In the context of eternity, nature tends to level itself -- "according to his circuits" (Ecclesiastes1:6). Thus, "He hath made every thing beautiful in his time" (Ecclesiastes 3:11).
This is minutely displayed transactionally: "There is that scattereth, and yet increaseth; and there is that withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty." (Proverbs 11:24).
In the economic system, this needs the cooperation of the subjects: "Sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor" (Luke 18:22); and, as what had been done by the first Christians, "distribution was made unto every man according as he had need" (Acts 4:35).
But, I think, that is only now possible in small communities. Because, at "the place of judgment, that wickedness was there; and the place of righteousness, that iniquity was there" (Ecclesiastes 3:16).
I don't ask the first of anybody. People do have a share of weight to pull in society, but in demanding more of people with greater ability than the average person merely because they have greater ability is to violate personal freedom. I do wish that we could one day have the second part of the principle.
Why? Because since obviously people's abilities and needs differ, who would define what those abilities and needs are for each individual person? Counter-intuitively, it's a standing invitation to tyranny.
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
Yes.
In the context of eternity, nature tends to level itself -- "according to his circuits" (Ecclesiastes1:6). Thus, "He hath made every thing beautiful in his time" (Ecclesiastes 3:11).
This is minutely displayed transactionally: "There is that scattereth, and yet increaseth; and there is that withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty." (Proverbs 11:24).
In the economic system, this needs the cooperation of the subjects: "Sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor" (Luke 18:22); and, as what had been done by the first Christians, "distribution was made unto every man according as he had need" (Acts 4:35).
But, I think, that is only now possible in small communities. Because, at "the place of judgment, that wickedness was there; and the place of righteousness, that iniquity was there" (Ecclesiastes 3:16).
I don't ask the first of anybody. People do have a share of weight to pull in society, but in demanding more of people with greater ability than the average person merely because they have greater ability is to violate personal freedom. I do wish that we could one day have the second part of the principle.
Nope, I don't think so.
Why? Because since obviously people's abilities and needs differ, who would define what those abilities and needs are for each individual person? Counter-intuitively, it's a standing invitation to tyranny.
That is the truest definition of communism. -- It only works with a benevolent dictator.
Too many people don't want to use their abilities today (or can't)....!!
Never has been.