Your average "feisty" American gun-owner might shoot at somebody taking his stuff - and kill his own children in the process - but you'll never see an "uprising of the masses".
You forget about religion. If the christians ever collectively believed that one of their endtime scenarios was coming into play, they would fight.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—nothing more nor less.”
The only reason I say "world" government is because I cannot fathom how a democratically elected national government would ever redistribute the wealth---on a more massive scale than they have already done--especially abroad. It would never pass the vote.
As is, our government is polarized between moderate democrats and fascist republicans who are part of the problem anyway as they seek to redistribute the wealth more towards the monied class.
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—nothing more nor less.”
That's a relief--I thought you were saying Christians would take up arms against the Republic to avoid helping the un-American poor.
No, but I may add that the middle and working class in America is in no position to start equalizing global poverty. That money must come from the upper class. We are already under attack and dont have a lot to give away.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—nothing more nor less.”
If the christians ever collectively believed that one of their endtime scenarios was coming into play, they would fight.
The key word there is "collectively". Every now and then you'll see a cult like the Branch Davidians but fundamentalist wingnuts aren't near collective enough to mount anything resembling an "uprising of the masses".
The only reason I say "world" government is because I cannot fathom how a democratically elected national government would ever redistribute the wealth---on a more massive scale than they have already done--especially abroad.
And why not?
Government's enact trade laws and regulations all of the time. A simple example of a trade law that would help distribute first-world wealth to developing nations would be a ban on imports produced by workers making less than a certain amount of money.
It would never pass the vote.
Who wouldn't support a law that not only promotes human rights but also helps keep jobs at home instead of overseas?
As is, our government is polarized between moderate democrats and fascist republicans who are part of the problem anyway as they seek to redistribute the wealth more towards the monied class.
And they are doing a good job of it too, which should be all the evidence you need that governments have the power to redistribute wealth.
That's a relief--I thought you were saying Christians would take up arms against the Republic to avoid helping the un-American poor.
No, but I may add that the middle and working class in America is in no position to start equalizing global poverty. That money must come from the upper class. We are already under attack and dont have a lot to give away.
Note that I referred to "un-American poor" rather than non-American poor. We should definitely put our own house in order first. Besides, with hundreds of millions of Christians globally, the poor should soon be fine.
My vision of economic justice does not require higher taxes on the working/middle class--quite the opposite.
Much could be achieved by changing spending priorities: more for infrastructure, less for oil and gas subsidies; more for health and education, less for weapons systems even the Pentagon doesn't want.
In all likelihood, taxes wouldn't have to go up for anyone if the wealthy and the corporate actually paid the current taxation rates.
"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
™ Version 4.0 Beta
