OT: Plug Digest, Vol 62, Issue 31 - the unfixable problem.

[joe at actionline.com]

Keith wrote (in part)
> This has been a good discussion in that it has helped me understand
> why I think Wal-Mart is a cancer.

[snipped]

> Let's start at the most fundamental point. As a Christian I believe
> we are part of the community. I believe we are blessed to bless.
> In other words we should share our time, talents, and treasures
> with our community.

That's fine.  I agree with that "fundamental point" that we who profess to
be Christians should do that.

However, we who profess to be Christians have no right and no
responsibility to impose what *we* should do on anyone else.

And we certainly have no right and no responsibility to pass judgment and
condemnation on anyone else for their failure to do what we who profess to
be Christians may have a responsibility to do.

Forcing others to conform is the Islamic way, not the Christian way.  It
is a foundational teaching of the Qu'ran to enforce and coerce submission
to Islam.  But that is definitely not the Christian way.

I, too, am a Christian, and I am very enthusiastic about my faith.

However, I realize and understand that those of us who profess to be
Christians have no right or responsibility to try to force our views on
others.

And we certainly have no right and no responsibility to pass judgment and
condemnation on those who do not share our profession of faith.

Furthermore, even toward those who may claim to share our profession of
faith, we have no right or responsibility to pass condemnational judgment
upon them.  Rather, as Christians our only responsibility is limited to
approach any who profess to be Christians but are offending ("sinning") in
some grievous way with meekness, gentleness, and kindness to encourage
them in a positive way to return to and re-embrace those principles of
faith that our faith in Christ embodies.

That most assuredly does not include hating them, con-damning them,
name-calling, or trying to coerce them in any way.

Second, it is important to understand that:

- Capitalism is not a contradiction of Christianity.
- Capitalism is not synonymous with greed -- nor vice-versa

There is nothing inherently "wrong" with a pursuit of wealth or
profitability or evem seeking to maximize profitability.  On the contrary,
that is, fundamentally, just good stewardship ... which itself is a sound
biblical principle.

Greed is something very different than the pursuit of wealth and
profitability.  Greed is manifested by storing up treasure for oneself in
excess and to the exclusion of generosity and magnanimity.

> 1) The government is in the process of creating a welfare state which
> allows those who are so inclined to redirect that subsistence into their
> own pockets.

That is not Walmart's fault.  That is our fault as a people who fail to
use our opportunity and responsibility as the electorate to get rid of ALL
socialists and pork-barrelers among our elected representatives.

> 2) Wal-Mart has become an expert in creating an environment where they
> funnel our tax dollars, indirectly thought government subsistence, into
> their pockets.

That is a speculative conclusion that connect dots which simply do not exist.

> My point is just because you can does not make it right. I do not see
> Wal-Mart moving to limit government subsistence.

That is not their responsibility.

> Nor do I see them working to create an environment where less
> government subsistence is necessary.

That is not their responsibility.

> What I do see is a very powerful company taking advantage of
> the system instead of working towards fixing it.

It is not Walmart's responsibility to "fix" our broken government.

> ... Wal-Mart impacts the community in a bad way. They lower wages
> and kill main street. I call that sin.

Let those who are without sin cast the first stones.

> ... I could hire some Indian programmers and designers for
> $5/hr and I could charge American companies over $100/hr.
> I could probably build a business that could bring in 200k
> or 300k a year doing so.

So why don't you do that.  There is nothing illegal or unethical
about doing that. Consider all the good you could do with all that
profit you claim that you could generate for yourself.

Many "Christian" (and non-Christian) entreprenuers have done that, in the
process providing good, productive, "teach a man to fish for himself" jobs
for people in so-called "third world" countries (far better than
horrendously inefficient, ineffective, and wasteful U.S. government
"foreign-aid" give-aways) ... and then using a significant portion of
their companies' profits for charitable giving.

While I am certainly not advocating exporting jobs out of this country, as
long as it is feasible, practicable, and not illegal to do that, there is
nothing inherently "wrong" with doing so.  It is obviously a trend and a
fact of life today that will undoubtedly *never* be reversed in any
significant degree.

We can stand on the sidelines and scream our heads off about how "wrong"
we might think that is, but merely grumbling and complaining is not going
to change anything.

Why not do something positive instead of just grumbling and complaining
about what others may be doing that you do not like according to your
personal notion of what is right and wrong.

> Under this model I would be able to keep the vast majority of what
> I would charge.  I would be well off and living high off the hog.

Or, you could use your profits to do something good and positive.

> I could do this and it is completely legal.

Exactly right.  That is the point.

> If I took on this business model, I would be thinking only of myself.

Not necessarily. You could just as easily be doing this with the entirely
honorable motivation of helping others.

> Sure I could tithe to my church and even give to other charities
> so I could point to all the good I had done.

You also could do it in the "Christian" manner without making a
point of pointing out all the good you were doing.

> In the end I would only be thinking of Keith.

Not necessarily. You could just as easily be doing it for the honorable
motivation of being the best steward you could be.

> I would have missed an opportunity to impact my community
> in a good and necessary way.

That is absolutely not true.  We all impact our communities, for good or
for bad, by whatever the true motivations of our hearts may be and by our
actions that result from those motivations.

> Lets look at a different model.

If your different model works better for you and for your community, then
by all means follow that course.

Just don't try to tell others that they have to do things the way you want
them to because your way is the only acceptable way.

> Each of us has a responsibility to our community. If we have,
> we must give back in some significant way.

Fine.  Follow your conscience.  Do what you believe is right to do.

But why do you feel that it is your responsibility to tell others that
your way is the only acceptable way?

> Notice I have not suggested any government intervention. We need no
> artificial wage control nor do we need vast welfare programs. What we
> need is 1) moral business leaders 2) the Church to take on it rightful
> roll in helping those who cannot help themselves

You can neither legislate nor in any other way coerce the morality of the
leaders of other businesses.

You can only do what *you* can do.

It is curious that your suggestions of what is needed seems to focus
mainly on what you believe others need to do -- other business leaders,
churches, etc.

Harping about what others need to do is pointless.

The only thing that matters is doing whatever *you* can do to make the
world a better place.

> Lets come together as a community and solve this problem.

Just do what *you* can do.

If you have specific, concrete action steps in mind, then take action with
them and invite others to join you.

But making a non-specific appeal to "come together" without defining any
specific actions to take is a bit empty, my friend.

And just grumbling and complaining about what others are doing or not
doing is totally pointless.