothing, the burden of holding up society would be all on you?

I think it's very clear which one of us has some 'growing up' to do. Just be clear, because I get the impression I need to be, it's not me.

edit on 12-12-2012 by OratoryHeist because: typo



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by OratoryHeist
If YOU want to work hard, then work hard. If someone wants to sit on their ass, then let them. As long as it's not impacting your life, why does it matter? Do you actually think that if most sat on their ass and done nothing, the burden of holding up society would be all on you?


Figuratively, yes.
Since this concept is foreign to you think about it like this. You live in a small commune with 13 hippies. You all enjoy eating brownies together and giggling. After the feast of brownies, (which you cooked), everyone else runs off to the flower patch to roll on the ground and watch the clouds. Somebody has to wash the dishes. The next day, all the hippies are hungry again. (amazing how that happens) They all look to you for their brownies. You have to wash the dishes and make more brownies. Is that fair? By your standards it's fine, until you get tired of doing all the work. Then everyone starves and dies a horrible death. The moral of the story is.....communism only works if everyone works. Don't die a horrible death.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
Figuratively, yes.
Since this concept is foreign to you think about it like this. You live in a small commune with 13 hippies. You all enjoy eating brownies together and giggling. After the feast of brownies, (which you cooked), everyone else runs off to the flower patch to roll on the ground and watch the clouds. Somebody has to wash the dishes. The next day, all the hippies are hungry again. (amazing how that happens) They all look to you for their brownies. You have to wash the dishes and make more brownies. Is that fair? By your standards it's fine, until you get tired of doing all the work. Then everyone starves and dies a horrible death. The moral of the story is.....communism only works if everyone works. Don't die a horrible death.


Interesting...we were talking about sharing the wealth, but here you are again with 'communism'...interesting...

All communities are not hippy based, so why did you go for hippies? Ah yes, the image of substance smoking lay abouts, peace man, chill and all that. Trying to emphasise laziness. Pick a small odd number (because you are masonic) but dont mention the fact any small society would fail if all but one done the work.

Interesting network dude, very interesting. Is this what they teach you at Masonic Kindergarten, how to manipulate minds and opinions?

But, to answer your query...

Is it fair? Sure, but only if you are the only one who knows how to make brownies. If you are the only one who knows how to make brownies, the question is, have you kept that secret to yourself, or have you made the effort to share the knowledge with others so that they can also make delicious brownies?

If you are keeping things secret from others, then you only have yourself to blame. If you told others the secret and asked for help, then you have grounds for complaint.

Seeing as you would know how to make delicious brownies, then you wont die a horrible death, your diet wont be much good, but you wont die a horrible death.

The moral of your story failed.

Seeing as you are fixated on communism, a simple question for you, did the USSR fail because 'almost all' of the people were lazy?
edit on 12-12-2012 by OratoryHeist because: clarity



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by OratoryHeist
 


Everyone had the opportunity to enter the kitchen and help and learn. They just chose not to because laying in the field watching clouds was more fun.

Your turn.


Edit to add:
You keep describing a communist ideal, not me. As I said before, it's not derrogatory, and in a perfect world, it's a perfect way of life. We just don't have a perfect world here. I think that's why the USSR fell. It's obviously very complicated, but that is the short answer.
edit on 12-12-2012 by network dude because: added thought



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by OratoryHeist
Interesting network dude, very interesting. Is this what they teach you at Masonic Kindergarten, how to manipulate minds and opinions?


Why do keep making snide little comments like this? Masonry is not there to alter one's opinions as it is not structured to do so. I came to Masonry with my own standards and opinions and I can safely assume that everyone else here responding did as well. I was never an advocate for socialistic programs prior to joining Massonry and I would be against them even if I left.




edit on 12-12-2012 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer (except when I get him some)



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by OratoryHeist
YOU believe money makes someone MORE creative?


Those people achieved what they did through passion and a love for what they do. Through curiosity of the world around them. Not for riches!
No, clearly he was stating that someone with more money has LESS incentive to be creative, because they're not relying on their innovation to earn their wages.
edit on 2012.12.12 by JoshNorton because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
I think that's why the USSR fell. It's obviously very complicated ...


Exactly, it's alot more complicated than using a silly little story about a dozen hippies in a field watching clouds.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by OratoryHeist
Interesting network dude, very interesting. Is this what they teach you at Masonic Kindergarten, how to manipulate minds and opinions?


Why do keep making snide little comments like this? Masonry is not there to alter one's opinions as it is not structured to do so. I came to Masonry with my own standards and opinions and I can safely assume that everyone else here responding did as well. I was never an advocate for socialistic programs prior to joining Massonry and I would be against them even if I left.


Sarcastic comment. Network dude knows fine well its a more complicated thing than a few hippies, brownies and a field. He was using a simple story to try and point score, a cheap trick to try and win an argument. Hence the sarcasm.

Not familiar with sarcasm? Not aware of network dude was trying to do?



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by JoshNorton
No, clearly he was stating that someone with more money has LESS incentive to be creative, because they're not relying on their innovation to earn their wages.




So in order to boost creativity, innovation, etc, we need povety, we should heavily tax the rich, we should not allow inheritance?



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by OratoryHeist
Not familiar with sarcasm? Not aware of network dude was trying to do?


An over-simplied arguement is not sarcasm but if you feel you must resort to being sarcastic to prove your point so be it.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by OratoryHeist

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by OratoryHeist
Interesting network dude, very interesting. Is this what they teach you at Masonic Kindergarten, how to manipulate minds and opinions?


Why do keep making snide little comments like this? Masonry is not there to alter one's opinions as it is not structured to do so. I came to Masonry with my own standards and opinions and I can safely assume that everyone else here responding did as well. I was never an advocate for socialistic programs prior to joining Massonry and I would be against them even if I left.


Sarcastic comment. Network dude knows fine well its a more complicated thing than a few hippies, brownies and a field. He was using a simple story to try and point score, a cheap trick to try and win an argument. Hence the sarcasm.

Not familiar with sarcasm? Not aware of network dude was trying to do?


You are convinced that the world would be a better place if everyone was equal. If all the money and stuff was distributed equally. If I missed that, please fix it for me. I was simply explaining an instance where your theory fails. Like the story of the ant and the grasshopper. (except they didn't get special brownies) What I describe is not a masonic way of thinking, but MY way of thinking. If other masons happen to agree, then fine.

In closing Mr. Obama, I would like to say that I am deeply saddened by your use of Chicago politics in regard to the bailouts. Dragging all opposed into your office for a closed door meeting, only to have them come out agreeing with you is akin to organized crime. Rahm must be proud. I didn't vote for you either.
edit on 13-12-2012 by network dude because: Augustusmasonicus is prejudice against sweet tea. The south will rise again.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
You are convinced that the world would be a better place if everyone was equal. If all the money and stuff was distributed equally. If I missed that, please fix it for me.

Not quite. I am convinced the world would be a better place if everyone was given a fair and equal start in life. Just because I would like to see everyone given an equal start, doesn't mean I am against people being capitalist, doesn't mean I am against people enjoying what they have, what they create, what they earn during their life.

If you are going to be part of a specific society, to use that society in order to achieve your material wealth, then you should be willing to give back to that very society that allowed you to amass that wealth.



I was simply explaining an instance where your theory fails. Like the story of the ant and the grasshopper. (except they didn't get special brownies) What I describe is not a masonic way of thinking, but MY way of thinking. If other masons happen to agree, then fine.

I'm well aware of what you were doing and I explained it. You used an over simplified story to try to prove a point, without acknowledging that any small society would fail if people didn't pull their weight. You have smarts, you know thats true.

No one suggested it was a masonic way of thinking. I might, however, have been suggesting you were trying to do a bit of 'hoodwinking'.



In closing Mr. Obama, I would like to say that I am deeply saddened by your use of Chicago politics in regard to the bailouts. Dragging all opposed into your office for a closed door meeting, only to have them come out agreeing with you is akin to organized crime. Rahm must be proud. I didn't vote for you either.

I have no idea what this is about. I guess you must have to be a politically minded American to get it?!






top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join