Now, I know what a lot of you will say, sin is bad, bla bla bla...
However, sin seems to be a literal path to superiority.
Sin plays a very interesting role in the world, and this becomes obvious once you consider a person who avoids all sin.
Person who avoids all sin will be:
- Poor
- Without power
Now, this is where it gets funny. If you are poor, you cant help other poor people. If you are without power, you cannot help other people or protect them.
So a person who avoids all sin would actually end up being less capable to do good.
Because in order to get rich, some sin must happen, either an unfair opportunity which other people didnt have in life, or maybe being ready to exploit weakness of market, or abusing government power.
And of course, most if not all wealthy people live in pure sin of wealth, where they buy themselves expensive things other people cant afford.
But this is where twist happens.
A rich person can donate millions to charity.
But poor person without sin cannot ever do this.
So a person who becomes wealthy through sin at the same time becomes more capable to do much more good than some person who didnt commit any sin.
Now, think about what this means. Committing sin directly enables a person to do more good.
And this is true for a lot of sins. Sin of getting more power enables person to later use that power for good.
Growing wealth, investing, creating jobs... even if it includes exploitation of workers in a literal sense that workers must do extra work to produce things for the rich, at the same time increases wealth of workers who cannot really organize themselves well without rich people, as we have seen in nearly all communist shitholes.
So Karl Marx's theory of labor time is true sometimes, the more wealth rich people have as percentage of total wealth in society, the more hours workers must work to produce that wealth for rich compared to total work hours. But this isnt true in society where rich people are charitable. If rich people are charitable, wealth gets re-distributed naturally, and the work hours meant to produce for rich become work hours which produce for the ordinary worker.
So a rich person who commits obvious sin, at the same time produces good from that sin which actually benefits poor and incapable people way more than some sin-less poor priest in church ever would.
Now, being wealthy becomes a problem only when person doesnt use wealth to help others.
Entire Karl Marx's work was based on one very specific theory, which is percentage of wealth owned by rich. And it is true, such wealth needs to be produced by workers. It is workers who work to produce expensive things for rich, and as result, lower production of things for workers.
So if rich owns 90% of wealth and is greedy, worker spends 90% of his work hours producing for the rich person, and such society naturally collapses as rich person claims more and more percentage of wealth, which in the end takes too much from worker.
But this theory isnt true at all in case where rich person is charitable.
theory is only logically true in scenario where we assume rich person is made out of pure greed, and takes larger and larger percentage of wealth in society until even growth of production cannot make up for worker's loss of percentage.
But if we assume rich person who is charitable, then not only does the worker get richer and has better life, but the rich person actually benefits him more than any communist utopia ever could.
So even if we assume being richer than others based on unfair advantages in life is a sin, that very same sin then enables person to do more good than sinless life ever could.
So the only way to create society where wealth gets re-distributed is society where rich people exist to re-distribute the wealth.
Society without rich people would always be society of very poor people. Because when you eliminate all ways person can claim superiority over others, you end up with society where no person can use superiority to help others.
And this scenario is always logically true. If you dont let the rich people appear, there is no wealth to re-distribute.
Society made out of only poor people is a poor society by tautology. You actually need the sin of wealth in order to do good to help others using that wealth.
the only way to make two unequal things equal is to redistribute, and the only way to redistribute is if two unequal things exist in the first place.
System where all people are naturally equal in wealth is simply not logically possible due to skill difference, except in distant future where robot maids do all the work and people dont need skill to produce wealth.
But skill in producing wealth cannot be removed now without destroying wealth as well.
So skill in producing wealth, even if sin, enables re-distribution to less skilled ones.
