The Gospel of Redistribution?
by Matthew Wappett
The foundations of the U.S. welfare system were laid by FDR during the waning years of the Great Depression. But, what many don’t know is that this system of welfare was directly modeled upon the Mormon Church’s welfare work in the early 20th century. According to a 2008 radio piece on NPR by Ken Verdoia, the Church “developed a very progressive social welfare system in the 1930s that became the envy of the New Deal. Roosevelt administration people were sent out to Salt Lake City to study the Mormon Church's welfare system for caring for its own.”(1) Thus, the welfare system we have in the U.S. today is partially modeled on the visionary welfare work of the Church and it has served a worthwhile and important purpose as a safety net for those in need during troubled economic times, and for those unable to participate in the market economy as a result of age, disability, or family circumstance.
The recent election saw many react negatively to ideas about “redistribution” and “socialized” programs, and yet most charitable programs including Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, and Social Security are meant to serve as agents of redistributing limited goods to those in need to equalize outcomes and opportunity. But unfortunately within recent years we have seen significant steps taken at the state and national levels to dismantle these social support programs. Indeed, some might say that the doctrine of “fiscal conservatism” has trumped the doctrine of charity. Many Mormons within the conservative movement are still spouting anachronistic, Cold War era warnings about “socialism” and “commies” running our country without truly examining our spiritual heritage which laid the foundation for some of the most socialized programs to operate on U.S. soil.
The Church has a long history of progressive, socialized welfare policies that go back well beyond the early 20th century, with intimations of such systems at the time of Christ’s visit to the Nephite peoples in Mesoamerica some 2,000 years ago. We learn in several places in the Book of Mormon that within Nephite society, when all things were held equal, the people were richly blessed and there was no contention among them.
For example in Alma 16:16 we read: “there was no inequality among them; the Lord did pour out his Spirit on all the face of the land to prepare the minds of the children of men, or to prepare their hearts to receive the word which should be taught among them at the time of his coming.” Later on following Christ’s visit we learn that the Nephites “had all things common among them, every man dealing justly, one with another” (3 Nephi 26:19) and “they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift” (4 Nephi 1:3). On the other side of the coin, we also learn from 3 Nephi that the downfall of the Nephite civilization prior to Christ’s visit was caused by the great inequality in the land:
And the people began to be distinguished by ranks, according to their riches and their chances for learning; yea, some were ignorant because of their poverty, and others did receive great learning because of their riches. Some were lifted up in pride, and others were exceedingly humble; some did return railing for railing, while others would receive railing and persecution and all manner of afflictions, and would not turn and revile again, but were humble and penitent before God. And thus there became a great inequality in all the land, insomuch that the church began to be broken up; yea, insomuch that in the *thirtieth year the church was broken up in all the land... (3 Nephi 6:12-14).
This particular scripture has, within recent years, struck an eerily familiar chord with me as I have seen students drop out of school because of their inability to pay, as I’ve heard friends “rail” against the poor and oppressed of society, as I’ve seen more and more class distinctions being made within our country. Upon reading these scriptures it seems to me that the Spirit of the Lord is more present and the world is more harmonious when all things were held in common, and that wickedness and dissension arose when things were unequal.
These same issues of class, equality, and welfare are also addressed and expanded upon in the revelations received by Joseph Smith, and contained in the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C). The first mention of equality in the D&C comes in Section 51, verse 3 where the Lord says: “Wherefore, let my servant Edward Partridge, and those whom he has chosen, in whom I am well pleased, appoint unto this people their portions, every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.” That sounds an awful lot like the “redistribution” of wealth doesn’t it? It sounds very similar to the equality that we read about in the Book or Mormon.
Later in D&C Section 70, verse 14 the Lord says: “Nevertheless, in your temporal things you shall be equal, and this not grudgingly, otherwise the abundance of the manifestations of the Spirit shall be withheld.” The Lord goes on to say that, “if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things (D&C 78:6).” Then later in Section 82 the Lord establishes the United Order as a covenant among the Saints in Kirtland and gives Joseph Smith the following commandment:
Therefore, I give unto you this commandment, that ye bind yourselves by this covenant, and it shall be done according to the laws of the Lord. Behold, here is wisdom also in me for your good. And you are to be equal, or in other words, you are to have equal claims on the properties, for the benefit of managing the concerns of your stewardships, every man according to his wants and his needs, inasmuch as his wants are just— And all this for the benefit of the church of the living God, that every man may improve upon his talent, that every man may gain other talents, yea, even an hundred fold, to be cast into the Lord’s storehouse, to become the common property of the whole church—Every man seeking the interest of his neighbor, and doing all things with an eye single to the glory of God. This order I have appointed to be an everlasting order unto you, and unto your successors, inasmuch as you sin not. And the soul that sins against this covenant, and hardeneth his heart against it, shall be dealt with according to the laws of my church, and shall be delivered over to the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption (D&C 82:15-21).
In this particular passage of scripture we learn that the Lord bound his people with a covenant that they were to be equal, like in the Book of Mormon, and that this equality was achieved by casting all properties and talents into the Lord’s storehouse where they were to be used for the common good. There was also a tremendous promise that went along with this covenant and a price for those who sinned against this covenant by “hardening” their hearts against it; but selfishness is a common human trait and we have a tendency to covet what is ours whether it is money, land, or possessions. This selfishness eventually surfaces in Section 104 where we learn of the United Order being reorganized because of the “covenants being broken through transgression, by covetousness and feigned words” (D&C 104:52).
Because of our human tendency towards psychological egoism the United Order was eventually dissolved, but that didn’t absolve the Saints of their responsibility for “seeking the interest of his neighbor” (D&C 82:17), and as the Saints prepared to cross the plains, the Lord revisits the notion of redistributing resources and responsibility as a means of protecting and nurturing the weak and marginalized of society: “Let each company bear an equal proportion, according to the dividend of their property, in taking the poor, the widows, the fatherless, and the families of those who have gone into the army, that the cries of the widow and the fatherless come not up into the ears of the Lord against this people” (D&C 136:8). Thus the Lord seems to understand that some level of redistribution is necessary to achieve equality of means and ends. The Lord also seems to indicate that redistribution doesn’t just mean material things, but that every person has a responsibility to watch and care for the weak and oppressed. Indeed we still live by this covenant when we promise to consecrate our time, talents, and everything we are blessed with to the building of the Kingdom of God.
Now, I know that there will be those who feel that I am interpreting these scriptures too broadly. They will likely argue that this structure of governance was intended for within the Church and among those who had entered into the covenant only; that those outside of the covenant, including government, can’t possibly be bound by the same spiritual laws, and yet I believe that we must have more faith in our fellow man. Indeed when it comes to welfare and charity I believe that we need to once again look to the example of Christ for the answer to this quandary. Christ did not discriminate. Christ taught the Samaritan woman at the well about the “living water” of the gospel (John 4:10-11), and raised the ire of the Pharisees when he “drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, this man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them” (Luke 15:1-2) an action that was taboo among orthodox Jewish society of the time. Christ welcomed all, nurtured all, and rejected none...therefore I find it hard to believe that Christ would only say that this responsibility for charity, or even the responsibility to give unto each (redistribute?) as his/her needs dictate is the sole privilege of Church members. Indeed much of the welfare aid from the Church today goes to individuals who are not members of the Church, but who are nevertheless in need.
The fact that the Church engages in this interdenominational welfare does not relieve us of our responsibility to do the same within our neighborhoods, cities, counties, or country. We should try to accomplish the same mission of caring for the underprivileged through secular institutions, including government, as well as through the institution of the Church. Many argue it is immoral for the government to forcibly take from those who have wealth and give it to those who don’t. Though I am certainly sympathetic to the fact that government robs us through taxation, caring for the needy is the one use of our tax money I wouldn’t object to. Those who are opposed to the government taxing us to help the poor, never seem to complain when the government does the same to build roads, or parks, or museums, or what’s more, tanks, or bombers, or nuclear weapons, or to fund going to war against nations who have never attacked us, such as Vietnam or Iraq. These undertakings are not given priority in scripture, and in the case of offensive war, are even condemned. In contrast, helping the needy is a clear commandment.
From what I understand in the scriptures, there is no virtue that is of more everlasting value than the virtue of charity. In Colossians Paul gives us a laundry list of virtues and duties, but concludes by saying: “And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness.” (Colossians 3:14). Moroni is a little more explicit when discussing charity: “And except ye have charity ye can in nowise be saved in the kingdom of God” (Moroni 10:21). Thus charity, both the action and the attitude, are pivotal to our overall salvation. Unfortunately many see charity, both the attitude and the action, as a burden and promote policies and attitudes that are harmful to those in need. We are living in a day when Solomon’s words in Proverbs have indeed come true: “The poor is hated even of his own neighbour: but the rich hath many friends.” (Proverbs 14:20).
We live in a society that praises and rewards selfishness. The foundations of the American system of free enterprise are based upon the notion that the pursuit of individual wealth and power works to the good of the whole of society; a paradoxical notion at best, and an excuse for the most egregious behavior at worst. We live in a country and culture that encourages egoism and accumulation. It is something that many seem to aspire to. It is behavior that is entirely antithetical to Christ’s teaching that if we are to “be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me” (Matthew 19:21).
In conclusion, I do not believe that democracy needs to be synonymous with a capitalist economic system. I look to the many democratic socialist countries in Europe and see great hope for the world there. I do not believe that the wisdom of the masses, democracy, can peacefully coexist with an economic system that is based upon the pursuit of profit and each individual’s self interest. We cannot have a system of government that is meant to serve the common good while we have a personal, social, and economic ethic founded upon principles of psychological egoism. Similarly, we cannot believe in the divine origin of man and the earth and then participate in a culture and economy that views people and the earth as a means. Man and the earth are of divine origin and thus are an end in, and of, themselves...they should not, and cannot, be used as a medium for achieving profit, prestige, or privilege. I believe that we cannot sit idly by and take the world as it comes to us. I believe that we have a divine calling to take love, charity, and hope into the world.
I believe that we should be “anxiously engaged” in making the world a better place and ensuring that we leave it better than we found it. This is a principle that I learned from my father many years ago in the White Mountains north of Fairbanks. When we would ski and snowmachine into the BLM cabins in that priceless wilderness we would frequently find the cabins bare of firewood. We would end up travelling down the trail, oftentimes several miles to gather wood to heat the cabins. At the end of our stay we would do exactly the same thing; we would spend our last morning cutting firewood. We would haul the wood back to the cabin, chop kindling, stack kindling and wood inside the cabin, and bank the fire in the wood stove to ensure the cabin was ready for the next visitors. My father would always reiterate that it was our responsibility to leave the cabin “better than we found it”. I believe in this principle. I thank my father for teaching it to me through example. I believe we must all make every effort to leave the world better than we found it. I hope that my comments will serve as a reminder of the wider social role that the Gospel should, and must, play in our lives. Let us take virtue, charity, love, and peace into the world. Let us be hopeful and kind. Let us be examples of the believers.
- “Mormons Take Care of their Own,” Marketplace, October 3, 2008. Accessed online at: http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/10/03/mormon_welfare/
Poster: Casey
I agree with many of the statements made in your article, however, the United Order and all similar charity that we are commanded to do is of our own free will. I have no agency when the government taxes me via inflation to resist if I do not wish to participate. Even if I will b e held accountable for that decision.
The problem we are facing is not that the new administration in charge of our county wants to re-distribute wealth, it is that the government is forcing everyone to be charitable whether they like it or not. This is very contrary to the notion that we all can exercise our agency, and be responsible for the outcome on judgment day.
At the general conference of 1877, Brigham Young said "I am opposed to free education as much as I am opposed to taking away property from one man and giving it to another… Would I encourage free schools by taxation? No!"
I think he makes it pretty clear that taking from one - to enrich another, however less fortunate they are is not right... unless the charity is voluntary of course.
The problem we are facing is not that the new administration in charge of our county wants to re-distribute wealth, it is that the government is forcing everyone to be charitable whether they like it or not. This is very contrary to the notion that we all can exercise our agency, and be responsible for the outcome on judgment day.
At the general conference of 1877, Brigham Young said "I am opposed to free education as much as I am opposed to taking away property from one man and giving it to another… Would I encourage free schools by taxation? No!"
I think he makes it pretty clear that taking from one - to enrich another, however less fortunate they are is not right... unless the charity is voluntary of course.
Poster: DW
I agree 100‰ with Casey.....
Poster: Joel
I also agree with Casey. But, I would add that the current State run welfare programs are also destructive in other ways beside limiting freedom via forced contributions. Plenty has been said about the dangers, for welfare recipients, of welfare dependency and other negative psychological effects. Such arguments should ring with Latter-Day Saints, or anyone, who value things like self-reliance. However, there is another type of dependency that is less often mentioned and that is the dependency of welfare contributors. If one examines history one will see that the role of welfare giver was, in fact, not invented by the State. The role was filled, at various times and places, by varying institutions from church to charity to mutual aid association. Eventually, in its quest for greater power, the State expropriated the power and function of these other institutions.
This had a few important effects. First, it generally put the alternatives out of business or eclipsed them into comparative insignificance. Second, it created a cultural belief that this is not only the appropriate role of the State but that it can only possibly be done by the State. And the third, it has lifted the burden from off of communities and individuals so that they have been liberated from the responsibility of caring.
Just as welfare recipients become lost to dependency, so to do potential welfare givers who, thanks to the State taking over the role, have been relieved of the responsibility and, more importantly, the desire to do anything about it. It has, in other words, fostered a general attitude of \\\"I already gave at the office\\\" or, \\\"It\\\'s not my responsibility.\\\" Rather than fostering altruism and fraternity, State welfare programs have arguably made men more selfish and more self-absorbed. The State has liberated us from having to be our brother\\\'s keeper, allowing us to constantly and selfishly pursue our own gratification.
State welfare programs rob us of the ability, initiative and desire to do the things thought we ought to be doing for ourselves and each other from within our own communities and thus, in a very important way, make us all worse off.
This had a few important effects. First, it generally put the alternatives out of business or eclipsed them into comparative insignificance. Second, it created a cultural belief that this is not only the appropriate role of the State but that it can only possibly be done by the State. And the third, it has lifted the burden from off of communities and individuals so that they have been liberated from the responsibility of caring.
Just as welfare recipients become lost to dependency, so to do potential welfare givers who, thanks to the State taking over the role, have been relieved of the responsibility and, more importantly, the desire to do anything about it. It has, in other words, fostered a general attitude of \\\"I already gave at the office\\\" or, \\\"It\\\'s not my responsibility.\\\" Rather than fostering altruism and fraternity, State welfare programs have arguably made men more selfish and more self-absorbed. The State has liberated us from having to be our brother\\\'s keeper, allowing us to constantly and selfishly pursue our own gratification.
State welfare programs rob us of the ability, initiative and desire to do the things thought we ought to be doing for ourselves and each other from within our own communities and thus, in a very important way, make us all worse off.
Poster: Landon
Matthew I love the example you give on restocking the wood, you and your father
decided to do it yourself and no one had to make you do it. I think most of us
(church members) completely agree on this and just tend to see the governments
role in it different. It isn't a debate on taking care of the poor and down trodden, to
me the debate is really what role the government should play. If someone doesn't
have any boot straps how can they pull them up. In the book "who really cares"
the author found that not only do conservatives give more money to charity but
also donate more of their time and and blood then do liberals. I think just looking
at donations by politicians will show this. The findings were consistent with what
Joel said above. If you think it is governments job to give out charity then you are
less likely to do it yourself. If you haven't read the book I highly recommend it.
Here is a link to a review on it and some of the facts they found. http://tinyurl.com/y7c857
Also there is a great talk Marion G. Romney gave in conference on the differences
between socialism and the united order.
http://tinyurl.com/6xkgdc
decided to do it yourself and no one had to make you do it. I think most of us
(church members) completely agree on this and just tend to see the governments
role in it different. It isn't a debate on taking care of the poor and down trodden, to
me the debate is really what role the government should play. If someone doesn't
have any boot straps how can they pull them up. In the book "who really cares"
the author found that not only do conservatives give more money to charity but
also donate more of their time and and blood then do liberals. I think just looking
at donations by politicians will show this. The findings were consistent with what
Joel said above. If you think it is governments job to give out charity then you are
less likely to do it yourself. If you haven't read the book I highly recommend it.
Here is a link to a review on it and some of the facts they found. http://tinyurl.com/y7c857
Also there is a great talk Marion G. Romney gave in conference on the differences
between socialism and the united order.
http://tinyurl.com/6xkgdc
Poster: Marcie
I don't remember reading about Jesus forcing people to be charitable. From what I remember, He supported the plan that gave us agency, not the other one. The plan where we give from the love and charity in our own hearts, not because the government tells us to.
The church's welfare system involves giving something in return for the help you receive. Look at the Perpetual Education Fund. No one is getting anything for free. The church is helping to better people's lives, and they in turn repay the money they were lent so someone else can use it.
The church provides help in emegencies so people can recover and get back to being productive. And many church members donate time and resources for that as well.
The church is not in the business of supporting people. The government wants people to rely on them as long as they can.
We also believe in leaving things better than we found them. But there is a line. If I went camping with someone a few weekends in a row and I was cleaning up their messes every time, pretty soon I would stop going with them. It would be irresponsible of me to train him to rely on me to clean up his messes.
The church's welfare system involves giving something in return for the help you receive. Look at the Perpetual Education Fund. No one is getting anything for free. The church is helping to better people's lives, and they in turn repay the money they were lent so someone else can use it.
The church provides help in emegencies so people can recover and get back to being productive. And many church members donate time and resources for that as well.
The church is not in the business of supporting people. The government wants people to rely on them as long as they can.
We also believe in leaving things better than we found them. But there is a line. If I went camping with someone a few weekends in a row and I was cleaning up their messes every time, pretty soon I would stop going with them. It would be irresponsible of me to train him to rely on me to clean up his messes.
Poster: Jenny
I find it interesting that all of the comments on this article are likely from LDS
persons who strongly disagree with the position Matt has taken on these issues.
It sounds to me like these comments come with very idealistic attitudes that if
only everyone had a right to exercise their full agency, life would be grand for
everyone. I'm afraid with an attitude like that, you are only scratching the surface
of what it means to be charitable & you will likely leave your neighbors out in the
cold.
As a rebuttal to comments above, have you ever considered that if no government
program was set up for the poor & needy & everyone only had to give what they
felt was necessary that most people would give nothing? Did you ever think that
maybe the state had to step in to support under-served populations because no
one else would? Haven't we learned as a church that organized action is the best
force to fight common issues such as poverty? I think if you study the early
history of the church, and even polygamy, you'll understand that we have always
had a responsibility as church members (even sometimes against our own wishes,
i.e. polygamy) to take care of our fellow members. Now I'm sure you're thinking
that the church is perfect in its function especially compared to government
programs---but actually, my experiences with a few members of my church has
shown me that some individuals become just as dependent & just as stuck in the
church welfare system as with other government aid programs. Yes, all the
comments about helping people in 'emergencies' and 'giving something in return'
sound great & ideally that is how it should work, but in practice you have
something else entirely. Although I strongly support the church welfare system, I
just want others to consider: Maybe the church as a whole believes that its better
to err on the more generous side of charity than to withhold aid from part of our
members. And maybe we should consider the same thought when we
contemplate our national welfare organization.
I don't believe it is a matter of redistributing wealth and robbing wealthier people of
their opportunity to be charitable. Instead, I suggest its an effort to meet the
needs of our fellow countrymen---whether they deserve it or not---because that is
our responsibility. I also believe that the bulk of the LDS population has no
concept of poverty, cycles of poverty & dependency, slums, racial inequalities
(that actually occur in our present day!), and other social problems that so many of
our fellow Americans face. Its easy to come from a privileged background, with a
stable family & values, college degree and bright prospects and to talk about how
the government is robbing us & everyone has equal opportunities & people just
need to be more self-reliant like me. What we need in our church as a whole is for
people to look outside of LDS culture and outside of themselves; to consider that
maybe you don't have all the answers to social problems & that maybe you should
just help as much as you can.
My experiences have also taught me that when it comes to service, church
members are very quick to give help to those they know or people they know who
are members----but when it comes to service outside of our community, the
service that really matters, WE are the ones who say "someone else can take
care of that". WE are the ones becoming more selfish & more self-absorbed. I
think if you put aside your personal agenda & seriously considered the scriptures
and values discussed in Matt's article, you may have more to ponder than just
why you are so right.
persons who strongly disagree with the position Matt has taken on these issues.
It sounds to me like these comments come with very idealistic attitudes that if
only everyone had a right to exercise their full agency, life would be grand for
everyone. I'm afraid with an attitude like that, you are only scratching the surface
of what it means to be charitable & you will likely leave your neighbors out in the
cold.
As a rebuttal to comments above, have you ever considered that if no government
program was set up for the poor & needy & everyone only had to give what they
felt was necessary that most people would give nothing? Did you ever think that
maybe the state had to step in to support under-served populations because no
one else would? Haven't we learned as a church that organized action is the best
force to fight common issues such as poverty? I think if you study the early
history of the church, and even polygamy, you'll understand that we have always
had a responsibility as church members (even sometimes against our own wishes,
i.e. polygamy) to take care of our fellow members. Now I'm sure you're thinking
that the church is perfect in its function especially compared to government
programs---but actually, my experiences with a few members of my church has
shown me that some individuals become just as dependent & just as stuck in the
church welfare system as with other government aid programs. Yes, all the
comments about helping people in 'emergencies' and 'giving something in return'
sound great & ideally that is how it should work, but in practice you have
something else entirely. Although I strongly support the church welfare system, I
just want others to consider: Maybe the church as a whole believes that its better
to err on the more generous side of charity than to withhold aid from part of our
members. And maybe we should consider the same thought when we
contemplate our national welfare organization.
I don't believe it is a matter of redistributing wealth and robbing wealthier people of
their opportunity to be charitable. Instead, I suggest its an effort to meet the
needs of our fellow countrymen---whether they deserve it or not---because that is
our responsibility. I also believe that the bulk of the LDS population has no
concept of poverty, cycles of poverty & dependency, slums, racial inequalities
(that actually occur in our present day!), and other social problems that so many of
our fellow Americans face. Its easy to come from a privileged background, with a
stable family & values, college degree and bright prospects and to talk about how
the government is robbing us & everyone has equal opportunities & people just
need to be more self-reliant like me. What we need in our church as a whole is for
people to look outside of LDS culture and outside of themselves; to consider that
maybe you don't have all the answers to social problems & that maybe you should
just help as much as you can.
My experiences have also taught me that when it comes to service, church
members are very quick to give help to those they know or people they know who
are members----but when it comes to service outside of our community, the
service that really matters, WE are the ones who say "someone else can take
care of that". WE are the ones becoming more selfish & more self-absorbed. I
think if you put aside your personal agenda & seriously considered the scriptures
and values discussed in Matt's article, you may have more to ponder than just
why you are so right.
Poster: MatthewWappett
Okay, all of the above comments, with the exception of Jenny's all revisit the "tried and untrue" rhetoric of conservative free-market capitalism. In free market theory, the poor, needy, disabled, and disadvantaged are classified as "market failures" meaning that they cannot participate in the free market economy as a result of ability or situation. In conservative economic theory "market failures" are the one place the government does have a role in redistributing wealth and taking care of the weak and vulnerable. As Jenny pointed out, government has to assume this role because charity and sharing wealth does not come naturally to humans...to a certain extent we have to be "prompted" to be charitable. Think about it...when was the last time you made a significant donation to another organization besides The Church? Did the organization you donated to provide a service for the homeless, disabled, addicted, or disadvantaged? In 90‰ of the cases where I have asked people this question...and I have asked it hundreds of times...nobody has "exercised their agency" in this manner. Sure they've contributed to public TV, public radio, and other organizations, but not a truly charitable organization...think about it and they think about whether you really practice what you preach.
Finally, regarding agency again, when you covenant to devote all your time, talents, and everything you have been blessed with, or may be blessed with, to the building of the KIngdom of Heaven on this earth you have effectively turned over the decision about what to do with your time and materials to this cause. In my estimation by making that commitment you have a responsibility to live up to it. Does that mean someone's going to force you to do it? No. But what are the consequences if you don't do it? Also, you don't have to pay tithing in the Church, no one's going to force you to do it, but are there consequences if you don't? Absolutely. When we make covenants in the church we agree to give up certain things for blessings and privileges...we do this of our own free will and volition. Similarly, when you live in a country you pay taxes and participate in the government and in exchange receive freedom, protection, and a social welfare safety net that will catch you when you fall...do you have to pay taxes? No. But just like in the church, if you don't live up to "expectation" and covenants there are consequences. No one forces anyone to pay taxes. You could become self-employed and not pay a red cent...no pun intended...but there would be consequences and a loss of privileges, just like in the Church. We all give up some agency in return for what we need from the Lord and from the government. Right? Do we have to? No. But we choose to...
Many of your arguments seem to intimate that if you lost your job, house, and all your savings you would just work harder and somehow dig yourselves out...pull yourselves up by your bootstraps if you will. Well, that assumes you have boots and straps to pull on...what if you have nothing? If you needed a welfare safety net would you reject federal and state aid because you don't believe in welfare? I doubt it. Would you require non-members to join the Church to merely receive welfare support? I doubt that too....don't think that members of the church don't use that government safety net. Here in Idaho, where I currently reside, the county with the highest number of federal and state welfare recipients is Madison County...the site of BYU Idaho and 75‰ of welfare recipients in that county are LDS students attending a Church school. Are they needy? Do they not have family support? Some of them, but many choose to use/abuse that system merely because it's available, they feel entitled, and that's a problem....
Finally, regarding agency again, when you covenant to devote all your time, talents, and everything you have been blessed with, or may be blessed with, to the building of the KIngdom of Heaven on this earth you have effectively turned over the decision about what to do with your time and materials to this cause. In my estimation by making that commitment you have a responsibility to live up to it. Does that mean someone's going to force you to do it? No. But what are the consequences if you don't do it? Also, you don't have to pay tithing in the Church, no one's going to force you to do it, but are there consequences if you don't? Absolutely. When we make covenants in the church we agree to give up certain things for blessings and privileges...we do this of our own free will and volition. Similarly, when you live in a country you pay taxes and participate in the government and in exchange receive freedom, protection, and a social welfare safety net that will catch you when you fall...do you have to pay taxes? No. But just like in the church, if you don't live up to "expectation" and covenants there are consequences. No one forces anyone to pay taxes. You could become self-employed and not pay a red cent...no pun intended...but there would be consequences and a loss of privileges, just like in the Church. We all give up some agency in return for what we need from the Lord and from the government. Right? Do we have to? No. But we choose to...
Many of your arguments seem to intimate that if you lost your job, house, and all your savings you would just work harder and somehow dig yourselves out...pull yourselves up by your bootstraps if you will. Well, that assumes you have boots and straps to pull on...what if you have nothing? If you needed a welfare safety net would you reject federal and state aid because you don't believe in welfare? I doubt it. Would you require non-members to join the Church to merely receive welfare support? I doubt that too....don't think that members of the church don't use that government safety net. Here in Idaho, where I currently reside, the county with the highest number of federal and state welfare recipients is Madison County...the site of BYU Idaho and 75‰ of welfare recipients in that county are LDS students attending a Church school. Are they needy? Do they not have family support? Some of them, but many choose to use/abuse that system merely because it's available, they feel entitled, and that's a problem....
Poster: Gregory V.
Dear Marcie,
You brought up a very interesting point.
I don't remember reading about Jesus forcing people to be charitable. From what I remember, He supported the plan that gave us agency, not the other one. The plan where we give from the love and charity in our own hearts, not because the government tells us to.
Part of the wealth you produce as a worker is already being taken from you by your employer. This is the concept Karl Marx called surplus value. It allows some people to grow wealthy simply by buying and selling your produce (and therefore a piece of what makes you the person you are) in the marketplace, while the same people don't produce anything themselves. You are given back just enough of your own surplus value to keep you at your job, placid and agreeable.
When I read religious texts, I can't help but think that Jesus (and other prophets, past and present) would be on the side of people like you being able to use the surplus value you create in the way that you choose, rather than having it stolen from you to support people who are not productive. That would allow you more freedom to use your agency in the ways which suit you.
I agree that the current state of social welfare is unworkable and harmful. Marcuse called it the welfare-and-warfare state. People deserve to have gainful, healthy employment rather than being paid essentially to stay home and keep quiet.
Anyway, excellent comments and an excellent article. I had no idea that FDR took a cue from the LDS church, but in hindsight it makes perfect sense.
Cheers...
You brought up a very interesting point.
I don't remember reading about Jesus forcing people to be charitable. From what I remember, He supported the plan that gave us agency, not the other one. The plan where we give from the love and charity in our own hearts, not because the government tells us to.
Part of the wealth you produce as a worker is already being taken from you by your employer. This is the concept Karl Marx called surplus value. It allows some people to grow wealthy simply by buying and selling your produce (and therefore a piece of what makes you the person you are) in the marketplace, while the same people don't produce anything themselves. You are given back just enough of your own surplus value to keep you at your job, placid and agreeable.
When I read religious texts, I can't help but think that Jesus (and other prophets, past and present) would be on the side of people like you being able to use the surplus value you create in the way that you choose, rather than having it stolen from you to support people who are not productive. That would allow you more freedom to use your agency in the ways which suit you.
I agree that the current state of social welfare is unworkable and harmful. Marcuse called it the welfare-and-warfare state. People deserve to have gainful, healthy employment rather than being paid essentially to stay home and keep quiet.
Anyway, excellent comments and an excellent article. I had no idea that FDR took a cue from the LDS church, but in hindsight it makes perfect sense.
Cheers...
Poster: Allyson
I think a number of posters have raised the point of trust when it comes to sharing our income. When I pay tithing or other donations, I trust the Church to use the money wisely and for purposes which I feel I can support. Likewise, when I donate to charities, I give to those whose aims I support and whose ratings indicate that they are worthy stewards of my donation. Certainly, when I pay taxes this is not true; I don't trust the government to be a wise steward of my taxes and don't believe that it will spend them in a way that is coherent with my values and priorities. It's one thing to have my money spent to build a temple or provide emergency education for children in refugee camps, it's quite another to be paying for the AIG bailout and bonuses.
A second important factor mentioned by other posters is that we more willingly donate money or goods to the Church because we perceive it as a choice rather than an obligation, like taxes. In reality, I think paying tithing and paying taxes are similar. In both cases we do have a choice and in both cases non-payment carries specific consequences. When it comes to tithing the consequences of non-payment are spiritual and eternal (possibly also temporal if we count the loss of blessings not received as full tithe-payers), while non-payment of taxes has consequences which are immediate, legal and temporal.
A second important factor mentioned by other posters is that we more willingly donate money or goods to the Church because we perceive it as a choice rather than an obligation, like taxes. In reality, I think paying tithing and paying taxes are similar. In both cases we do have a choice and in both cases non-payment carries specific consequences. When it comes to tithing the consequences of non-payment are spiritual and eternal (possibly also temporal if we count the loss of blessings not received as full tithe-payers), while non-payment of taxes has consequences which are immediate, legal and temporal.
Poster: Mike W.
Conservatives have been taught to rail so hard against the federal government doing everything, they don't realize that their arguments are weakening their own position for small, local government. They so vehemently criticize the government's ability to do anything well, they shoot themselves in the foot.
There needs to be a distinction between what is the role of the different levels of government, but use the word "government" as a single entity. True, the federal government doesn't do a great job with health care and poverty relief, but states can make a much better, much more intimate effort that is able to deal with the different needs that exist in communities.
If humanity, without government, would have taken care of the poor and needy in the past there would have been no need for government to step in and take over that obligation, but as Matthew states, we aren't that charitable. Self-interest is the natural driving force of humanity and until we understand that our true self-interest is best served by helping those around us, there is a role for small, local, intimate government to assist and even spearhead that charitable role of society.
There needs to be a distinction between what is the role of the different levels of government, but use the word "government" as a single entity. True, the federal government doesn't do a great job with health care and poverty relief, but states can make a much better, much more intimate effort that is able to deal with the different needs that exist in communities.
If humanity, without government, would have taken care of the poor and needy in the past there would have been no need for government to step in and take over that obligation, but as Matthew states, we aren't that charitable. Self-interest is the natural driving force of humanity and until we understand that our true self-interest is best served by helping those around us, there is a role for small, local, intimate government to assist and even spearhead that charitable role of society.
Poster: andy
Bravo Matt.
I do think it's great that all these Glenn Beck Fans are reading the Mormon
Worker.
Now if they could just take a hard look at what Reaganomics has actually
accomplished I'd be extra psyched. The income disparity is at the highest in US
history. Can someone suggest to me how that is a coincidence? And while I'm
listening, please explain how that isn't taking from the poor and giving to the rich?
That's redistribution of the AIG bonuses kind (and, by the way TARP is in NO way
a 'liberal' policy). This is a serious question, I'd like to know how average working
class Reagan/Limbaugh/Beck fans justify that.
Because, speaking of people receiving from the income pool who are "not
productive"--the bonds and securities and hedge funds that our taxes are paying
for are worse than worthless. On Wall Street they were trading debts as if they
were assets and making HUGE amounts of money from it. That's the worst kind of
counter-productivity . It's people who knew how to work the Reaganomics game
(people privileged with an education in how things work) stealing from people who
are actually producing a good or service for what they earned. The 'troubled
assets' are, after all, high risk loans packaged and repackaged until
unrecognizable and bought and sold repeatedly every time with a higher markup
and higher risk. That's a superb combo of gambling and plain old stealing. What
some people call acting in 'self-interest' the way the 'free market' intends I call
usury.
Anyway this may be somewhat tangential to the core of Matt's article.
Something to think about: Instead of looking at it like Glen Beck says you should,
you could see taxation as good citizenship and therefore a priviledge. I have yet to
meet anyone who honestly wants to enslave the week by hooking them on the
government teet. And I have yet to see that as the legitimate effect.
I think it is pretty clear, however, that given enough 'free agency' the market has
favored the people with less scruples regarding digging a pit for their neighbor. And
now all the pit diggers are so heavily addicted to the government-granted 'free
agency' that they face ruin if not for returning to that selfsame teet for reprieve
from just consequences.
I don't worry much about the mormons who rail against socialism as the devil's
counterfeit for Zion. They'll come around or be left out. For now 'all things in
common' still sounds like a good goal to me.
I do think it's great that all these Glenn Beck Fans are reading the Mormon
Worker.
Now if they could just take a hard look at what Reaganomics has actually
accomplished I'd be extra psyched. The income disparity is at the highest in US
history. Can someone suggest to me how that is a coincidence? And while I'm
listening, please explain how that isn't taking from the poor and giving to the rich?
That's redistribution of the AIG bonuses kind (and, by the way TARP is in NO way
a 'liberal' policy). This is a serious question, I'd like to know how average working
class Reagan/Limbaugh/Beck fans justify that.
Because, speaking of people receiving from the income pool who are "not
productive"--the bonds and securities and hedge funds that our taxes are paying
for are worse than worthless. On Wall Street they were trading debts as if they
were assets and making HUGE amounts of money from it. That's the worst kind of
counter-productivity . It's people who knew how to work the Reaganomics game
(people privileged with an education in how things work) stealing from people who
are actually producing a good or service for what they earned. The 'troubled
assets' are, after all, high risk loans packaged and repackaged until
unrecognizable and bought and sold repeatedly every time with a higher markup
and higher risk. That's a superb combo of gambling and plain old stealing. What
some people call acting in 'self-interest' the way the 'free market' intends I call
usury.
Anyway this may be somewhat tangential to the core of Matt's article.
Something to think about: Instead of looking at it like Glen Beck says you should,
you could see taxation as good citizenship and therefore a priviledge. I have yet to
meet anyone who honestly wants to enslave the week by hooking them on the
government teet. And I have yet to see that as the legitimate effect.
I think it is pretty clear, however, that given enough 'free agency' the market has
favored the people with less scruples regarding digging a pit for their neighbor. And
now all the pit diggers are so heavily addicted to the government-granted 'free
agency' that they face ruin if not for returning to that selfsame teet for reprieve
from just consequences.
I don't worry much about the mormons who rail against socialism as the devil's
counterfeit for Zion. They'll come around or be left out. For now 'all things in
common' still sounds like a good goal to me.
Poster: DW
John Galt lives.
Poster: Joel
It's unfortunate how this conversation has fixed on the standard political discourse that is so limited and shortsighted. Not everyone who opposes wealth redistribution via forced taxation is a "capitalist", "conservative", or a Glenn Beck fan. Some of us are generally opposed to violence and force as a means to any end, no matter how noble. Some justify aggressive war and torture in the name of defense and security. Others are fine with collecting taxes at gun point in the name of feeding the poor. The application of violence and force is the same, only the pet causes change.
"The power of love, as the basis of a state, has never been tried. We must not imagine that all things are lapsing into confusion, if every tender protestant be not compelled to bear his part in certain social conventions: nor doubt that roads can be built, letters carried, and the fruit of labour secured, when the government of force is at an end. Are our methods now so excellent that all competition is hopeless?" ~ Emerson, Politics
Jenny,
Yes, I have thought long and hard about the role of the state in caring for the poor and needy. I oppose it and I oppose the notion that, but for the state, no one else would do anything. I have two counterexamples that should be relevant to anyone reading the Mormon Worker. 1) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Of course, the Church has its own welfare program and it, as well as every other Church program, is funded through the voluntary giving of time, money and talents by members. 2) Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker from which the inspiration for this publication was drawn. Begun in 1933, the Catholic Worker Movement currently boasts "over 185 Catholic Worker communities [that] remain committed to nonviolence, voluntary poverty, prayer, and hospitality for the homeless, exiled, hungry, and foresaken. Catholic Workers continue to protest injustice, war, racism, and violence of all forms."
I absolutely agree with you on the need for organized action. But, as I mentioned in my previous post above, I believe that the state's role in welfare leads to more of the selfishness and self-absorption that you rightfully decry. Our modern state did not invent charity and it is not the only type of social organization that can be charitable. And, remember, the state is composed of and created by people. Thus, if people can't or won't be charitable, then state can't or won't be either. Unless you're suggesting that only politicians and government bureaucrats are the only ones capable of being benevolent and selfless? I somehow doubt that's what you're saying.
Matthew,
I don't think I made any "free market capitalist" remarks in my previous post. Anyway, your response plays right into my comments above. You want to make the state the dominant welfare giver, which it has been for some years, and then you look around and act surprised that no one else is doing much to fill the need. This would be like giving Walmart a monopoly on the retail sale of groceries and then, years later, arguing that the monopoly must be continued because, without Walmart, who else would sell groceries? No one else is doing it! This is clearly fallacious. One of the main reasons that people might donate more to other causes but not charities (and I'm not sure you are correct there), is because they don't see a need to. "That's why I pay taxes!", they say. The state did not come into existence as a charitable institution but it has since taken over that role and it has affected our attitudes and beliefs accordingly.
I also take opposition to your attempt to equate voluntary Church membership and tithing with compulsory citizenship and coercive taxation. And, I reject the Orwellian notion that we are given freedom in exchange for taxes paid. Church membership and tithes are completely voluntary. There is no one to force either from me. Taxes and compulsory citizenship, on the other hand, are not voluntary. To say that the state gives us freedom in exchange for taxes is to turn the concept of freedom on its head. One possible consequence of not paying taxes is imprisonment. Can we really say that we are allowed to exercise our own free will and volition? Isn't this, instead, the very definition of duress? Sure, there are consequences for not paying tithing but one of those consequences is not that the Bishop is going to make you, whether you want to or not. This is like, and forgive the analogy, Satan claiming that his plan is no different than Christ's. That he too would give us free agency, but that there are consequences for disobedience and one of those consequences was that he would force us to obey.
What I advocate is not that the poor and needy be left out in the cold, but that charity, and society, be built upon principles of voluntarism, community and free association. These are correct principles and their practice will make us better men. I stand by my opposition to state welfare for the reasons stated in my previous post (and for the reason that the state actually causes much of the poverty and hardship that we see), which were not addressed by you but wrongly dismissed as capitalist boilerplate. Much of what we believe is human nature is actually the effects of culture and social organization. Particular modes of social organization will foster particular types of people, attitudes and behaviors. Our current mode of social organization is built upon the morally bankrupt and morally enervating principle of force. We do not seek to foster goodness or to improve the character of men, but only to force them to behave, and in the process rob them of the ability to exercise moral agency. Should we then be surprised when we find a dearth of good men? I propose, as an alternative, the quote that appears in the banner at the top of this page: "I teach them correct principles and the govern themselves." I advocate that we take steps to move us in that direction and not further from it.
"The power of love, as the basis of a state, has never been tried. We must not imagine that all things are lapsing into confusion, if every tender protestant be not compelled to bear his part in certain social conventions: nor doubt that roads can be built, letters carried, and the fruit of labour secured, when the government of force is at an end. Are our methods now so excellent that all competition is hopeless?" ~ Emerson, Politics
Jenny,
Yes, I have thought long and hard about the role of the state in caring for the poor and needy. I oppose it and I oppose the notion that, but for the state, no one else would do anything. I have two counterexamples that should be relevant to anyone reading the Mormon Worker. 1) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Of course, the Church has its own welfare program and it, as well as every other Church program, is funded through the voluntary giving of time, money and talents by members. 2) Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker from which the inspiration for this publication was drawn. Begun in 1933, the Catholic Worker Movement currently boasts "over 185 Catholic Worker communities [that] remain committed to nonviolence, voluntary poverty, prayer, and hospitality for the homeless, exiled, hungry, and foresaken. Catholic Workers continue to protest injustice, war, racism, and violence of all forms."
I absolutely agree with you on the need for organized action. But, as I mentioned in my previous post above, I believe that the state's role in welfare leads to more of the selfishness and self-absorption that you rightfully decry. Our modern state did not invent charity and it is not the only type of social organization that can be charitable. And, remember, the state is composed of and created by people. Thus, if people can't or won't be charitable, then state can't or won't be either. Unless you're suggesting that only politicians and government bureaucrats are the only ones capable of being benevolent and selfless? I somehow doubt that's what you're saying.
Matthew,
I don't think I made any "free market capitalist" remarks in my previous post. Anyway, your response plays right into my comments above. You want to make the state the dominant welfare giver, which it has been for some years, and then you look around and act surprised that no one else is doing much to fill the need. This would be like giving Walmart a monopoly on the retail sale of groceries and then, years later, arguing that the monopoly must be continued because, without Walmart, who else would sell groceries? No one else is doing it! This is clearly fallacious. One of the main reasons that people might donate more to other causes but not charities (and I'm not sure you are correct there), is because they don't see a need to. "That's why I pay taxes!", they say. The state did not come into existence as a charitable institution but it has since taken over that role and it has affected our attitudes and beliefs accordingly.
I also take opposition to your attempt to equate voluntary Church membership and tithing with compulsory citizenship and coercive taxation. And, I reject the Orwellian notion that we are given freedom in exchange for taxes paid. Church membership and tithes are completely voluntary. There is no one to force either from me. Taxes and compulsory citizenship, on the other hand, are not voluntary. To say that the state gives us freedom in exchange for taxes is to turn the concept of freedom on its head. One possible consequence of not paying taxes is imprisonment. Can we really say that we are allowed to exercise our own free will and volition? Isn't this, instead, the very definition of duress? Sure, there are consequences for not paying tithing but one of those consequences is not that the Bishop is going to make you, whether you want to or not. This is like, and forgive the analogy, Satan claiming that his plan is no different than Christ's. That he too would give us free agency, but that there are consequences for disobedience and one of those consequences was that he would force us to obey.
What I advocate is not that the poor and needy be left out in the cold, but that charity, and society, be built upon principles of voluntarism, community and free association. These are correct principles and their practice will make us better men. I stand by my opposition to state welfare for the reasons stated in my previous post (and for the reason that the state actually causes much of the poverty and hardship that we see), which were not addressed by you but wrongly dismissed as capitalist boilerplate. Much of what we believe is human nature is actually the effects of culture and social organization. Particular modes of social organization will foster particular types of people, attitudes and behaviors. Our current mode of social organization is built upon the morally bankrupt and morally enervating principle of force. We do not seek to foster goodness or to improve the character of men, but only to force them to behave, and in the process rob them of the ability to exercise moral agency. Should we then be surprised when we find a dearth of good men? I propose, as an alternative, the quote that appears in the banner at the top of this page: "I teach them correct principles and the govern themselves." I advocate that we take steps to move us in that direction and not further from it.
Poster: Joel
"If humanity, without government, would have taken care of the poor and needy in the past there would have been no need for government to step in and take over that obligation, but as Matthew states, we aren't that charitable. Self-interest is the natural driving force of humanity and until we understand that our true self-interest is best served by helping those around us, there is a role for small, local, intimate government to assist and even spearhead that charitable role of society."
Mike W,
This is a post hoc viewing of history in which you are imposing your view of current arrangements on to events of the past. Government did not step in to cure poverty because no one was doing anything about it. That is, just because states dominate the scene now, that doesn't mean they always did.
Also, if men are so uncharitable that they can't or won't take care of the poor and needy, then even goverment welfare would be an impossibility because government is composed of the same uncharitable men! If nobody really cared about the needy then our government wouldn't do anything about it and it wouldn't be raised as an issue. But, we do care. That's why it's always an issue and why so many of us demand something be done about it.
Last, self-interest is definitely a driving force in humanity but it is not the driving force. Man also has a natural drive toward society and cooperation and this can't be dismissed as unfalsifiable psychological egoism. I recommend you read Kropotkin's Mutual Aid as an outstanding counter-argument.
I agree with you on the small, local and intimate but I believe that our current arrangement prevents and discourages any meaningful organization at that level. Again, I recommend Kropotkin or something like Robert Nisbet's, The Quest for Community
Mike W,
This is a post hoc viewing of history in which you are imposing your view of current arrangements on to events of the past. Government did not step in to cure poverty because no one was doing anything about it. That is, just because states dominate the scene now, that doesn't mean they always did.
Also, if men are so uncharitable that they can't or won't take care of the poor and needy, then even goverment welfare would be an impossibility because government is composed of the same uncharitable men! If nobody really cared about the needy then our government wouldn't do anything about it and it wouldn't be raised as an issue. But, we do care. That's why it's always an issue and why so many of us demand something be done about it.
Last, self-interest is definitely a driving force in humanity but it is not the driving force. Man also has a natural drive toward society and cooperation and this can't be dismissed as unfalsifiable psychological egoism. I recommend you read Kropotkin's Mutual Aid as an outstanding counter-argument.
I agree with you on the small, local and intimate but I believe that our current arrangement prevents and discourages any meaningful organization at that level. Again, I recommend Kropotkin or something like Robert Nisbet's, The Quest for Community
Poster: Mike W.
Joel,
You make good criticisms of my comments. Often, when I comment, I do so out of exasperation and don't express myself as I would. I will check out the books you have recommended as I am much more of an anarchist than a socialist.
I do take issue, however, with your argument that my reasoning regarding government intervention is social welfare is post hoc. The issue is that because of the way we, as Americans, have chosen to disregard the poor and the elderly during times of the Great Depression, we have given those who believe that the state can solve these problems a leg to stand on. Our unwillingness or inability to provide for those most in need has created a vacuum that government is more than willing to step in and fill. Until we take care of each other, I don't see how we operate without a Social Security program (although it could be better) or Medicare or Medicaid (although both must improve or they will bankrupt the country). As long as we as society fail to fulfill our obligations to each other there will continue to be opportunities for government expansion into societal issues.
Regarding self-interest: I think we are saying the same thing. True self-interest includes that driving force of society and community that you mentioned. Otherwise society would never have formed. Thanks for your feedback
You make good criticisms of my comments. Often, when I comment, I do so out of exasperation and don't express myself as I would. I will check out the books you have recommended as I am much more of an anarchist than a socialist.
I do take issue, however, with your argument that my reasoning regarding government intervention is social welfare is post hoc. The issue is that because of the way we, as Americans, have chosen to disregard the poor and the elderly during times of the Great Depression, we have given those who believe that the state can solve these problems a leg to stand on. Our unwillingness or inability to provide for those most in need has created a vacuum that government is more than willing to step in and fill. Until we take care of each other, I don't see how we operate without a Social Security program (although it could be better) or Medicare or Medicaid (although both must improve or they will bankrupt the country). As long as we as society fail to fulfill our obligations to each other there will continue to be opportunities for government expansion into societal issues.
Regarding self-interest: I think we are saying the same thing. True self-interest includes that driving force of society and community that you mentioned. Otherwise society would never have formed. Thanks for your feedback
Poster: Mark Reber
Government charity destroys personal charity. I live in Europe where nearly no one
gives charity because the needy are seen as the problem of the state. Arguing for
christian attributes in politics is confusing. The gospel is what individuals are
supposed to practice, not secular governments. President Benson doesn't argue
against helping the poor, he argues against the government assuming the
responsibilities of the individual, the family member, and the community to help
their poor. When the government comes between the giver and the receiver, there
is no gratitude felt for the faceless state on the part of the receiver (think of Greek
and French riots over government benefits) and no sense of helping an individual
on the part of the giver - since the money is taken from the one who earned it at
threat of prison for tax evasion. The character of every individual suffers when the
state takes over these programs. It's not helpful to compare what the church did
(my great great grandfather lived under the united order) with what the state does
or SHOULD do.
gives charity because the needy are seen as the problem of the state. Arguing for
christian attributes in politics is confusing. The gospel is what individuals are
supposed to practice, not secular governments. President Benson doesn't argue
against helping the poor, he argues against the government assuming the
responsibilities of the individual, the family member, and the community to help
their poor. When the government comes between the giver and the receiver, there
is no gratitude felt for the faceless state on the part of the receiver (think of Greek
and French riots over government benefits) and no sense of helping an individual
on the part of the giver - since the money is taken from the one who earned it at
threat of prison for tax evasion. The character of every individual suffers when the
state takes over these programs. It's not helpful to compare what the church did
(my great great grandfather lived under the united order) with what the state does
or SHOULD do.
Poster: Bill Couture
Seems to me that government aid and Church aid are not mutually exclusive. The Church does a better job but to some extent is limited to helping members first. Government can help everyone. The idea that the government is taking something seems wrong to me. We do not object to the government protecting against foreign enemies yet more people die or are harmed by poverty and disease then by any foreign enemy. Shouldn't the government work to promote the common good? The only argument against it that I see of substance is that it destroies charity. But I think that misses the point. It doesn't destroy charity it only allows people the free will to be charitable in excess of the government. Service comes in many ways that doesn't involve money so even if the government provided all that was needed there there would still be plenty of oportunities.
Poster: andy
It really is heartening too see that a forum like the Mormon Worker exists. I have
really no faith in the current political model. It's thinking and feeling the likes of what
is going on here that will move us away from politics and commerce centered in
greed and extortion and into a more humane politics--that actually serves as a venue
for people to see to each other's individual needs and to the common welfare.
really no faith in the current political model. It's thinking and feeling the likes of what
is going on here that will move us away from politics and commerce centered in
greed and extortion and into a more humane politics--that actually serves as a venue
for people to see to each other's individual needs and to the common welfare.
Poster: Joel
Mike W,
I appreciate your argument and I think we are nearer than we are far. My main problem is that I don't see the increased welfare role of the state during the Great Depression as resulting from a failure of the common man or of decentralized alternatives; nor do I see it as benevolent government administrators stepping in to fill a vacuum. What I see is the continuation of a centralizing trend that has been pervasive since the Nation-State took its role, at the Peace of Westphalia, as the dominant, and only truly sovereign, institution in Western society. The state is subversive and usurping.
That said, I totally agree when you say "As long as we as society fail to fulfill our obligations to each other there will continue to be opportunities for government expansion into societal issues." My concern is that we don't fall into a catch-22 situation where our continued reliance on government, to fulfill our obligations, ensures and encourages our continued failure, thus requiring further government intervention. Enough of us are capable and willing. If not, our supposed democratic-republic government wouldn't have a mandate to act (in theory). So, we want it done, we've just come to rely on a particular institution to do it.
And thank you as well for your comments and response. It really is great to see this forum.
I appreciate your argument and I think we are nearer than we are far. My main problem is that I don't see the increased welfare role of the state during the Great Depression as resulting from a failure of the common man or of decentralized alternatives; nor do I see it as benevolent government administrators stepping in to fill a vacuum. What I see is the continuation of a centralizing trend that has been pervasive since the Nation-State took its role, at the Peace of Westphalia, as the dominant, and only truly sovereign, institution in Western society. The state is subversive and usurping.
That said, I totally agree when you say "As long as we as society fail to fulfill our obligations to each other there will continue to be opportunities for government expansion into societal issues." My concern is that we don't fall into a catch-22 situation where our continued reliance on government, to fulfill our obligations, ensures and encourages our continued failure, thus requiring further government intervention. Enough of us are capable and willing. If not, our supposed democratic-republic government wouldn't have a mandate to act (in theory). So, we want it done, we've just come to rely on a particular institution to do it.
And thank you as well for your comments and response. It really is great to see this forum.
Poster: Chris B.
Joel:
---
"Church membership and tithes are completely voluntary. There is no one to force
either from me. Taxes and compulsory citizenship, on the other hand, are not
voluntary. To say that the state gives us freedom in exchange for taxes is to turn
the concept of freedom on its head. One possible consequence of not paying
taxes is imprisonment. Can we really say that we are allowed to exercise our own
free will and volition? Isn't this, instead, the very definition of duress?"
---
No, it isn't.
If you don't like the idea of paying taxes, don't live in the United States of
America!
NO ONE is forcing you to pay taxes. No one is holding a gun to your head as you
walk to the mailbox to insert your tax check. There are plenty of places you can
go to live in the world where you can escape the indignity of being "forced" to pay
taxes. Go live in Somalia. There are no taxes there. No "government interference"
or "regulation" or "restriction of personal liberty" there, that's for sure. Oh ... you
don't want to live in Somalia? Why not? Oh ... that's right ... because it's a Hell
hole!
No one is forcing you to pay taxes, any more than the church is forcing you to pay
tithing. The two are precisely analogous.
If you don't want to pay tithing, that's your choice, but then you forgo the
blessings. If you don't want to pay taxes, no one's forcing you to do so ... but
you'll also have to forgo the blessings, i.e. you'll have to leave the U.S. (and all
other developed, civilized nations) and find somewhere else to live, and see if you
really like living in a "libertarian" society.
You don't want to do that, however, because you want to have your cake and eat
it, too. You want to push off on someone else the Christian duty to care for the
poor and yet still be counted as a Christian. To you, and to conservatives
generally, becoming rich is more important than caring for the poor, selfish self-
interest is lionized ... and the "freedom" to become filthy rich at the expense and
exclusion of others, in absolute contradiction to the crystal clear commandments
of Christ (see Jenny's masterful comment, etc.), is more important than "suffering"
a tax increase.
Ayn Rand was wrong. Self-interest is not king. Who is King? I think you'd better
ask yourselves that. Hint: not the one who urges us to pursue as individuals our
own selfish self-interests and aggrandizement to the exclusion of the poor and
meek among us.
It is precisely this king of hypocritical, un-Christ-like thinking and behavior that has
people running for the exits in churches all over America. And for good reason.
---
"Church membership and tithes are completely voluntary. There is no one to force
either from me. Taxes and compulsory citizenship, on the other hand, are not
voluntary. To say that the state gives us freedom in exchange for taxes is to turn
the concept of freedom on its head. One possible consequence of not paying
taxes is imprisonment. Can we really say that we are allowed to exercise our own
free will and volition? Isn't this, instead, the very definition of duress?"
---
No, it isn't.
If you don't like the idea of paying taxes, don't live in the United States of
America!
NO ONE is forcing you to pay taxes. No one is holding a gun to your head as you
walk to the mailbox to insert your tax check. There are plenty of places you can
go to live in the world where you can escape the indignity of being "forced" to pay
taxes. Go live in Somalia. There are no taxes there. No "government interference"
or "regulation" or "restriction of personal liberty" there, that's for sure. Oh ... you
don't want to live in Somalia? Why not? Oh ... that's right ... because it's a Hell
hole!
No one is forcing you to pay taxes, any more than the church is forcing you to pay
tithing. The two are precisely analogous.
If you don't want to pay tithing, that's your choice, but then you forgo the
blessings. If you don't want to pay taxes, no one's forcing you to do so ... but
you'll also have to forgo the blessings, i.e. you'll have to leave the U.S. (and all
other developed, civilized nations) and find somewhere else to live, and see if you
really like living in a "libertarian" society.
You don't want to do that, however, because you want to have your cake and eat
it, too. You want to push off on someone else the Christian duty to care for the
poor and yet still be counted as a Christian. To you, and to conservatives
generally, becoming rich is more important than caring for the poor, selfish self-
interest is lionized ... and the "freedom" to become filthy rich at the expense and
exclusion of others, in absolute contradiction to the crystal clear commandments
of Christ (see Jenny's masterful comment, etc.), is more important than "suffering"
a tax increase.
Ayn Rand was wrong. Self-interest is not king. Who is King? I think you'd better
ask yourselves that. Hint: not the one who urges us to pursue as individuals our
own selfish self-interests and aggrandizement to the exclusion of the poor and
meek among us.
It is precisely this king of hypocritical, un-Christ-like thinking and behavior that has
people running for the exits in churches all over America. And for good reason.
Poster: Chris B.
(Trouble posting this comment. Sorry if there have been duplications).
---
Joel:
"Church membership and tithes are completely voluntary. There is no one to
force either from me. Taxes and compulsory citizenship, on the other hand, are
not voluntary. To say that the state gives us freedom in exchange for taxes is to
turn the concept of freedom on its head. One possible consequence of not paying
taxes is imprisonment. Can we really say that we are allowed to exercise our own
free will and volition? Isn't this, instead, the very definition of duress?"
No, it isn't, Joel.
If you don't like the idea of paying taxes, don't live in the United States of
America!
NO ONE is forcing you to pay taxes. No one is holding a gun to your head as you
walk to the mailbox to insert your tax check. There are plenty of places you can
go to live in the world where you can escape the indignity of being "forced" to pay
taxes. Go live in Somalia. There are no taxes there. No "government interference"
or "regulation" or "restriction of personal liberty" there, that's for sure. Oh ... you
don't want to live in Somalia? Why not? Oh ... that's right ... because it's a Hell
hole! (click [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=7QDv4sYwjO0&eu rl=http‰3A&pe rmil;2F‰2Fwww ‰2Ehuffington post‰2Ecom&pe rmil;2F20
09‰2F05&permi l;2F06‰2Fsoma lia‰2Dliberta rian‰2Dparad& permil;5Fn‰5F 197763‰2Ehtml &
feature=player_embed ded]here[/url] for more info on regulation-free, small/no
government Somalia).
No one is forcing you to pay taxes, any more than the church is forcing you to pay
tithing. The two are precisely analogous.
If you don't want to pay tithing, that's your choice, but then you forgo the
blessings. If you don't want to pay taxes, no one's forcing you to do so ... but
you'll also have to forgo the blessings, i.e. you'll have to leave the U.S. (and all
other developed, civilized nations) and find somewhere else to live, and see if you
really like living in a "libertarian" society.
You don't want to do that, however, because you want to have your cake and eat
it, too. You want to push off on someone else the Christian duty to care for the
poor and yet still be counted as a Christian.
To you, and to conservatives generally, taking good care of yourself is prioritized
way above caring for the poor, selfishness and self-interest are lionized (e.g. the
anti-Christian teachings of Ayn Rand), and the "freedom" to aspire to the stature of
Robber Baron monopolists in a "free market" and become filthy rich through
exploitation and ignoring the needs of others (abusive redistribution of wealth from
the bottom 99‰ to the upper 1&permil![[Wink]](../../mpcs/images/emote/Blink.gif)
, in flagrant and direct contradiction to the crystal
clear commandments of Christ (see Jenny's masterful comment, etc.), is far more
important than "suffering" a (gasp!) tax increase.
Ayn Rand was wrong. Self-interest is not king. Who is King? I think you'd better
ask yourselves that. Hint: not the one who urges us to pursue as individuals our
own selfish self-interests and aggrandizement to the exclusion of the poor and
meek among us, who helps us rationalize the concentration of wealth and power
by any means possible (legal or illegal) into the hands of fewer and fewer human
hands ... and, thereby, more and more into his hands.
Proclamation on the Economy, 1875
[url=http://www.gomakecontact.com/mesj/library/pro c-on-econ.html]Proclamation
on the Economy, 1875[/url]
It is precisely this king of hypocritical, un-Christ-like thinking and behavior that has
people running for the exits in churches all over America. And for good reason.
---
Joel:
"Church membership and tithes are completely voluntary. There is no one to
force either from me. Taxes and compulsory citizenship, on the other hand, are
not voluntary. To say that the state gives us freedom in exchange for taxes is to
turn the concept of freedom on its head. One possible consequence of not paying
taxes is imprisonment. Can we really say that we are allowed to exercise our own
free will and volition? Isn't this, instead, the very definition of duress?"
No, it isn't, Joel.
If you don't like the idea of paying taxes, don't live in the United States of
America!
NO ONE is forcing you to pay taxes. No one is holding a gun to your head as you
walk to the mailbox to insert your tax check. There are plenty of places you can
go to live in the world where you can escape the indignity of being "forced" to pay
taxes. Go live in Somalia. There are no taxes there. No "government interference"
or "regulation" or "restriction of personal liberty" there, that's for sure. Oh ... you
don't want to live in Somalia? Why not? Oh ... that's right ... because it's a Hell
hole! (click [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=7QDv4sYwjO0&eu rl=http‰3A&pe rmil;2F‰2Fwww ‰2Ehuffington post‰2Ecom&pe rmil;2F20
09‰2F05&permi l;2F06‰2Fsoma lia‰2Dliberta rian‰2Dparad& permil;5Fn‰5F 197763‰2Ehtml &
feature=player_embed ded]here[/url] for more info on regulation-free, small/no
government Somalia).
No one is forcing you to pay taxes, any more than the church is forcing you to pay
tithing. The two are precisely analogous.
If you don't want to pay tithing, that's your choice, but then you forgo the
blessings. If you don't want to pay taxes, no one's forcing you to do so ... but
you'll also have to forgo the blessings, i.e. you'll have to leave the U.S. (and all
other developed, civilized nations) and find somewhere else to live, and see if you
really like living in a "libertarian" society.
You don't want to do that, however, because you want to have your cake and eat
it, too. You want to push off on someone else the Christian duty to care for the
poor and yet still be counted as a Christian.
To you, and to conservatives generally, taking good care of yourself is prioritized
way above caring for the poor, selfishness and self-interest are lionized (e.g. the
anti-Christian teachings of Ayn Rand), and the "freedom" to aspire to the stature of
Robber Baron monopolists in a "free market" and become filthy rich through
exploitation and ignoring the needs of others (abusive redistribution of wealth from
the bottom 99‰ to the upper 1&permil
, in flagrant and direct contradiction to the crystal clear commandments of Christ (see Jenny's masterful comment, etc.), is far more
important than "suffering" a (gasp!) tax increase.
Ayn Rand was wrong. Self-interest is not king. Who is King? I think you'd better
ask yourselves that. Hint: not the one who urges us to pursue as individuals our
own selfish self-interests and aggrandizement to the exclusion of the poor and
meek among us, who helps us rationalize the concentration of wealth and power
by any means possible (legal or illegal) into the hands of fewer and fewer human
hands ... and, thereby, more and more into his hands.
Proclamation on the Economy, 1875
[url=http://www.gomakecontact.com/mesj/library/pro c-on-econ.html]Proclamation
on the Economy, 1875[/url]
It is precisely this king of hypocritical, un-Christ-like thinking and behavior that has
people running for the exits in churches all over America. And for good reason.
Poster: Peter
Chris B.,
You seem very, very angry in your post. Why are you so angry?
I am still in awe that this website even exists. Brethren and Sisters, this debate is so old, so out of style, and so over...The First Presidency, ad nauseum, have spoken on this very subject of governmental redistributionist policies:
"It is well to ask, what system established secret works of darkness to overthrow nations by violent revolution? Who blasphemously proclaimed the atheistic doctrine that God made us not? Satan works through human agents. We need only look to some of the ignoble characters in human history who were contemporary to the restoration of the gospel to discover fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. I refer to the infamous founders of Communism and others who follow in their tradition.
"Communism introduced into the world a substitute for true religion. It is a counterfeit of the gospel plan. The false prophets of Communism predict a utopian society. This, they proclaim, will only be brought about as capitalism and free enterprise are overthrown, private property abolished, the family as a social unit eliminated, all classes abolished, all governments overthrown, and a communal ownership of property in a classless, stateless society established...
"Today, we are in a battle for the bodies and souls of man. It is a battle between two opposing systems: freedom and slavery, Christ and anti-Christ. The struggle is more momentous than a decade ago, yet today the conventional wisdom says, "You must learn to live with Communism and to give up your ideas about national sovereignty." Tell that to the millions--yes, the scores of millions--who have met death or imprisonment under the tyranny of Communism! Such would be the death knell of freedom and all we hold dear. God must ever have a free people to prosper His work and bring about Zion. (President Ezra Taft Benson, A Witness and A Warning, General Conference October 1979)
"We call upon all Church members completely to eschew [shun] Communism. The safety of our divinely inspired Constitutional government and the welfare of our Church imperatively demand that Communism shall have no place in America" (signed: Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., David O. McKay, The First Presidency, in Deseret News, 3 July 1936)
"Communism is Satan's counterfeit for the gospel plan, and it is an avowed enemy of the God of the land. Communism is the greatest anti-Christ power in the world today and therefore the greatest menace not only to our peace but to our preservation as a free people. By the extent to which we tolerate it, accommodate ourselves to it, permit ourselves to be encircled by its tentacles and drawn to it, to that extent we forfeit the protection of the God of this land\\\" (President Marion G. Romney, in the First Presidency Message in the September 1979 ENSIGN).
A great read for every frequenter of this site is Ezra Taft Benson's October 1958 General Conference address "Economic Freedom."
The real issue here is that in America, under our Constitution, we can give our excess income to whoever we like. You all can give your extra income to some really horrible governmental welfare system (based on metrics of how often it actually helps people become productive, self-sufficient individuals) and I can give more to institutions that get the real job done (i.e. The Church). I am, however, saddened that you want to take away my agency...my God-given agency to choose where and how my extra income is spent. When it gets right down to it, people who believe in Socialism and Communism are either (a) covetous, (b) self-righteous retards who think they are smarter than everyone else and therefore should be able to make decisions for others since they are obviously incompetent to make those decisions for themselves, or © wealthy, amoral individuals who are in the business of creating (1) artificial barriers to entry for their competitors, or (2) governmental expenditures that will ultimately benefit their business (does George Soros and AARP come to mind...if not you should do more reading).
Please, peeps, don't be so naive as to think that corrupt governments can fix a moral problem...just do your part by helping others, paying your tithes and offerings, helping your neighbors and favorite charities, and be an example to others. Much more simple, honest, and keeps money out of politician hands.
You seem very, very angry in your post. Why are you so angry?
I am still in awe that this website even exists. Brethren and Sisters, this debate is so old, so out of style, and so over...The First Presidency, ad nauseum, have spoken on this very subject of governmental redistributionist policies:
"It is well to ask, what system established secret works of darkness to overthrow nations by violent revolution? Who blasphemously proclaimed the atheistic doctrine that God made us not? Satan works through human agents. We need only look to some of the ignoble characters in human history who were contemporary to the restoration of the gospel to discover fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. I refer to the infamous founders of Communism and others who follow in their tradition.
"Communism introduced into the world a substitute for true religion. It is a counterfeit of the gospel plan. The false prophets of Communism predict a utopian society. This, they proclaim, will only be brought about as capitalism and free enterprise are overthrown, private property abolished, the family as a social unit eliminated, all classes abolished, all governments overthrown, and a communal ownership of property in a classless, stateless society established...
"Today, we are in a battle for the bodies and souls of man. It is a battle between two opposing systems: freedom and slavery, Christ and anti-Christ. The struggle is more momentous than a decade ago, yet today the conventional wisdom says, "You must learn to live with Communism and to give up your ideas about national sovereignty." Tell that to the millions--yes, the scores of millions--who have met death or imprisonment under the tyranny of Communism! Such would be the death knell of freedom and all we hold dear. God must ever have a free people to prosper His work and bring about Zion. (President Ezra Taft Benson, A Witness and A Warning, General Conference October 1979)
"We call upon all Church members completely to eschew [shun] Communism. The safety of our divinely inspired Constitutional government and the welfare of our Church imperatively demand that Communism shall have no place in America" (signed: Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., David O. McKay, The First Presidency, in Deseret News, 3 July 1936)
"Communism is Satan's counterfeit for the gospel plan, and it is an avowed enemy of the God of the land. Communism is the greatest anti-Christ power in the world today and therefore the greatest menace not only to our peace but to our preservation as a free people. By the extent to which we tolerate it, accommodate ourselves to it, permit ourselves to be encircled by its tentacles and drawn to it, to that extent we forfeit the protection of the God of this land\\\" (President Marion G. Romney, in the First Presidency Message in the September 1979 ENSIGN).
A great read for every frequenter of this site is Ezra Taft Benson's October 1958 General Conference address "Economic Freedom."
The real issue here is that in America, under our Constitution, we can give our excess income to whoever we like. You all can give your extra income to some really horrible governmental welfare system (based on metrics of how often it actually helps people become productive, self-sufficient individuals) and I can give more to institutions that get the real job done (i.e. The Church). I am, however, saddened that you want to take away my agency...my God-given agency to choose where and how my extra income is spent. When it gets right down to it, people who believe in Socialism and Communism are either (a) covetous, (b) self-righteous retards who think they are smarter than everyone else and therefore should be able to make decisions for others since they are obviously incompetent to make those decisions for themselves, or © wealthy, amoral individuals who are in the business of creating (1) artificial barriers to entry for their competitors, or (2) governmental expenditures that will ultimately benefit their business (does George Soros and AARP come to mind...if not you should do more reading).
Please, peeps, don't be so naive as to think that corrupt governments can fix a moral problem...just do your part by helping others, paying your tithes and offerings, helping your neighbors and favorite charities, and be an example to others. Much more simple, honest, and keeps money out of politician hands.
Poster: Joel
Chris B.
With all due respect, you are dead wrong. I AM forced to pay taxes. There IS a gun to my head. The alternative, as you mentioned, is that I leave my homeland. Leave the place where I was born. Leave behind my friends, my family, my culture, the weather I love (I'm in Southern California), etc. Thus, my options are to face imprisonment, or at least heavy financial penalties, or to be forced to leave the place that I love. How is that not force? What such a coercive tax regime does is give de facto ownership of everything to the taxing authority. The only options are to comply, face penalty or to move to another place owned by another taxing authority. Is this freedom? No. Freedom would the ability to live in the land that I love, around the people that I love, without the constant threat of a taxing landlord that has the power to expropriate the fruits of my labor. The scenario that you describe makes freedom a meaningless term. All antebellum slaves could have been considered free as long as they had been allowed to choose their plantation. Also, according to you, all people everywhere have always been free as long as moving was an option. For instance, all East Germans were free because everyone of them had the choice of whether or not they would escape over to West Germany. If they didn't love it, they could always leave it! Leaving would require sacrifice but it would for me too, right? Their sacrifice may have been greater but moving was still an option so we can say they had freedom of choice, right?
You see, tithing is totally voluntary and so is membership in the Church. I do not have to face jail, financial penalties, or expulsion if I choose not to pay tithing and the Church does not claim de facto ownership of all the property and labor of its members.
So, I pay my taxes. I don't want to leave this place and I don't want to go to jail. So, I pay. And, the money that I pay goes to fund wars that I hate, violence that I do not condone, bailouts for corporate fat cats, various subsidies for big business, legal protections and a property rights regime that favors the super rich over the poor, and government spending beyond its means, strapping us and future generations with increasing debt. Is this what you call having my cake and eating it too? Is this the price that I must pay to live in the land that I love? Do the more appealing government services outweigh the state's negative effects? And, most importantly, is the State really the source of all the blessings that I enjoy here?
It is you, not me, who seeks to push your Christian duty onto others. It is you that would violate free agency and force others to do their duty. And it is you that would ask the state to do what you should be doing yourself. You have clearly not read through the previous comments above or you would realize that you have completely mischaracterized me and my previous responses. I have not once made any comment that could be construed as arguing that "becoming rich is more important than caring for the poor, selfish self-interest is lionized ... and the "freedom" to become filthy rich at the expense and exclusion of others." I have argued quite the contrary.
I believe that violence and force, even when they are employed for supposedly benevolent ends, are still violence and force. Furthermore, I do not believe that the ends justify the means. Those who would rely on violence, in order to promote Christian duty, display moral bankruptcy, a lack of creativity and ingenuity, and truly contradict Christ's commandments. He did not say to keep your brother by robbing your neighbor. I point you to the same quote that I offered Jenny above,
"The power of love, as the basis of a state, has never been tried. We must not imagine that all things are lapsing into confusion, if every tender protestant be not compelled to bear his part in certain social conventions: nor doubt that roads can be built, letters carried, and the fruit of labour secured, when the government of force is at an end. Are our methods now so excellent that all competition is hopeless?" ~ Emerson, Politics
I would also point you to the American anarchist Albert Jay Nock, who captured the spirit and point of the War in Heaven and the battle for free agency when he said,
"The practical reason for freedom is that freedom seems to be the only condition under which any kind of substantial moral fiber can be developed – we have tried law, compulsion and authoritarianism of various kinds, and the result is nothing to be proud of."
With all due respect, you are dead wrong. I AM forced to pay taxes. There IS a gun to my head. The alternative, as you mentioned, is that I leave my homeland. Leave the place where I was born. Leave behind my friends, my family, my culture, the weather I love (I'm in Southern California), etc. Thus, my options are to face imprisonment, or at least heavy financial penalties, or to be forced to leave the place that I love. How is that not force? What such a coercive tax regime does is give de facto ownership of everything to the taxing authority. The only options are to comply, face penalty or to move to another place owned by another taxing authority. Is this freedom? No. Freedom would the ability to live in the land that I love, around the people that I love, without the constant threat of a taxing landlord that has the power to expropriate the fruits of my labor. The scenario that you describe makes freedom a meaningless term. All antebellum slaves could have been considered free as long as they had been allowed to choose their plantation. Also, according to you, all people everywhere have always been free as long as moving was an option. For instance, all East Germans were free because everyone of them had the choice of whether or not they would escape over to West Germany. If they didn't love it, they could always leave it! Leaving would require sacrifice but it would for me too, right? Their sacrifice may have been greater but moving was still an option so we can say they had freedom of choice, right?
You see, tithing is totally voluntary and so is membership in the Church. I do not have to face jail, financial penalties, or expulsion if I choose not to pay tithing and the Church does not claim de facto ownership of all the property and labor of its members.
So, I pay my taxes. I don't want to leave this place and I don't want to go to jail. So, I pay. And, the money that I pay goes to fund wars that I hate, violence that I do not condone, bailouts for corporate fat cats, various subsidies for big business, legal protections and a property rights regime that favors the super rich over the poor, and government spending beyond its means, strapping us and future generations with increasing debt. Is this what you call having my cake and eating it too? Is this the price that I must pay to live in the land that I love? Do the more appealing government services outweigh the state's negative effects? And, most importantly, is the State really the source of all the blessings that I enjoy here?
It is you, not me, who seeks to push your Christian duty onto others. It is you that would violate free agency and force others to do their duty. And it is you that would ask the state to do what you should be doing yourself. You have clearly not read through the previous comments above or you would realize that you have completely mischaracterized me and my previous responses. I have not once made any comment that could be construed as arguing that "becoming rich is more important than caring for the poor, selfish self-interest is lionized ... and the "freedom" to become filthy rich at the expense and exclusion of others." I have argued quite the contrary.
I believe that violence and force, even when they are employed for supposedly benevolent ends, are still violence and force. Furthermore, I do not believe that the ends justify the means. Those who would rely on violence, in order to promote Christian duty, display moral bankruptcy, a lack of creativity and ingenuity, and truly contradict Christ's commandments. He did not say to keep your brother by robbing your neighbor. I point you to the same quote that I offered Jenny above,
"The power of love, as the basis of a state, has never been tried. We must not imagine that all things are lapsing into confusion, if every tender protestant be not compelled to bear his part in certain social conventions: nor doubt that roads can be built, letters carried, and the fruit of labour secured, when the government of force is at an end. Are our methods now so excellent that all competition is hopeless?" ~ Emerson, Politics
I would also point you to the American anarchist Albert Jay Nock, who captured the spirit and point of the War in Heaven and the battle for free agency when he said,
"The practical reason for freedom is that freedom seems to be the only condition under which any kind of substantial moral fiber can be developed – we have tried law, compulsion and authoritarianism of various kinds, and the result is nothing to be proud of."
Poster: Joel
Peter,
Why are you surprised that this website exists? I was personally surprised by this one article and some of the comments. But, don't confuse anarchism or libertarian socialism with Soviet style communism or with the state socialism-lite of the American left.
Why are you surprised that this website exists? I was personally surprised by this one article and some of the comments. But, don't confuse anarchism or libertarian socialism with Soviet style communism or with the state socialism-lite of the American left.
Poster: Forest Simmons
When we chafe at being compelled to donate some of "our" money to help the poor, why have we conveniently forgotten that it all belongs to the Lord?
If he were to make us stewards over part of it, that part would only be what we need for our basic necessities, unless we had attained such prosperity that everybody else already had the basics covered.
If somebody compels us to donate the Lord's money to the people that he would want to help, we still have a choice We can exercise our free agency by being a cheerful giver, or we can give grudgingly. Same as when mom or dad made you share with your brother when you were a little kid.
If he were to make us stewards over part of it, that part would only be what we need for our basic necessities, unless we had attained such prosperity that everybody else already had the basics covered.
If somebody compels us to donate the Lord's money to the people that he would want to help, we still have a choice We can exercise our free agency by being a cheerful giver, or we can give grudgingly. Same as when mom or dad made you share with your brother when you were a little kid.
Poster: Forest Simmons
We believe that governments are [supposed to be] instituted for the benefit of mankind.
Now what benefit do we get from governments that are only used to reinforce the natural.advantage of the rich and powerful over the poor and powerless?
Now what benefit do we get from governments that are only used to reinforce the natural.advantage of the rich and powerful over the poor and powerless?
Poster: Forest Simmons
If I had to choose, I would rather be in jail with a temple recommend, than be denied a temple recommend outside of jail.
The consequences of using our agency against God's laws are worse and longer lasting than the consequences of using our agency against man's laws.
If I refuse to pay my taxes because I don't believe in supporting the war profiteers, I might go to jail (though most war tax resistors have gotten away with it), but I doubt that would keep me out of the Celestial Kingdom.
In Matt 25, the Lord doesn't say, "I needed money for bombs, and you refused to give it to me."
I believe in the legitimacy of government action to keep the wolf from the door at home. As somebody mentioned above, we have had more casualties from poverty than from any shooting wars. Furthermore, our shooting wars have caused more poverty at home and abroad than most people realize. Talk about redistribution: from food to bombs.
In traditional societies, those who exhibit anti-social behavior (like not pitching in to help) are not exiled to far away countries like Somalia (the example given above) but are shunned locally.
The D&C terminology is that "they become a law unto themselves" and they are allowed to be subjected to the "buffetings of Satan," in that they forfeit their safe place in the bosom of society.
Outer darkness is not a special torture camp, it just means that if you cannot abide the law of any kingdom of glory (where a decent person would want to live) then you must become a law unto yourself and deal with the forces of chaos on your own without the benefit of the eternal government of god, the holy priesthood.
This would be the ultimate in self-sufficiency, except for the indispensable "hand out" of an indestructible resurrected body.
Self-sufficiency is a wicked principle, condemned by the scriptures. But our leaders teach it because it is a survival skill in Babylon our home. Self reliance is something else that means taking personal responsibility, but too often these two terms are used interchangeably. For example, in the Spanish Liahona translation of Romney's talk, every occurrence of "self reliance" is translated as "self sufficiency." When I was in a position to talk to other bishops about welfare cases that crossed ward boundaries, I used to wince when they used these terms interchangeably..
Capitalism is a double bind because on the one hand it makes self-sufficiency necessary for survival, while on the other hand its monopoly game style ratcheting dynamic inexorably concentrates control of property, wealth, and government into the hands of an elite few, so that for most people it is not even possible to have enough land for subsistence farming.
During the last great depression, most Utah Mormons were land holders, so they scoffed at the need for government assistance. My mother, who grew up in Naples Ward of Vernal was a lifelong Republican. But my father, who was raised in the coal mining camps of Carbon County during the depression, voted for FDR.
Supporting capitalism (whose god is Mammon) is just as bad as supporting the godless Soviet style communism that Benson, Romney, and J Ruben Clark used to condemn in conference talks. Easy to criticize the bad guys half way around the world, but it took a Spencer W. Kimball to criticize the evils of capitalism at home. These critiques were never quite as popular as the ones against the system used by our official enemies.
In any case, President Benson never did condemn the Christian Communism of the book of Acts, the Book of Fourth Nephi, or the City of Enoch.
Capitalism is incompatible with democracy. In democracy the influence of a group of people is in proportion to the number of people in it. In capitalism, the influence of a group is in proportion to it wealth. Dollars talk, and capitalism protects their speech because of laws bought and paid for by (you guessed it) capitalists.
The Lord's comment on a system that allows one man to possess "that which is above another" is "wherefore the world lieth in sin."
Possess does not mean own. In the same section (104) the Lord makes it clear that He owns everything, and that whoever takes from the abundance that He has provided and resists efforts to distribute it, will "with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment," presumably tormented with a clear realization of how much suffering his vanity caused his fellow beings. Then he will understand what "They rob the poor by their fine clothing," means..
Possession does not mean stewardship, either, unless appointed to that stewardship by a someone with the appropriate priesthood keys. So let's not get too defensive about "our" possessions.
Capitalism is incompatible with even the Law of Moses in which there was a periodic (seven year) release from all debts. Like the ten commandments, this part of the Law of Moses was never rescinded. If we were to put it into practice immediately, it would solve our economics problems by getting everybody out of debt now and starting us down the road of recovery from capitalism. Of course, this cannot happen, because the rich capitalists who control the government have more to lose by debt cancellation than to gain.
Capitalism makes Babylon "the whore of all the earth" in that it commodifies everything. Nothing is too sacred to be commodified, from health care to sex.
The "churches that are built up to get power and gain" are the giant corporations of capitalism.
Any protection of life under capitalism must be jury rigged and grafted on to it from the outside. Species continue to be exterminated, our air, water, and food supply poisoned, forests turned into desert wasteland, all because of the difficulty of regulating the concentrated wealth of capitalism that controls our government.
Capitalists have no interest in the fate of surplus workers displaced by industrialization, where machines make it possible for one man to produce as much as a thousand preindustrial age workers. It wouldn't be so bad if these workers had enough land for subsistence farming outside of the capitalist economy, but no, that cannot be. To see how hard it is for families lucky enough to own farms to hold on to them under capitalism, google "India Farmer Suicides." NAFTA has driven millions of Mexicans from their small farms into the slums of the D.F.
Wake up brothers and sisters. The great beast that threatens the world is not the United Nations, it is the country of Gentiles that has been highly favored above all other nations, but has become lifted up in its pride above all other nations, and is ravaging the whole earth. If we don't repent speedily (and there are no signs of it so far) America is assured a destruction as sudden and complete as the that of Ammonihah. [See e.g. 3 Nephi 16:10 to end of chapter.]
The consequences of using our agency against God's laws are worse and longer lasting than the consequences of using our agency against man's laws.
If I refuse to pay my taxes because I don't believe in supporting the war profiteers, I might go to jail (though most war tax resistors have gotten away with it), but I doubt that would keep me out of the Celestial Kingdom.
In Matt 25, the Lord doesn't say, "I needed money for bombs, and you refused to give it to me."
I believe in the legitimacy of government action to keep the wolf from the door at home. As somebody mentioned above, we have had more casualties from poverty than from any shooting wars. Furthermore, our shooting wars have caused more poverty at home and abroad than most people realize. Talk about redistribution: from food to bombs.
In traditional societies, those who exhibit anti-social behavior (like not pitching in to help) are not exiled to far away countries like Somalia (the example given above) but are shunned locally.
The D&C terminology is that "they become a law unto themselves" and they are allowed to be subjected to the "buffetings of Satan," in that they forfeit their safe place in the bosom of society.
Outer darkness is not a special torture camp, it just means that if you cannot abide the law of any kingdom of glory (where a decent person would want to live) then you must become a law unto yourself and deal with the forces of chaos on your own without the benefit of the eternal government of god, the holy priesthood.
This would be the ultimate in self-sufficiency, except for the indispensable "hand out" of an indestructible resurrected body.
Self-sufficiency is a wicked principle, condemned by the scriptures. But our leaders teach it because it is a survival skill in Babylon our home. Self reliance is something else that means taking personal responsibility, but too often these two terms are used interchangeably. For example, in the Spanish Liahona translation of Romney's talk, every occurrence of "self reliance" is translated as "self sufficiency." When I was in a position to talk to other bishops about welfare cases that crossed ward boundaries, I used to wince when they used these terms interchangeably..
Capitalism is a double bind because on the one hand it makes self-sufficiency necessary for survival, while on the other hand its monopoly game style ratcheting dynamic inexorably concentrates control of property, wealth, and government into the hands of an elite few, so that for most people it is not even possible to have enough land for subsistence farming.
During the last great depression, most Utah Mormons were land holders, so they scoffed at the need for government assistance. My mother, who grew up in Naples Ward of Vernal was a lifelong Republican. But my father, who was raised in the coal mining camps of Carbon County during the depression, voted for FDR.
Supporting capitalism (whose god is Mammon) is just as bad as supporting the godless Soviet style communism that Benson, Romney, and J Ruben Clark used to condemn in conference talks. Easy to criticize the bad guys half way around the world, but it took a Spencer W. Kimball to criticize the evils of capitalism at home. These critiques were never quite as popular as the ones against the system used by our official enemies.
In any case, President Benson never did condemn the Christian Communism of the book of Acts, the Book of Fourth Nephi, or the City of Enoch.
Capitalism is incompatible with democracy. In democracy the influence of a group of people is in proportion to the number of people in it. In capitalism, the influence of a group is in proportion to it wealth. Dollars talk, and capitalism protects their speech because of laws bought and paid for by (you guessed it) capitalists.
The Lord's comment on a system that allows one man to possess "that which is above another" is "wherefore the world lieth in sin."
Possess does not mean own. In the same section (104) the Lord makes it clear that He owns everything, and that whoever takes from the abundance that He has provided and resists efforts to distribute it, will "with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment," presumably tormented with a clear realization of how much suffering his vanity caused his fellow beings. Then he will understand what "They rob the poor by their fine clothing," means..
Possession does not mean stewardship, either, unless appointed to that stewardship by a someone with the appropriate priesthood keys. So let's not get too defensive about "our" possessions.
Capitalism is incompatible with even the Law of Moses in which there was a periodic (seven year) release from all debts. Like the ten commandments, this part of the Law of Moses was never rescinded. If we were to put it into practice immediately, it would solve our economics problems by getting everybody out of debt now and starting us down the road of recovery from capitalism. Of course, this cannot happen, because the rich capitalists who control the government have more to lose by debt cancellation than to gain.
Capitalism makes Babylon "the whore of all the earth" in that it commodifies everything. Nothing is too sacred to be commodified, from health care to sex.
The "churches that are built up to get power and gain" are the giant corporations of capitalism.
Any protection of life under capitalism must be jury rigged and grafted on to it from the outside. Species continue to be exterminated, our air, water, and food supply poisoned, forests turned into desert wasteland, all because of the difficulty of regulating the concentrated wealth of capitalism that controls our government.
Capitalists have no interest in the fate of surplus workers displaced by industrialization, where machines make it possible for one man to produce as much as a thousand preindustrial age workers. It wouldn't be so bad if these workers had enough land for subsistence farming outside of the capitalist economy, but no, that cannot be. To see how hard it is for families lucky enough to own farms to hold on to them under capitalism, google "India Farmer Suicides." NAFTA has driven millions of Mexicans from their small farms into the slums of the D.F.
Wake up brothers and sisters. The great beast that threatens the world is not the United Nations, it is the country of Gentiles that has been highly favored above all other nations, but has become lifted up in its pride above all other nations, and is ravaging the whole earth. If we don't repent speedily (and there are no signs of it so far) America is assured a destruction as sudden and complete as the that of Ammonihah. [See e.g. 3 Nephi 16:10 to end of chapter.]
Poster: Forest Simmons
Were there no immediate serious consequences for early Christians who used their agency to withhold their wealth from their communal society?
How about Ananias and Sapphira? They were struck dead (by God or their own guilty conscience?) for only giving half of their possessions (and lying about it to Peter). Presumably this episode was included in the scriptural account as an example of the seriousness of this type of willful disobedience.
How about Ananias and Sapphira? They were struck dead (by God or their own guilty conscience?) for only giving half of their possessions (and lying about it to Peter). Presumably this episode was included in the scriptural account as an example of the seriousness of this type of willful disobedience.
Poster: Natalie K.
I haven't read all the comments, just the few at the top. But, I think this scripture needs to be shared:
"15 And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.
16 But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low." D&C 104:15-16
The Lord's way of providing for the poor is to take it from the rich and redistribute it fairly. The rich are made low. Definitely doesn't limit the redistribution to a voluntary action on behalf of the rich. I believe people who oppose a redistributive tax structure are opposing a very important way that the Lord's plan could be fulfilled on this earth.
"15 And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.
16 But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low." D&C 104:15-16
The Lord's way of providing for the poor is to take it from the rich and redistribute it fairly. The rich are made low. Definitely doesn't limit the redistribution to a voluntary action on behalf of the rich. I believe people who oppose a redistributive tax structure are opposing a very important way that the Lord's plan could be fulfilled on this earth.
Poster: Natalie
I haven't read all the comments, just the few at the top. But, I think this scripture needs to be shared:
"15 And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.
16 But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.\" D&C 104:15-16
The Lord's way of providing for the poor is to take it from the rich and redistribute it fairly. The rich are made low. Definitely doesn't limit the redistribution to a voluntary action on behalf of the rich. I believe people who oppose a redistributive tax structure are opposing a very important way that the Lord's plan could be fulfilled on this earth.
Btw, Jenny.... Yes! Exactly! Thank you!
"15 And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.
16 But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.\" D&C 104:15-16
The Lord's way of providing for the poor is to take it from the rich and redistribute it fairly. The rich are made low. Definitely doesn't limit the redistribution to a voluntary action on behalf of the rich. I believe people who oppose a redistributive tax structure are opposing a very important way that the Lord's plan could be fulfilled on this earth.
Btw, Jenny.... Yes! Exactly! Thank you!
Poster: Natalie K.
Another thing I think it is very important to consider is Maimonides rankings of different types of charity. It's important to remember that more is going on in charitable giving than just helping someone out.... social relations are being created.
I don't have it in front of me, but from memory, the least noble type of charity is when neither the donor or the recipient are anonymous. In other words, I'm poor, I need help, you give me $50. No matter the good intentions, this places you in a superior social situation, and places me in an inferior status of dependence. A more noble form is when one of these is anonymous, the giver or the receiver. Even better is when both are anonymous, like with agencies such as the United Way. In this instance, the two participants could meet each other on the street and never know that one helped the other, thus placing them on equal footing socially.
However, the MOST noble form is giving someone work. Thus, they deserve any "help" that they are given, and both parties can share mutual respect and appreciation.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on lauding the merits of charity. As someone who's not infrequently been on the receiving end, I'm not so sure....
I could also have a fair piece to say to those of you who write as if all recipients of any kind of aid automatically become dependent and useless....but I'll pass....
Sorry if I'm inarticulate and filled with typos. Typing sentences here and there between customers at work.![[Smile]](../../mpcs/images/emote/smile.gif)
I don't have it in front of me, but from memory, the least noble type of charity is when neither the donor or the recipient are anonymous. In other words, I'm poor, I need help, you give me $50. No matter the good intentions, this places you in a superior social situation, and places me in an inferior status of dependence. A more noble form is when one of these is anonymous, the giver or the receiver. Even better is when both are anonymous, like with agencies such as the United Way. In this instance, the two participants could meet each other on the street and never know that one helped the other, thus placing them on equal footing socially.
However, the MOST noble form is giving someone work. Thus, they deserve any "help" that they are given, and both parties can share mutual respect and appreciation.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on lauding the merits of charity. As someone who's not infrequently been on the receiving end, I'm not so sure....
I could also have a fair piece to say to those of you who write as if all recipients of any kind of aid automatically become dependent and useless....but I'll pass....
Sorry if I'm inarticulate and filled with typos. Typing sentences here and there between customers at work.
Poster: Forest Simmons
Natalie,
Great comments!
As King Benjamin reminds us, we are all on the receiving end all of the time from God.
Furthermore, in D&C 104 the Lord reminds us that everything belongs to him, so when it is redistributed it is not our stuff that is being moved around, it is God's . Those who are against this redistribution need a change of attitude about letting the Lord use His resources as He likes.
Great comments!
As King Benjamin reminds us, we are all on the receiving end all of the time from God.
Furthermore, in D&C 104 the Lord reminds us that everything belongs to him, so when it is redistributed it is not our stuff that is being moved around, it is God's . Those who are against this redistribution need a change of attitude about letting the Lord use His resources as He likes.
Poster: Joel
Forest,
Are you suggesting that the state is the Lord? Or, that the Lord is directing the taxing authority? When my tax money is redistributed to the Military-Industrial Complex or to the pockets of corporate executives, is that just the Lord using His resources as He likes? Or, is it only the Lord at work when the money is spent on programs that you like?
I am all for charity, and I believe that everyone should do as much as they can to help their fellow men. But, I am opposed to the inherent violence of taxation. These are not mutually exclusive positions. Government welfare programs are not the Lord's welfare programs.
Several people here need a refresher course on free agency and the voluntary nature of United Order Communalism. There also seems to be some confusion about the difference between churches and states.
"Communism is based upon intolerance and force, the United Order upon love and freedom of conscience and action; Communism involves forceful despoliation and confiscation, the United Order voluntary consecration and sacrifice." ~First Presidency Message, July 1936
This quote explicitly addresses state communism, but the contrasts between "force" and "freedom", "love" and "intolerance", and between "forceful despoliation and confiscation" and "voluntary consecration and sacrifice" are relevant to the discussion here.
Are you suggesting that the state is the Lord? Or, that the Lord is directing the taxing authority? When my tax money is redistributed to the Military-Industrial Complex or to the pockets of corporate executives, is that just the Lord using His resources as He likes? Or, is it only the Lord at work when the money is spent on programs that you like?
I am all for charity, and I believe that everyone should do as much as they can to help their fellow men. But, I am opposed to the inherent violence of taxation. These are not mutually exclusive positions. Government welfare programs are not the Lord's welfare programs.
Several people here need a refresher course on free agency and the voluntary nature of United Order Communalism. There also seems to be some confusion about the difference between churches and states.
"Communism is based upon intolerance and force, the United Order upon love and freedom of conscience and action; Communism involves forceful despoliation and confiscation, the United Order voluntary consecration and sacrifice." ~First Presidency Message, July 1936
This quote explicitly addresses state communism, but the contrasts between "force" and "freedom", "love" and "intolerance", and between "forceful despoliation and confiscation" and "voluntary consecration and sacrifice" are relevant to the discussion here.
Poster: Joel
"In things that pertain to celestial glory there can be no forced operations. We must do according as the spirit of the Lord operates upon our understandings and feelings. We cannot be crowded into matters, however great might be the blessing attending such procedure. We cannot be forced into living a celestial law; we must do this ourselves, of our own free will. And whatever we do in regard to the principle of the United Order, we must do it because we desire to do it..." ~Lorenzo Snow, Journal of Discourses. Vol. 19, p.346, 349-350
Poster: Rich
"Many Mormons within the conservative movement are still spouting anachronistic, Cold War era warnings about “socialism” and “commies” running our country without truly examining our spiritual heritage which laid the foundation for some of the most socialized programs to operate on U.S. soil."
Haha, the last few comments about communism was predicted by the author. Matthew is not advocating communism. He is bringing to our attention that our government needs to have some social programs to help the poor. He is not saying a complete redistribution of wealth is in order, Which, we can all agree on, is very evil.
Haha, the last few comments about communism was predicted by the author. Matthew is not advocating communism. He is bringing to our attention that our government needs to have some social programs to help the poor. He is not saying a complete redistribution of wealth is in order, Which, we can all agree on, is very evil.
Poster: Spencer W. Morgan
There's one fundamental problem here. Government welfare (like all government action) requires FORCE to accomplish, the opposite of agency. No matter how similar government schemes are in their packaging or structure to the Church's program, this fundamental fact makes the difference between morality and immorality just like in the pre-existence.
This is why even the Savior himself did not force the rich man to obey him when he counseled him to "Sell all that thou hath and give the poor, and come follow me". Those who advocate the "Christianity" of government welfare are in effect saying that the Savior didn't go far enough and that he wasn't "Christian" enough because he should have forced that man to comply. He knew full well the dire need of the poor who would potentially benefit from that man's charity, and still chose not to force him. Far too many would rather use the collective mechanism of government to force others to be charitable than use their own means voluntarily and then influence others to do so. This is where pride comes in. You don't get to that point until you have already lifted yourself up.
The First Presidency statements during the depression era regarding the Church Welfare program are very instructive:
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&lo cale=0&sourceId= ac6476e6ffe0c010VgnV CM1000004d82620a____ &vgnextoid=2354f ccf2b7db010VgnVCM100 0004d82620aRCRD
Unlike government welfare, which perpetuates reliance upon itself and has every incentive to do so, the Church welfare program was developed for exactly the opposite purpose... to "abolish the evils of the dole".
As for the idea of "hope" in the democratic socialism of Europe, here is a section from an address he gave is very important to understand. And lest you think this is the radical Benson "off the reservation", please note that he quotes significantly from President David O McKay and J. Reuben Clark in these passages:
Socialism--a Philosophy Incompatible with Man's Liberty
Another notable counterfeit system to the Lord's plan is collectivized socialism. Socialism derives its philosophy from the founders of communism, Marx and Engels. Communism in practice is socialism. Its purpose is world socialism, which the communists seek to achieve by revolution, and which the socialists seek to achieve by evolution. Both communism and socialism have the same effect upon the individual--a loss of personal liberty. As was said so well by President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., "The two are as two peas in a pod in their ultimate effect upon our liberties."
Why is socialism incompatible with man's liberty? Socialism cannot work except through an all-powerful state. The state has to be supreme in everything. When individuals begin to exert their God-given rights, the state has to suppress that freedom. So belief in God must be suppressed, and with that gone freedom of conscience and religion must also go. Those are the first of our liberties mentioned in the Bill of Rights.
There are some among us who would confuse the united order with socialism. That is a serious misunderstanding. It is significant to me that the Prophet Joseph Smith, after attending lectures on socialism in his day, made this official entry in the Church history: "I said I did not believe the doctrine" (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 6:33).
Socialism Disguised under Welfare State Measures
As citizens of this noble land, we have marched a long way down the soul-destroying road of socialism. If you question that statement, consider the recent testimonial from the Nobel prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman. He indicated that government spending in the United States at all levels amounts to over forty percent of today's total national income. If we continue to follow the trend in which we are heading today, two things will inevitably result: first, a loss of our personal freedom, and second, financial bankruptcy. This is the price we pay when we turn away from God and the principles which he has taught and turn to government to do everything for us. It is the formula by which nations become enslaved.
This nation was established by the God of heaven as a citadel of liberty. A constitution guaranteeing those liberties was designed under the superintending influence of heaven. I have recounted here before what took place in the St. George Temple when the Founding Fathers of this nation visited President Wilford Woodruff, who was then a member of the Twelve and not president of the Church. The republic which was established was the most nearly perfect system which could have been devised to lead men toward celestial principles. We may liken our system to the law of Moses which leads men to the higher law of Christ.
Today, two hundred years later, we must sadly observe that we have significantly departed from the principles established by the founders of our country. James Madison opposed the proposal to put Congress in the role of promoting the general welfare according to its whims in these words:
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasure; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor. . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for [and it was an issue then], it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America. [quoted in Donald L. Newquist, Prophets, Principles, and National Survival, p. 342]
That statement, given as a warning, has proved prophetic. Today Congress is doing what Madison warned about. Many are now advocating that which has become a general practice since the early 1930s: a redistribution of wealth through the federal tax system. That, by definition, is socialism!
Americans have always been committed to taking care of the poor, aged, and unemployed. We have done this on the basis of Judaic-Christian beliefs and humanitarian principles. It has been fundamental to our way of life that charity must be voluntary if it is to be charity. Compulsory benevolence is not charity. Today's socialists--who call themselves egalitarians--are using the federal government to redistribute wealth in our society, not as a matter of voluntary charity, but as a so-called matter of right. One HEW official said recently, "In this country, welfare is no longer charity, it is a right. More and more Americans feel that their government owes them something" (U.S. News and World Report, April 21, 1975, p. 49). President Grover Cleveland said--and we believe as a people--that though the people support the government the government should not support the people.
The chief weapon used by the federal government to achieve this "equality" is the system of transfer payments. This means that the federal governments collects from one income group and transfer payments to another by the tax system. These payments are made in the form of social security benefits, Medicare and Medicaid, and food stamps, to name a few. Today the cost of such programs has been going in the hole at the rate of 12 billion dollars a year; and, with increased benefits and greater numbers of recipients, even though the tax base has been increased we will have larger deficits in the future.
Today the party now in power is advocating and has support, apparently in both major parties, for a comprehensive national health insurance program--a euphemism for socialized medicine. Our major danger is that we are currently (and have been for forty years) transferring responsibility from the individual, local, and state governments to the federal government--precisel y the same course that led to the economic collapse in Great Britain and New York City. We cannot long pursue the present trend without its bringing us to national insolvency.
Edmund Burke, the great British political philosopher, warned of the threat of economic equality. He said,
A perfect equality will indeed be produced--that is to say, equal wretchedness, equal beggary, and on the part of the petitioners, a woeful, helpless, and desperate disappointment. Such is the event of all compulsory equalizations. They pull down what is above; they never raise what is below; and they depress high and low together beneath the level of what was originally the lowest.
Are we part of the problem or part of the solution?
Recently a letter came to my office, accompanied by an article from your Daily Universe, on the matter of BYU students taking food stamps. The query of the letter was: "What is the attitude of the Church on taking food stamps?" The Church's view on this is well known. We stand for independence, thrift, and abolition of the dole. This was emphasized in the Saturday morning welfare meeting of general conference. "The aim of the Church is to help the people to help themselves. Work is to be re-enthroned as the ruling principle of the lives of our Church membership" (Heber J. Grant, Conference Report, October 1936, p. 3).
When you accept food stamps, you accept an unearned handout that other working people are paying for. You do not earn food stamps or welfare payments. Every individual who accepts an unearned government gratuity is just as morally culpable as the individual who takes a handout from taxpayers' money to pay his heat, electricity, or rent. There is no difference in principle between them. You did not come to this University to become a welfare recipient. You came here to be a light to the world, a light to society--to save society and to help to save this nation, the Lord's base of operations in these latter days, to ameliorate man's social conditions. You are not here to be a parasite or freeloader. The price you pay for "something for nothing" may be more than you can afford. Do not rationalize your acceptance of government gratuities by saying, "I am a contributing taxpayer too." By doing this you contribute to the problem which is leading this nation to financial insolvency.
Society may rationalize immorality, but God cannot condone it. Society sponsors Sabbathbreaking, but the Church counsels otherwise. Society profanes the name of Deity, but Latter-day Saints cannot countenance it. Because society condones a dole, which demoralizes man and weakens his God-given initiative and character, can we?
I know what it is, as many of your faculty members do, to work my way through school, taking classes only during winter quarters. If you don't have the finances to complete your education, drop out a semester and go to work and save. You'll be a better man or woman for so doing. You will have preserved your self-respect and initiative. Wisdom comes with experience and struggle, not just with going through a university matriculation. I hope you will not be deceived by current philosophies which will rob you of your godly dignity, self-respect, and initiative, those attributes that make a celestial inheritance possible. It is in that interest, and that only, that I have spoken so plainly to you.
This is why even the Savior himself did not force the rich man to obey him when he counseled him to "Sell all that thou hath and give the poor, and come follow me". Those who advocate the "Christianity" of government welfare are in effect saying that the Savior didn't go far enough and that he wasn't "Christian" enough because he should have forced that man to comply. He knew full well the dire need of the poor who would potentially benefit from that man's charity, and still chose not to force him. Far too many would rather use the collective mechanism of government to force others to be charitable than use their own means voluntarily and then influence others to do so. This is where pride comes in. You don't get to that point until you have already lifted yourself up.
The First Presidency statements during the depression era regarding the Church Welfare program are very instructive:
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&lo cale=0&sourceId= ac6476e6ffe0c010VgnV CM1000004d82620a____ &vgnextoid=2354f ccf2b7db010VgnVCM100 0004d82620aRCRD
Unlike government welfare, which perpetuates reliance upon itself and has every incentive to do so, the Church welfare program was developed for exactly the opposite purpose... to "abolish the evils of the dole".
As for the idea of "hope" in the democratic socialism of Europe, here is a section from an address he gave is very important to understand. And lest you think this is the radical Benson "off the reservation", please note that he quotes significantly from President David O McKay and J. Reuben Clark in these passages:
Socialism--a Philosophy Incompatible with Man's Liberty
Another notable counterfeit system to the Lord's plan is collectivized socialism. Socialism derives its philosophy from the founders of communism, Marx and Engels. Communism in practice is socialism. Its purpose is world socialism, which the communists seek to achieve by revolution, and which the socialists seek to achieve by evolution. Both communism and socialism have the same effect upon the individual--a loss of personal liberty. As was said so well by President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., "The two are as two peas in a pod in their ultimate effect upon our liberties."
Why is socialism incompatible with man's liberty? Socialism cannot work except through an all-powerful state. The state has to be supreme in everything. When individuals begin to exert their God-given rights, the state has to suppress that freedom. So belief in God must be suppressed, and with that gone freedom of conscience and religion must also go. Those are the first of our liberties mentioned in the Bill of Rights.
There are some among us who would confuse the united order with socialism. That is a serious misunderstanding. It is significant to me that the Prophet Joseph Smith, after attending lectures on socialism in his day, made this official entry in the Church history: "I said I did not believe the doctrine" (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 6:33).
Socialism Disguised under Welfare State Measures
As citizens of this noble land, we have marched a long way down the soul-destroying road of socialism. If you question that statement, consider the recent testimonial from the Nobel prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman. He indicated that government spending in the United States at all levels amounts to over forty percent of today's total national income. If we continue to follow the trend in which we are heading today, two things will inevitably result: first, a loss of our personal freedom, and second, financial bankruptcy. This is the price we pay when we turn away from God and the principles which he has taught and turn to government to do everything for us. It is the formula by which nations become enslaved.
This nation was established by the God of heaven as a citadel of liberty. A constitution guaranteeing those liberties was designed under the superintending influence of heaven. I have recounted here before what took place in the St. George Temple when the Founding Fathers of this nation visited President Wilford Woodruff, who was then a member of the Twelve and not president of the Church. The republic which was established was the most nearly perfect system which could have been devised to lead men toward celestial principles. We may liken our system to the law of Moses which leads men to the higher law of Christ.
Today, two hundred years later, we must sadly observe that we have significantly departed from the principles established by the founders of our country. James Madison opposed the proposal to put Congress in the role of promoting the general welfare according to its whims in these words:
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasure; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor. . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for [and it was an issue then], it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America. [quoted in Donald L. Newquist, Prophets, Principles, and National Survival, p. 342]
That statement, given as a warning, has proved prophetic. Today Congress is doing what Madison warned about. Many are now advocating that which has become a general practice since the early 1930s: a redistribution of wealth through the federal tax system. That, by definition, is socialism!
Americans have always been committed to taking care of the poor, aged, and unemployed. We have done this on the basis of Judaic-Christian beliefs and humanitarian principles. It has been fundamental to our way of life that charity must be voluntary if it is to be charity. Compulsory benevolence is not charity. Today's socialists--who call themselves egalitarians--are using the federal government to redistribute wealth in our society, not as a matter of voluntary charity, but as a so-called matter of right. One HEW official said recently, "In this country, welfare is no longer charity, it is a right. More and more Americans feel that their government owes them something" (U.S. News and World Report, April 21, 1975, p. 49). President Grover Cleveland said--and we believe as a people--that though the people support the government the government should not support the people.
The chief weapon used by the federal government to achieve this "equality" is the system of transfer payments. This means that the federal governments collects from one income group and transfer payments to another by the tax system. These payments are made in the form of social security benefits, Medicare and Medicaid, and food stamps, to name a few. Today the cost of such programs has been going in the hole at the rate of 12 billion dollars a year; and, with increased benefits and greater numbers of recipients, even though the tax base has been increased we will have larger deficits in the future.
Today the party now in power is advocating and has support, apparently in both major parties, for a comprehensive national health insurance program--a euphemism for socialized medicine. Our major danger is that we are currently (and have been for forty years) transferring responsibility from the individual, local, and state governments to the federal government--precisel y the same course that led to the economic collapse in Great Britain and New York City. We cannot long pursue the present trend without its bringing us to national insolvency.
Edmund Burke, the great British political philosopher, warned of the threat of economic equality. He said,
A perfect equality will indeed be produced--that is to say, equal wretchedness, equal beggary, and on the part of the petitioners, a woeful, helpless, and desperate disappointment. Such is the event of all compulsory equalizations. They pull down what is above; they never raise what is below; and they depress high and low together beneath the level of what was originally the lowest.
Are we part of the problem or part of the solution?
Recently a letter came to my office, accompanied by an article from your Daily Universe, on the matter of BYU students taking food stamps. The query of the letter was: "What is the attitude of the Church on taking food stamps?" The Church's view on this is well known. We stand for independence, thrift, and abolition of the dole. This was emphasized in the Saturday morning welfare meeting of general conference. "The aim of the Church is to help the people to help themselves. Work is to be re-enthroned as the ruling principle of the lives of our Church membership" (Heber J. Grant, Conference Report, October 1936, p. 3).
When you accept food stamps, you accept an unearned handout that other working people are paying for. You do not earn food stamps or welfare payments. Every individual who accepts an unearned government gratuity is just as morally culpable as the individual who takes a handout from taxpayers' money to pay his heat, electricity, or rent. There is no difference in principle between them. You did not come to this University to become a welfare recipient. You came here to be a light to the world, a light to society--to save society and to help to save this nation, the Lord's base of operations in these latter days, to ameliorate man's social conditions. You are not here to be a parasite or freeloader. The price you pay for "something for nothing" may be more than you can afford. Do not rationalize your acceptance of government gratuities by saying, "I am a contributing taxpayer too." By doing this you contribute to the problem which is leading this nation to financial insolvency.
Society may rationalize immorality, but God cannot condone it. Society sponsors Sabbathbreaking, but the Church counsels otherwise. Society profanes the name of Deity, but Latter-day Saints cannot countenance it. Because society condones a dole, which demoralizes man and weakens his God-given initiative and character, can we?
I know what it is, as many of your faculty members do, to work my way through school, taking classes only during winter quarters. If you don't have the finances to complete your education, drop out a semester and go to work and save. You'll be a better man or woman for so doing. You will have preserved your self-respect and initiative. Wisdom comes with experience and struggle, not just with going through a university matriculation. I hope you will not be deceived by current philosophies which will rob you of your godly dignity, self-respect, and initiative, those attributes that make a celestial inheritance possible. It is in that interest, and that only, that I have spoken so plainly to you.
Poster: Lone Star
The only role government should play is to protect our God given natural rights.
President Benson wrote a book entitled "The Proper Role of Government." I think everyone here would benefit from reading it. He as well as many other prophets and apostles have spoken on what the proper role of government should be. There is nothing in the Constitution that states the government should be a source of welfare. The responsibilities for our government are clearly spelled out in our Constitution.
President Benson testified numerous times of the importance of standing up for out Constitution. It is still the supreme law of the land. It is actually pretty clear on what responsibilities and authority the government has. For example, the health care debate should start and end with the Constitution.
I believe that it was David O. McKay who said that "Next to being one in worshiping God, there is nothing in this world upon which this Church should be more united than in upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States!"
We should see to it that we know it word for word. We should see to it that our politicians follow it word for word. There are those who would say that it is a living document. For those people, I would say that we have the ability to change it, and the Constitution provides that means. To those who recall the General Welfare Clause in Article I Section 8. James Madison, author of the Constitution, had this to say: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
It is clear that our duty as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, is to uphold and support the Constitution. The government has no authority or justification to step beyond the bounds that restrain it. If we allow our government to do so, we will end up with tyranny.
The war that began in Heaven is still taking place. The enemy is highly organized and cleverly disguised. Helaman 6:38-39 says it all. We should be very careful to place our trust in the arm of man. The government has no authority to be a source of welfare.
Nothing should be more clear to members of the LDS church than the proper role of our government. Again, if one has any questions, President Benson's book is a great place to start.
President Benson wrote a book entitled "The Proper Role of Government." I think everyone here would benefit from reading it. He as well as many other prophets and apostles have spoken on what the proper role of government should be. There is nothing in the Constitution that states the government should be a source of welfare. The responsibilities for our government are clearly spelled out in our Constitution.
President Benson testified numerous times of the importance of standing up for out Constitution. It is still the supreme law of the land. It is actually pretty clear on what responsibilities and authority the government has. For example, the health care debate should start and end with the Constitution.
I believe that it was David O. McKay who said that "Next to being one in worshiping God, there is nothing in this world upon which this Church should be more united than in upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States!"
We should see to it that we know it word for word. We should see to it that our politicians follow it word for word. There are those who would say that it is a living document. For those people, I would say that we have the ability to change it, and the Constitution provides that means. To those who recall the General Welfare Clause in Article I Section 8. James Madison, author of the Constitution, had this to say: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
It is clear that our duty as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, is to uphold and support the Constitution. The government has no authority or justification to step beyond the bounds that restrain it. If we allow our government to do so, we will end up with tyranny.
The war that began in Heaven is still taking place. The enemy is highly organized and cleverly disguised. Helaman 6:38-39 says it all. We should be very careful to place our trust in the arm of man. The government has no authority to be a source of welfare.
Nothing should be more clear to members of the LDS church than the proper role of our government. Again, if one has any questions, President Benson's book is a great place to start.
Poster: Lone Star
forgive the multiple posts. My computer died and in the process I hit the submit button a few times. Oops!!!!
Poster: LoneStar
At the risk of further embarrassment, I thought I'd add one more comment. I see that MatthewWappet made this comment: "Similarly, when you live in a country you pay taxes and participate in the government and in exchange receive freedom, protection, and a social welfare safety net that will catch you when you fall..."
I was just curious where you came up with the benefits of government that you listed, namely freedom, protection and a social welfare safety net. I guess you could say that I'm probably most curious about the social welfare safety net.
The way I've read the Constitution, I don't see that our government has either the responsibility, or the authority to provide social welfare. I know I made several accidental posts, but if you'll look at one of them, you can find a quote by James Madison in regards to the enumerated powers of congress and the meaning of the general welfare clause.
I understand that we as citizens enjoy certain basic rights, but that these rights actually extend to all men, regardless of nationality. In other words, I believe in the concept of Natural Law and that the right to life, liberty and property extends to all. The government's sole purpose is to protect our God given, unalienable rights.
I believe that view is also shared by President Benson and other prophets and apostles as well.
What are your thoughts on the Constitution?
Thanks.
I was just curious where you came up with the benefits of government that you listed, namely freedom, protection and a social welfare safety net. I guess you could say that I'm probably most curious about the social welfare safety net.
The way I've read the Constitution, I don't see that our government has either the responsibility, or the authority to provide social welfare. I know I made several accidental posts, but if you'll look at one of them, you can find a quote by James Madison in regards to the enumerated powers of congress and the meaning of the general welfare clause.
I understand that we as citizens enjoy certain basic rights, but that these rights actually extend to all men, regardless of nationality. In other words, I believe in the concept of Natural Law and that the right to life, liberty and property extends to all. The government's sole purpose is to protect our God given, unalienable rights.
I believe that view is also shared by President Benson and other prophets and apostles as well.
What are your thoughts on the Constitution?
Thanks.
Poster: Richard
I read through the first 10 comments and then skipped here to the bottom, so
excuse me if I just repeat something that someone said after the tenth post.
First, a question. I found the Brigham Young quote interesting. But I wonder if his
feelings expressed then were more political than doctrinal? Let's remember that
there was a lot of uneasy tension between... well the entire United States and
Mormonism at the time.
Second, an opinion. I have always been intrigued by two scriptures in the Doctrine
and Covenants. I hope there are neither Democrat and Republican, but universal. First, D&C 98:16 - 37. I won't paste the whole thing here but it basically advocates
peace, and puts war as a last resort. Even after an enemy as smitten us twice, it
still cautions against war. Second, D&C 78: 5-6. This one, I will quote:
"That you may be equal in the bonds of heavenly things, yea, and earthly things
also, for the obtaining of heavenly things. For if ye are not equal in earthly things
ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things;"
I know that the above was quoted in the article. But this made a big impact on me.
What does this mean? Does this mean I single-handedly give all my possessions
away, and survive on only what will let me... well survive? Probably not. But has it
changed my attitude toward my responsibility towards the poor. And it has
changed my attitude toward wealth redistribution.
Sorry, I wish I could write more and be more organized. I guess all I'm trying to
say is that we should be really careful about our attitudes towards the poor and
also careful about our support for war... especially preemptive war.
excuse me if I just repeat something that someone said after the tenth post.
First, a question. I found the Brigham Young quote interesting. But I wonder if his
feelings expressed then were more political than doctrinal? Let's remember that
there was a lot of uneasy tension between... well the entire United States and
Mormonism at the time.
Second, an opinion. I have always been intrigued by two scriptures in the Doctrine
and Covenants. I hope there are neither Democrat and Republican, but universal. First, D&C 98:16 - 37. I won't paste the whole thing here but it basically advocates
peace, and puts war as a last resort. Even after an enemy as smitten us twice, it
still cautions against war. Second, D&C 78: 5-6. This one, I will quote:
"That you may be equal in the bonds of heavenly things, yea, and earthly things
also, for the obtaining of heavenly things. For if ye are not equal in earthly things
ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things;"
I know that the above was quoted in the article. But this made a big impact on me.
What does this mean? Does this mean I single-handedly give all my possessions
away, and survive on only what will let me... well survive? Probably not. But has it
changed my attitude toward my responsibility towards the poor. And it has
changed my attitude toward wealth redistribution.
Sorry, I wish I could write more and be more organized. I guess all I'm trying to
say is that we should be really careful about our attitudes towards the poor and
also careful about our support for war... especially preemptive war.
Poster: Richard
I read through the first 10 comments and then skipped here to the bottom, so
excuse me if I just repeat something that someone said after the tenth post.
First, a question. I found the Brigham Young quote interesting. But I wonder if his
feelings expressed then were more political than doctrinal? Let\'s remember that
there was a lot of uneasy tension between... well the entire United States and
Mormonism at the time.
Second, an opinion. I have always been intrigued by two scriptures in the Doctrine
and Covenants. I hope there are neither Democrat and Republican, but universal.
First, D&C 98:16 - 37. I won\'t paste the whole thing here but it basically
advocates
peace, and puts war as a last resort. Even after an enemy as smitten us twice, it
still cautions against war. Second, D&C 78: 5-6. This one, I will quote:
\"That you may be equal in the bonds of heavenly things, yea, and earthly things
also, for the obtaining of heavenly things. For if ye are not equal in earthly things
ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things;\"
I know that the above was quoted in the article. But this made a big impact on me.
What does this mean? Does this mean I single-handedly give all my possessions
away, and survive on only what will let me... well survive? Probably not. But has it
changed my attitude toward my responsibility towards the poor. And it has
changed my attitude toward wealth redistribution.
Sorry, I wish I could write more and be more organized. I guess all I\'m trying to
say is that we should be really careful about our attitudes towards the poor and
also careful about our support for war... especially preemptive war.
excuse me if I just repeat something that someone said after the tenth post.
First, a question. I found the Brigham Young quote interesting. But I wonder if his
feelings expressed then were more political than doctrinal? Let\'s remember that
there was a lot of uneasy tension between... well the entire United States and
Mormonism at the time.
Second, an opinion. I have always been intrigued by two scriptures in the Doctrine
and Covenants. I hope there are neither Democrat and Republican, but universal.
First, D&C 98:16 - 37. I won\'t paste the whole thing here but it basically
advocates
peace, and puts war as a last resort. Even after an enemy as smitten us twice, it
still cautions against war. Second, D&C 78: 5-6. This one, I will quote:
\"That you may be equal in the bonds of heavenly things, yea, and earthly things
also, for the obtaining of heavenly things. For if ye are not equal in earthly things
ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things;\"
I know that the above was quoted in the article. But this made a big impact on me.
What does this mean? Does this mean I single-handedly give all my possessions
away, and survive on only what will let me... well survive? Probably not. But has it
changed my attitude toward my responsibility towards the poor. And it has
changed my attitude toward wealth redistribution.
Sorry, I wish I could write more and be more organized. I guess all I\'m trying to
say is that we should be really careful about our attitudes towards the poor and
also careful about our support for war... especially preemptive war.
Poster: Mary
How hypocritical for people to complain about paying taxes while trying to claim that the US is a Christian nation. I would like to remind everyone that the one homage Jesus Christ said we should pay to the government is taxes. He said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's."
Poster: Mary
How hypocritical for people to complain about paying taxes while trying to claim that the US is a Christian nation. I would like to remind everyone that the one homage Jesus Christ said we should pay to the government is taxes. He said, \"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar\'s and unto God what is God\'s.\"
Poster: Pearl
How hypocritical we are when we claim to be a Christian nation and complain of paying taxes. Jesus said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's (taxes) and unto God what is God's.
Poster: MLS
Many have commented here that the government is forcing its constituents to be
charitable, however, that is not the case. The social order / governmental
arrangements we experience are a product of the choices we the people make at
the ballot box. \"The people\" determined that this system of welfare is acceptable
and/or the current administration\'s plans regarding the system were acceptable.
Perhaps/likely those who do not approve did not vote for the administration, but
that does not mean that the policies of the government are forced onto them, on
the contrary, by living in this country, voting, participating in the many freedoms,
privileges, bounties etc. of this country, we have accepted the political risks
posed
by the system of government we maintain, i.e. our preferred political actors,
policies, etc may prevail, however, they may not and until such policies and
actors
demand subterfuge to God we are obliged to participate. Some may continue to
claim that this is forced charity, but it truly is not, it is a political loss that they
have chalked up, a loss attributable, in part, to the risk of the system. You win
some and you lose some.
And as long as we are talking about coercive/forced behaviors and how this
implicates/destroys agency, what about those who are forced to marry outside
their preference, or forced to obey many of the 10 commandments, which are in
large part written into our system of laws? Where is the line drawn? When is it
acceptable to forfeit agency and when is it not? The answer cannot be that it is
OK to do so when the argument lines up with our political leanings. Why do we
say
it is ok to force certain behaviors according to our religious/faith based morals but
not others?
Interesting how the cookie is/has crumbled.
charitable, however, that is not the case. The social order / governmental
arrangements we experience are a product of the choices we the people make at
the ballot box. \"The people\" determined that this system of welfare is acceptable
and/or the current administration\'s plans regarding the system were acceptable.
Perhaps/likely those who do not approve did not vote for the administration, but
that does not mean that the policies of the government are forced onto them, on
the contrary, by living in this country, voting, participating in the many freedoms,
privileges, bounties etc. of this country, we have accepted the political risks
posed
by the system of government we maintain, i.e. our preferred political actors,
policies, etc may prevail, however, they may not and until such policies and
actors
demand subterfuge to God we are obliged to participate. Some may continue to
claim that this is forced charity, but it truly is not, it is a political loss that they
have chalked up, a loss attributable, in part, to the risk of the system. You win
some and you lose some.
And as long as we are talking about coercive/forced behaviors and how this
implicates/destroys agency, what about those who are forced to marry outside
their preference, or forced to obey many of the 10 commandments, which are in
large part written into our system of laws? Where is the line drawn? When is it
acceptable to forfeit agency and when is it not? The answer cannot be that it is
OK to do so when the argument lines up with our political leanings. Why do we
say
it is ok to force certain behaviors according to our religious/faith based morals but
not others?
Interesting how the cookie is/has crumbled.
Poster: Emilie B
President Ezra Taft Benson had MUCH to say about economic principles and
government. I suggest taking a look. He was clearly in favor of free market.
Earthly government by flawed human beings is very different from a system run by
Christ. see this link:
http://www.zionsbest.com/proper_role.html
Here is a sneak peak:
The Nature Of Legal Plunder
Listen to Bastiat's explanation of this "legal plunder." "When a portion of wealth is
tranferred from the person who owns it - without his consent and without
compensation, and whether by force or by fraud - to anyone who does not own it,
then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed!
"How is the legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from
some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does
not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing
what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime..." (THE LAW, p.
21, 26; P.P.N.S., p. 377)
As Bastiat observed, and as history has proven, each class or special interest
group competes with the others to throw the lever of governmental power in their
favor, or at least to immunize itself against the effects of a previous thrust. Labor
gets a minimum wage, so agriculture seeks a price support. Consumers demand
price controls, and industry gets protective tariffs. In the end, no one is much
further ahead, and everyone sufffers the burdens of a gigantic bureaucracy and a
loss of personal freedom. With each group out to get its share of the spoils, such
governments historically have mushroomed into total welfare states. Once the
process begins, once the principle of the protective function of government gives
way to the aggressive or redistribute function, then forces are set in motion that
drive the nation toward totalitarianism. "It is impossible," Bastiat correctly
observed, "to introduce into society... a greater evil than this: the conversion of
the law into an instrument of plunder." (THE LAW, p. 12)
government. I suggest taking a look. He was clearly in favor of free market.
Earthly government by flawed human beings is very different from a system run by
Christ. see this link:
http://www.zionsbest.com/proper_role.html
Here is a sneak peak:
The Nature Of Legal Plunder
Listen to Bastiat's explanation of this "legal plunder." "When a portion of wealth is
tranferred from the person who owns it - without his consent and without
compensation, and whether by force or by fraud - to anyone who does not own it,
then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed!
"How is the legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from
some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does
not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing
what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime..." (THE LAW, p.
21, 26; P.P.N.S., p. 377)
As Bastiat observed, and as history has proven, each class or special interest
group competes with the others to throw the lever of governmental power in their
favor, or at least to immunize itself against the effects of a previous thrust. Labor
gets a minimum wage, so agriculture seeks a price support. Consumers demand
price controls, and industry gets protective tariffs. In the end, no one is much
further ahead, and everyone sufffers the burdens of a gigantic bureaucracy and a
loss of personal freedom. With each group out to get its share of the spoils, such
governments historically have mushroomed into total welfare states. Once the
process begins, once the principle of the protective function of government gives
way to the aggressive or redistribute function, then forces are set in motion that
drive the nation toward totalitarianism. "It is impossible," Bastiat correctly
observed, "to introduce into society... a greater evil than this: the conversion of
the law into an instrument of plunder." (THE LAW, p. 12)
Poster: Emilie
President Ezra Taft Benson had MUCH to say about economic principles and
government. I suggest taking a look. He was clearly in favor of free market.
Earthly government by flawed human beings is very different from a system run by
Christ. see this link on Ezra Taft Benson and the Proper Role of Government. He is
right on target and there is not a soul who could call him un-Christlike or un
charitable.
http://www.zionsbest.com/proper_role.html
government. I suggest taking a look. He was clearly in favor of free market.
Earthly government by flawed human beings is very different from a system run by
Christ. see this link on Ezra Taft Benson and the Proper Role of Government. He is
right on target and there is not a soul who could call him un-Christlike or un
charitable.
http://www.zionsbest.com/proper_role.html
Poster: Fran
I only have to add one little thought that always surprises me in the 'tax' discussion. A lot of people consider taxation for welfare systems as 'being forced to be charitable'. While I agree that paying taxes is something that isn't easily avoided (you can, but the consequences may be fines, possibly imprisonment, or as pointed out loss of citizenship, though I don't know if that's an actual consequence). If you do not want to participate in certain commandments, the temporal consequences may not be quite as drastic - no imprisonment (punishment) for not paying tithes.
So, there probably is a difference between tithes and taxes. However, I think Christ made it clear in the Bible that we should pay taxes (and obey the laws of the land). So, we're living in a nation that taxes. Ok. We may love it or hate it. But, what I don't get is why people are sooooo opposed to taxation for 'welfare' (which, effective or not, at least is trying to accomplish something charitable), but you don't hear the same people being outraged at how much taxes go towards the military. I think if taxation means being forced to support something you may not want to support, then taxation itself is wrong. It seems strange to me that we would oppose tax money being used for helping the 'poor and needy', but we're fine if they go towards bombs, tanks, wars, and other questionable things. What's the difference? If I oppose the military, am I not being forced to support something with my tax money the way others claim they are being forced to be charitable. I'm being forced to be a killer. Well, that's so much better...
So, for those who think taxation for welfare is wrong. Fine, it's ok to think that's wrong. But just try and be consistent and claim that taxation itself is wrong. No one should be 'forced' to support anything against their will then - supporting war against your will is hardly any better than supporting welfare against your will. Of course, there seems an easy solution at hand - let's get rid of taxes. But, I'd really like to see a developed nation that functions without taxes.
So, there probably is a difference between tithes and taxes. However, I think Christ made it clear in the Bible that we should pay taxes (and obey the laws of the land). So, we're living in a nation that taxes. Ok. We may love it or hate it. But, what I don't get is why people are sooooo opposed to taxation for 'welfare' (which, effective or not, at least is trying to accomplish something charitable), but you don't hear the same people being outraged at how much taxes go towards the military. I think if taxation means being forced to support something you may not want to support, then taxation itself is wrong. It seems strange to me that we would oppose tax money being used for helping the 'poor and needy', but we're fine if they go towards bombs, tanks, wars, and other questionable things. What's the difference? If I oppose the military, am I not being forced to support something with my tax money the way others claim they are being forced to be charitable. I'm being forced to be a killer. Well, that's so much better...
So, for those who think taxation for welfare is wrong. Fine, it's ok to think that's wrong. But just try and be consistent and claim that taxation itself is wrong. No one should be 'forced' to support anything against their will then - supporting war against your will is hardly any better than supporting welfare against your will. Of course, there seems an easy solution at hand - let's get rid of taxes. But, I'd really like to see a developed nation that functions without taxes.
Poster: Brock
American's are the most charitable people on the planet see http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007 -06-25-charitable_N.htm or http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/233106/a merica_the_most_char itable_nation.html or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mos t_charitable_countri es the list goes on and on. This lends credence to the fact that individual charity is indirectly related to government mandated "charity". Guess what? Mormons tried the united order and it failed.... just like your article.
Poster: Sean
Read this very interesting post on the First Presidency's view of the New Deal back in 1941. I think the New Deal and the Church Welfare Program are farther apart than some here think.
http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/a-letter-to -the-treasury-from-t he-lds-first-preside ncy-in-1941
http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/a-letter-to -the-treasury-from-t he-lds-first-preside ncy-in-1941
Poster: Sean
I invite you to read this interesting post on a First Presidency's letter regarding the New Deal back in 1941. I think the New Deal and the Church Welfare Program are farther apart than some here think.
Poster: Tom K.
If you are really LDS maybe you should consider that this debate goes further back. It goes all the way, as we know it, to the "war in heaven." It was Satan who presented a plan to "save everyone" & no one would be lost. Sometimes we interpret the request from Satan that he get all the glory as the reason this plan was rejected by God. But was that the real reason?
I don't think God would have much of a problem giving up the glory, he is certainly willing to share it with us. Why would he not be willing to share it with another of his sons? Do you think that maybe the main problem with the plan was not who received the glory but the fact that the proposed plan would be contrary to the whole point of creating mortal life? Mortal life is a test, a proving time. Adversity and pain are a part of that test. He said "There must needs by opposition in all things."
God could have made everything easy for us. No mental illness, no broken legs, no nagging insects, no weeds in the garden - but that is not the choice He made.
Receiving everything with no struggle makes a soft, weak and dependent individual. There is temporal proof of this. In researching the book The Millionaire Next Door the authors found that children of millionaires who were given everything tended to become dregs on society while those children who were made to work and accept responsibility for their own lives tended to become producers and made positive contributions to society. Maybe the same principle applies to the Plan of Salvation?
The Prophet Joseph Smith was invited to a lecture in Nauvoo where the subject was socialism. The comment he made later was that he saw no truth in it. He said it was not a principle of heaven.
The United Order was NOT a socialist system. It was a stewardship system set up to work in favor of the common good. A main component was the ownership of property (everyone was given a private property 'stewardship" and told to be as productive as possible) and it was voluntary, engaged in by a people who were doing their best to serve God and provide for friends and neighbors. It was an attempt to "bake a bigger pie" not an attempt to split the existing pie into more pieces.
If you believe Jesus taught socialism I wonder, for example, how you interpret the parable of the talents. There are many other teaching which indicate the gospel could be characterized as the ultimate theocratic meritocracy.
Yes, charity, or "the pure love of Christ" is one of the most important principles those who would be Saints must learn to live. We cannot attain the full measure of any saving ordinance unless we serve others, especially the poor and needy. But this is service that must come from the heart and from a desire to serve.
I believe we do need a safety net in today's society (the breakdown of the family structure among other things) requires that we provide for the truly needy in some structured system.
If the New Deal politicians really tried to copy the LDS Church welfare system they really produced a poor copy. They left out some very important guidelines. Here is what the Church said when the Welfare system was established: --- “Our primary purpose was to set up, in so far as it might be possible, a system under which the curse of idleness would be done away with, the evils of a dole abolished, and independence, industry, thrift and self respect be once more established amongst our people. The aim of the Church is to help the people to help themselves. Work is to be re-enthroned as the ruling principle of the lives of our Church membership” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1936, 3).
And a comment from President Packer: - - “If we lose our emotional and spiritual independence, our self-reliance, we can be weakened quite as much, perhaps even more, than when we become dependent materially” - - - (in Conference Report, Apr. 1978, 136–37; or Ensign, May 1978, 91–92).
Yes, God does want us to be a charitable people (all of us) but in the Doctrine & Covenants he said it this way: -- - For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;
For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward. (D&C 58: 26-28)
What is going on in Washington right now reminds me of the "King Men" of Zarahemla. Washington promises the world to buy votes and continue to build an "entitled" dependent class to solidify power. Through deceit and manipulation they "sell" a freedom robbing agenda.
The biggest problem is that the Washington establishment has our country on the slippery slope to financial ruin. The scary part is that it is the fault of voters as much as politicians. Too many voters do not vote for the good of the country, they vote selfish interests.
Governments are not producers. They do not have any source of income except to stick the big hand of government into the pockets of citizens and take by force. In any other scenario such an action would be called theft.
Voters who vote for a politician because he promises to increase the crop subsidy or raise the size of the welfare check or votes only for personal gain is not a charitable person. They are a selfish person. Robin Hood may have had good intentions but he was still a thief and the Sheriff of Nottingham who was engaged in collecting overbearing taxes was also a thief.
People who vote to raise other peoples taxes (to pay for anything other than critical government services that benefit all citizens) need to ask themselves a question: "Am I engaging in the practice of theft by proxy?"
I think God is a Capitalist - a loving and benevolent capitalist.
I don't think God would have much of a problem giving up the glory, he is certainly willing to share it with us. Why would he not be willing to share it with another of his sons? Do you think that maybe the main problem with the plan was not who received the glory but the fact that the proposed plan would be contrary to the whole point of creating mortal life? Mortal life is a test, a proving time. Adversity and pain are a part of that test. He said "There must needs by opposition in all things."
God could have made everything easy for us. No mental illness, no broken legs, no nagging insects, no weeds in the garden - but that is not the choice He made.
Receiving everything with no struggle makes a soft, weak and dependent individual. There is temporal proof of this. In researching the book The Millionaire Next Door the authors found that children of millionaires who were given everything tended to become dregs on society while those children who were made to work and accept responsibility for their own lives tended to become producers and made positive contributions to society. Maybe the same principle applies to the Plan of Salvation?
The Prophet Joseph Smith was invited to a lecture in Nauvoo where the subject was socialism. The comment he made later was that he saw no truth in it. He said it was not a principle of heaven.
The United Order was NOT a socialist system. It was a stewardship system set up to work in favor of the common good. A main component was the ownership of property (everyone was given a private property 'stewardship" and told to be as productive as possible) and it was voluntary, engaged in by a people who were doing their best to serve God and provide for friends and neighbors. It was an attempt to "bake a bigger pie" not an attempt to split the existing pie into more pieces.
If you believe Jesus taught socialism I wonder, for example, how you interpret the parable of the talents. There are many other teaching which indicate the gospel could be characterized as the ultimate theocratic meritocracy.
Yes, charity, or "the pure love of Christ" is one of the most important principles those who would be Saints must learn to live. We cannot attain the full measure of any saving ordinance unless we serve others, especially the poor and needy. But this is service that must come from the heart and from a desire to serve.
I believe we do need a safety net in today's society (the breakdown of the family structure among other things) requires that we provide for the truly needy in some structured system.
If the New Deal politicians really tried to copy the LDS Church welfare system they really produced a poor copy. They left out some very important guidelines. Here is what the Church said when the Welfare system was established: --- “Our primary purpose was to set up, in so far as it might be possible, a system under which the curse of idleness would be done away with, the evils of a dole abolished, and independence, industry, thrift and self respect be once more established amongst our people. The aim of the Church is to help the people to help themselves. Work is to be re-enthroned as the ruling principle of the lives of our Church membership” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1936, 3).
And a comment from President Packer: - - “If we lose our emotional and spiritual independence, our self-reliance, we can be weakened quite as much, perhaps even more, than when we become dependent materially” - - - (in Conference Report, Apr. 1978, 136–37; or Ensign, May 1978, 91–92).
Yes, God does want us to be a charitable people (all of us) but in the Doctrine & Covenants he said it this way: -- - For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;
For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward. (D&C 58: 26-28)
What is going on in Washington right now reminds me of the "King Men" of Zarahemla. Washington promises the world to buy votes and continue to build an "entitled" dependent class to solidify power. Through deceit and manipulation they "sell" a freedom robbing agenda.
The biggest problem is that the Washington establishment has our country on the slippery slope to financial ruin. The scary part is that it is the fault of voters as much as politicians. Too many voters do not vote for the good of the country, they vote selfish interests.
Governments are not producers. They do not have any source of income except to stick the big hand of government into the pockets of citizens and take by force. In any other scenario such an action would be called theft.
Voters who vote for a politician because he promises to increase the crop subsidy or raise the size of the welfare check or votes only for personal gain is not a charitable person. They are a selfish person. Robin Hood may have had good intentions but he was still a thief and the Sheriff of Nottingham who was engaged in collecting overbearing taxes was also a thief.
People who vote to raise other peoples taxes (to pay for anything other than critical government services that benefit all citizens) need to ask themselves a question: "Am I engaging in the practice of theft by proxy?"
I think God is a Capitalist - a loving and benevolent capitalist.
Poster: Tom
If you are really LDS maybe you should consider that this debate goes further back. It goes all the way, as we know it, to the \"war in heaven.\" It was Satan who presented a plan to \"save everyone\" & no one would be lost. Sometimes we interpret the request from Satan that he get all the glory as the reason this plan was rejected by God. But was that the real reason?
I don\'t think God would have much of a problem giving up the glory, he is certainly willing to share it with us. Why would he not be willing to share it with another of his sons? Do you think that maybe the main problem with the plan was not who received the glory but the fact that the proposed plan would be contrary to the whole point of creating mortal life? Mortal life is a test, a proving time. Adversity and pain are a part of that test. He said \"There must needs by opposition in all things.\"
God could have made everything easy for us. No mental illness, no broken legs, no nagging insects, no weeds in the garden - but that is not the choice He made.
Receiving everything with no struggle makes a soft, weak and dependent individual. There is temporal proof of this. In researching the book The Millionaire Next Door the authors found that children of millionaires who were given everything tended to become dregs on society while those children who were made to work and accept responsibility for their own lives tended to become producers and made positive contributions to society. Maybe the same principle applies to the Plan of Salvation?
The Prophet Joseph Smith was invited to a lecture in Nauvoo where the subject was socialism. The comment he made later was that he saw no truth in it. He said it was not a principle of heaven.
The United Order was NOT a socialist system. It was a stewardship system set up to work in favor of the common good. A main component was the ownership of property (everyone was given a private property \'stewardship\" and told to be as productive as possible) and it was voluntary, engaged in by a people who were doing their best to serve God and provide for friends and neighbors. It was an attempt to \"bake a bigger pie\" not an attempt to split the existing pie into more pieces.
If you believe Jesus taught socialism I wonder, for example, how you interpret the parable of the talents. There are many other teaching which indicate the gospel could be characterized as the ultimate theocratic meritocracy.
Yes, charity, or \"the pure love of Christ\" is one of the most important principles those who would be Saints must learn to live. We cannot attain the full measure of any saving ordinance unless we serve others, especially the poor and needy. But this is service that must come from the heart and from a desire to serve.
I believe we do need a safety net in today\'s society (the breakdown of the family structure among other things) requires that we provide for the truly needy in some structured system.
If the New Deal politicians really tried to copy the LDS Church welfare system they really produced a poor copy. They left out some very important guidelines. Here is what the Church said when the Welfare system was established: --- “Our primary purpose was to set up, in so far as it might be possible, a system under which the curse of idleness would be done away with, the evils of a dole abolished, and independence, industry, thrift and self respect be once more established amongst our people. The aim of the Church is to help the people to help themselves. Work is to be re-enthroned as the ruling principle of the lives of our Church membership” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1936, 3).
And a comment from President Packer: - - “If we lose our emotional and spiritual independence, our self-reliance, we can be weakened quite as much, perhaps even more, than when we become dependent materially” - - - (in Conference Report, Apr. 1978, 136–37; or Ensign, May 1978, 91–92).
Yes, God does want us to be a charitable people (all of us) but in the Doctrine & Covenants he said it this way: -- - For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;
For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward. (D&C 58: 26-28)
What is going on in Washington right now reminds me of the \"King Men\" of Zarahemla. Washington promises the world to buy votes and continue to build an \"entitled\" dependent class to solidify power. Through deceit and manipulation they \"sell\" a freedom robbing agenda.
The biggest problem is that the Washington establishment has our country on the slippery slope to financial ruin. The scary part is that it is the fault of voters as much as politicians. Too many voters do not vote for the good of the country, they vote selfish interests.
Governments are not producers. They do not have any source of income except to stick the big hand of government into the pockets of citizens and take by force. In any other scenario such an action would be called theft.
Voters who vote for a politician because he promises to increase the crop subsidy or raise the size of the welfare check or votes only for personal gain is not a charitable person. They are a selfish person. Robin Hood may have had good intentions but he was still a thief and the Sheriff of Nottingham who was engaged in collecting overbearing taxes was also a thief.
People who vote to raise other peoples taxes (to pay for anything other than critical government services that benefit all citizens) need to ask themselves a question: \"Am I engaging in the practice of theft by proxy?\"
I think God is a Capitalist - a loving and benevolent capitalist.
I don\'t think God would have much of a problem giving up the glory, he is certainly willing to share it with us. Why would he not be willing to share it with another of his sons? Do you think that maybe the main problem with the plan was not who received the glory but the fact that the proposed plan would be contrary to the whole point of creating mortal life? Mortal life is a test, a proving time. Adversity and pain are a part of that test. He said \"There must needs by opposition in all things.\"
God could have made everything easy for us. No mental illness, no broken legs, no nagging insects, no weeds in the garden - but that is not the choice He made.
Receiving everything with no struggle makes a soft, weak and dependent individual. There is temporal proof of this. In researching the book The Millionaire Next Door the authors found that children of millionaires who were given everything tended to become dregs on society while those children who were made to work and accept responsibility for their own lives tended to become producers and made positive contributions to society. Maybe the same principle applies to the Plan of Salvation?
The Prophet Joseph Smith was invited to a lecture in Nauvoo where the subject was socialism. The comment he made later was that he saw no truth in it. He said it was not a principle of heaven.
The United Order was NOT a socialist system. It was a stewardship system set up to work in favor of the common good. A main component was the ownership of property (everyone was given a private property \'stewardship\" and told to be as productive as possible) and it was voluntary, engaged in by a people who were doing their best to serve God and provide for friends and neighbors. It was an attempt to \"bake a bigger pie\" not an attempt to split the existing pie into more pieces.
If you believe Jesus taught socialism I wonder, for example, how you interpret the parable of the talents. There are many other teaching which indicate the gospel could be characterized as the ultimate theocratic meritocracy.
Yes, charity, or \"the pure love of Christ\" is one of the most important principles those who would be Saints must learn to live. We cannot attain the full measure of any saving ordinance unless we serve others, especially the poor and needy. But this is service that must come from the heart and from a desire to serve.
I believe we do need a safety net in today\'s society (the breakdown of the family structure among other things) requires that we provide for the truly needy in some structured system.
If the New Deal politicians really tried to copy the LDS Church welfare system they really produced a poor copy. They left out some very important guidelines. Here is what the Church said when the Welfare system was established: --- “Our primary purpose was to set up, in so far as it might be possible, a system under which the curse of idleness would be done away with, the evils of a dole abolished, and independence, industry, thrift and self respect be once more established amongst our people. The aim of the Church is to help the people to help themselves. Work is to be re-enthroned as the ruling principle of the lives of our Church membership” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1936, 3).
And a comment from President Packer: - - “If we lose our emotional and spiritual independence, our self-reliance, we can be weakened quite as much, perhaps even more, than when we become dependent materially” - - - (in Conference Report, Apr. 1978, 136–37; or Ensign, May 1978, 91–92).
Yes, God does want us to be a charitable people (all of us) but in the Doctrine & Covenants he said it this way: -- - For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;
For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward. (D&C 58: 26-28)
What is going on in Washington right now reminds me of the \"King Men\" of Zarahemla. Washington promises the world to buy votes and continue to build an \"entitled\" dependent class to solidify power. Through deceit and manipulation they \"sell\" a freedom robbing agenda.
The biggest problem is that the Washington establishment has our country on the slippery slope to financial ruin. The scary part is that it is the fault of voters as much as politicians. Too many voters do not vote for the good of the country, they vote selfish interests.
Governments are not producers. They do not have any source of income except to stick the big hand of government into the pockets of citizens and take by force. In any other scenario such an action would be called theft.
Voters who vote for a politician because he promises to increase the crop subsidy or raise the size of the welfare check or votes only for personal gain is not a charitable person. They are a selfish person. Robin Hood may have had good intentions but he was still a thief and the Sheriff of Nottingham who was engaged in collecting overbearing taxes was also a thief.
People who vote to raise other peoples taxes (to pay for anything other than critical government services that benefit all citizens) need to ask themselves a question: \"Am I engaging in the practice of theft by proxy?\"
I think God is a Capitalist - a loving and benevolent capitalist.
Poster: Tom
Do you believe, as the Saints have been taught that the constitution is an inspired document?
If so then you must admit that the federal government should have a very limited role. Some powers, such as "to provide for the common defense" are are legitimate government tasks.
To equate roles like providing for the common defense with government enforced income redistribution in the hierarchy of government purposes is specious (plausible but false.
I see nothing in the constitution that gives the government the right to rob from Peter and give to Paul.
This country became one of the most prosperous in the world before the income tax was established in the early 20th Century. but I don't think most citizens mind paying the income tax or other taxes for legitimate government purposes. Programs that benefit us all. What most people have a problem with is the creation of an entitlement society which is funded on the backs of the taxpayers and in large part fosters and sustains a dependent class.
Some on this comment page seem to think that the class struggle in America is between the "haves" and the "have nots." I would suggest that there are very few "have nots" in America. Our class struggle is between the productive class and the dependent class. The givers and the takers. Those who contribute and those who indolently consume.
Thou shalt not be idle; for he that is idle shall not eat the bread nor wear the garments of the laborer. D&C42:42
If so then you must admit that the federal government should have a very limited role. Some powers, such as "to provide for the common defense" are are legitimate government tasks.
To equate roles like providing for the common defense with government enforced income redistribution in the hierarchy of government purposes is specious (plausible but false.
I see nothing in the constitution that gives the government the right to rob from Peter and give to Paul.
This country became one of the most prosperous in the world before the income tax was established in the early 20th Century. but I don't think most citizens mind paying the income tax or other taxes for legitimate government purposes. Programs that benefit us all. What most people have a problem with is the creation of an entitlement society which is funded on the backs of the taxpayers and in large part fosters and sustains a dependent class.
Some on this comment page seem to think that the class struggle in America is between the "haves" and the "have nots." I would suggest that there are very few "have nots" in America. Our class struggle is between the productive class and the dependent class. The givers and the takers. Those who contribute and those who indolently consume.
Thou shalt not be idle; for he that is idle shall not eat the bread nor wear the garments of the laborer. D&C42:42
Poster: Tom
A Thanksgiving Lesson
November 20, 2009
Did you know that our Pilgrim forefathers tried communism when they first landed at Plymouth Rock?
Hows that for a dramatic beginning to a story? Years ago, when I used to give a lot of talks to high school classes, this was one of my favorites. It always got the students attention. And I have to admit, I also enjoyed seeing some liberal teachers get so upset with me they almost lost their lunches.
Heres the story I told those students in those long-ago presentations.
The Pilgrims who arrived at Plymouth Rock in 1620 were incredibly brave and hardy souls. They were motivated by the noblest of virtues. They vowed, each and every one, to be as selfless as possibleto always put the needs of the group first. They agreed to own everything in common and to share everything equally.
And their nave piety almost killed the entire colony.
We all know how the adventure begins. A group of devout Christians, seeking religious freedom for themselves and eager to "advance the Gospel of the Kingdom of Christ" in the New World, sets sail from Plymouth, England in 1620. An investment consortium known as the Merchant Adventurers of London paid the expenses for the trip, including chartering the Mayflower and its 40-man crew.
The deal was simple: The Pilgrims agreed to establish a colony in northern Virginia where they would plant crops, fish the waters and hunt in the forests. They would return a certain percentage of each years bounty to London until their debt had been repaid.
Things went wrong from the start. First, the syndicate changed the deal, drastically reducing the amount they would loan the Pilgrims. The brave adventurers were forced to sell many of their own possessions, and much of their provisions, to pay for the trip. As a result, they landed in the New World badly short of supplies.
Next, the small ship they had purchased in Holland, which was to accompany them to America so they could fish the waters off the coast, had to be abandoned in England.
Shortly after they set sail, the ship, badly misnamed the Speedwell, became "open and leakie as a sieve," as its captain reported. They returned to Dartmouth, where the boat was dry-docked for three weeks as repairs were made.
But to no avail. After leaving Dartmouth, the group sailed less than 300 miles when the captain decided the Speedwell "must bear up or sink at sea." This time the ships put in at Plymouth, England, where it was decided to go on without the Speedwell. On Sept. 16, 1620, the Mayflower set out alone to cross the Atlantic.
A month later, when they had reached the halfway point, fierce storms battered the ship and threatened the lives of passengers and crew. Many wanted to turn back for England. But if they abandoned the journey, they would lose everything they had invested. The Pilgrims decided to trust in God and sail on.
Despite the storms, the hazards, the crowding and the poor food, only one Pilgrim died during the voyage, a young servant. His death was balanced by the birth of a son to Stephen and Elizabeth Hopkins, who named their child Oceanus.
There were 102 passengers on board the Mayflower50 men, 20 women and 32 childrenalong with a crew of 40. The captain set a course along the 42nd parallel, a bearing that would carry him to Cape Cod. From there he intended to swing south and follow the coast to northern Virginia.
A little over two months later, on Nov. 19, land was finally sighted and the captain turned the ship south, toward Virginia. However, they soon encountered such "dangerous shoals and roaring breakers" that they turned back to Massachusetts. It was then that the grumblings of dissent turned into a full-fledged roar. Many of the passengers insisted on landing in Massachusetts, where "none had power to command them."
The Pilgrim leaders decided to meet the explosive situation by asking each male on board, except for the crew, to sign a formal document that would lay "the first foundation of their government in this place." Thus the Mayflower Compact was born.
The Pilgrims were a diverse lot. Many of them were illiterate. Yet in creating the Mayflower Compact they showed an extraordinary political maturity. They agreed to establish a government by the consent of the governed, with just and equal laws for all. Each adult male, regardless of his station in lifegentleman, commoner or servantwould have an equal vote in deciding the affairs of the colony. Of the 65 men and boys on board, all but 24 signed the agreement. The only ones who did not were the children of those adults who did sign, or men who were too sick to do so.
The first decision made under the covenant was to abandon efforts to reach Virginia and instead to settle in New England. The first explorers landed at Plymouth on Dec. 21, 1620.
Weather delays kept the majority from seeing their new home for nearly two weeks. On Jan. 2, 1621, work began on the first building they would erecta storehouse.
Because provisions were so scanty they decided that the land would be worked in common, produce would be owned in common, and goods would be rationed equally. Not unlike the society Karl Marx envisioned of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Unfortunately, thanks to illness, injury and attitude, the system did not work. Pilferage from the storehouse became common. Suspicions of malingering were muttered. Over the course of that first, harsh winter, nearly half of the colonists perished. Four families were wiped out completely; only five of 18 wives survived. Of the 29 single men, hired hands and servants, only 10 were alive when spring finally came.
The colonists struggled desperately for two more years. When spring arrived in April 1623, virtually all of their provisions were gone. Unless that years harvest improved, they feared few would survive the next winter. The Pilgrim leaders decided on a bold course. The colony would abandon its communal approach and permit each person to work for his own benefit, not for the common good.
Here is how the governor of the colony, William Bradford, explained what happened then. This is taken from his marvelously readable memoir (if you can make adjustments for the Old English spellings), History of Plimoth Plantation:
The experience that was had in this commone course and condition, tried sundrie years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanitie of that conceite of Plato & other ancients, applauded by some of later times;that ye taking away of properties, and bringing it in communitie into a commone wealth, would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God.
For this communitie (so farr as it was) was found to breed much confusion & discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefite and comforte. For yet young men that were most able and fitte for labor & services did repine that they should spend their time & strength to worke for other mens wives and children with out any recompense.
Once they replaced communal efforts with individual responsibility the differences were dramaticand life-saving. Men went into the fields earlier and stayed later. In many cases, their wives and even their children (some barely past the toddler stage) worked right alongside them. More acres were planted, more trees were felled, more houses were built, and more game was slaughtered because of one simple change: People were allowed to keep the fruits of their own labors.
The Pilgrims arrived deeply in debt to the London merchants who sponsored them. They worked for more than 20 years, as individuals and as a community, to pay off the crushing burden. In 1627, they borrowed money to pay off the Merchants Adventurers. By 1645, they had paid off the entire debt to the company which had advanced them the sums to pay off the Merchants.
When their debt had been paid in full (at the astronomical interest rate of 45 percent per year), the company that had advanced the sums wrote the Pilgrims:
Let it not be grievous to you, that you have been instruments to break the ice for others who come after with less difficulty. The honour shall be yours to the worlds end.
As we celebrate this coming Thanksgiving Day, some 380 years after the Pilgrims celebrated the first of this uniquely American holiday, let us remember the sacrifices they made the devotion they showed and the lessons they learned.
November 20, 2009
Did you know that our Pilgrim forefathers tried communism when they first landed at Plymouth Rock?
Hows that for a dramatic beginning to a story? Years ago, when I used to give a lot of talks to high school classes, this was one of my favorites. It always got the students attention. And I have to admit, I also enjoyed seeing some liberal teachers get so upset with me they almost lost their lunches.
Heres the story I told those students in those long-ago presentations.
The Pilgrims who arrived at Plymouth Rock in 1620 were incredibly brave and hardy souls. They were motivated by the noblest of virtues. They vowed, each and every one, to be as selfless as possibleto always put the needs of the group first. They agreed to own everything in common and to share everything equally.
And their nave piety almost killed the entire colony.
We all know how the adventure begins. A group of devout Christians, seeking religious freedom for themselves and eager to "advance the Gospel of the Kingdom of Christ" in the New World, sets sail from Plymouth, England in 1620. An investment consortium known as the Merchant Adventurers of London paid the expenses for the trip, including chartering the Mayflower and its 40-man crew.
The deal was simple: The Pilgrims agreed to establish a colony in northern Virginia where they would plant crops, fish the waters and hunt in the forests. They would return a certain percentage of each years bounty to London until their debt had been repaid.
Things went wrong from the start. First, the syndicate changed the deal, drastically reducing the amount they would loan the Pilgrims. The brave adventurers were forced to sell many of their own possessions, and much of their provisions, to pay for the trip. As a result, they landed in the New World badly short of supplies.
Next, the small ship they had purchased in Holland, which was to accompany them to America so they could fish the waters off the coast, had to be abandoned in England.
Shortly after they set sail, the ship, badly misnamed the Speedwell, became "open and leakie as a sieve," as its captain reported. They returned to Dartmouth, where the boat was dry-docked for three weeks as repairs were made.
But to no avail. After leaving Dartmouth, the group sailed less than 300 miles when the captain decided the Speedwell "must bear up or sink at sea." This time the ships put in at Plymouth, England, where it was decided to go on without the Speedwell. On Sept. 16, 1620, the Mayflower set out alone to cross the Atlantic.
A month later, when they had reached the halfway point, fierce storms battered the ship and threatened the lives of passengers and crew. Many wanted to turn back for England. But if they abandoned the journey, they would lose everything they had invested. The Pilgrims decided to trust in God and sail on.
Despite the storms, the hazards, the crowding and the poor food, only one Pilgrim died during the voyage, a young servant. His death was balanced by the birth of a son to Stephen and Elizabeth Hopkins, who named their child Oceanus.
There were 102 passengers on board the Mayflower50 men, 20 women and 32 childrenalong with a crew of 40. The captain set a course along the 42nd parallel, a bearing that would carry him to Cape Cod. From there he intended to swing south and follow the coast to northern Virginia.
A little over two months later, on Nov. 19, land was finally sighted and the captain turned the ship south, toward Virginia. However, they soon encountered such "dangerous shoals and roaring breakers" that they turned back to Massachusetts. It was then that the grumblings of dissent turned into a full-fledged roar. Many of the passengers insisted on landing in Massachusetts, where "none had power to command them."
The Pilgrim leaders decided to meet the explosive situation by asking each male on board, except for the crew, to sign a formal document that would lay "the first foundation of their government in this place." Thus the Mayflower Compact was born.
The Pilgrims were a diverse lot. Many of them were illiterate. Yet in creating the Mayflower Compact they showed an extraordinary political maturity. They agreed to establish a government by the consent of the governed, with just and equal laws for all. Each adult male, regardless of his station in lifegentleman, commoner or servantwould have an equal vote in deciding the affairs of the colony. Of the 65 men and boys on board, all but 24 signed the agreement. The only ones who did not were the children of those adults who did sign, or men who were too sick to do so.
The first decision made under the covenant was to abandon efforts to reach Virginia and instead to settle in New England. The first explorers landed at Plymouth on Dec. 21, 1620.
Weather delays kept the majority from seeing their new home for nearly two weeks. On Jan. 2, 1621, work began on the first building they would erecta storehouse.
Because provisions were so scanty they decided that the land would be worked in common, produce would be owned in common, and goods would be rationed equally. Not unlike the society Karl Marx envisioned of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Unfortunately, thanks to illness, injury and attitude, the system did not work. Pilferage from the storehouse became common. Suspicions of malingering were muttered. Over the course of that first, harsh winter, nearly half of the colonists perished. Four families were wiped out completely; only five of 18 wives survived. Of the 29 single men, hired hands and servants, only 10 were alive when spring finally came.
The colonists struggled desperately for two more years. When spring arrived in April 1623, virtually all of their provisions were gone. Unless that years harvest improved, they feared few would survive the next winter. The Pilgrim leaders decided on a bold course. The colony would abandon its communal approach and permit each person to work for his own benefit, not for the common good.
Here is how the governor of the colony, William Bradford, explained what happened then. This is taken from his marvelously readable memoir (if you can make adjustments for the Old English spellings), History of Plimoth Plantation:
The experience that was had in this commone course and condition, tried sundrie years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanitie of that conceite of Plato & other ancients, applauded by some of later times;that ye taking away of properties, and bringing it in communitie into a commone wealth, would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God.
For this communitie (so farr as it was) was found to breed much confusion & discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefite and comforte. For yet young men that were most able and fitte for labor & services did repine that they should spend their time & strength to worke for other mens wives and children with out any recompense.
Once they replaced communal efforts with individual responsibility the differences were dramaticand life-saving. Men went into the fields earlier and stayed later. In many cases, their wives and even their children (some barely past the toddler stage) worked right alongside them. More acres were planted, more trees were felled, more houses were built, and more game was slaughtered because of one simple change: People were allowed to keep the fruits of their own labors.
The Pilgrims arrived deeply in debt to the London merchants who sponsored them. They worked for more than 20 years, as individuals and as a community, to pay off the crushing burden. In 1627, they borrowed money to pay off the Merchants Adventurers. By 1645, they had paid off the entire debt to the company which had advanced them the sums to pay off the Merchants.
When their debt had been paid in full (at the astronomical interest rate of 45 percent per year), the company that had advanced the sums wrote the Pilgrims:
Let it not be grievous to you, that you have been instruments to break the ice for others who come after with less difficulty. The honour shall be yours to the worlds end.
As we celebrate this coming Thanksgiving Day, some 380 years after the Pilgrims celebrated the first of this uniquely American holiday, let us remember the sacrifices they made the devotion they showed and the lessons they learned.
Poster: Brett
First and foremost, your understanding of capitalism and laissez faire are blurred.
Lets define terms,
Capitalism is traditionally defined as free enterprise, but that is NOT what exists in this country, nor is it what is referred to in your article. What you did describe was corpratism, a form of mercantilism, also a form of private enterprise system (fascism is an example of private enterprise) commonly miscalled capitalism today.
Free enterprise is laissez faire, no government involvement in the economy, no use of government power to concentrate wealth into government favored monopolies, no laws written to favor the "robber barrons". In a free enterprise system wealth and power does not get concentrated in a few hands, and when people tried to do so by buying out competitors to create Monopolies they failed usually in the 1st year.
People may paint socialism with a broad brush, but you painted capitalism with an even broader one. When no government exists, when there is anarchy, everything is done voluntarily. Maybe people will opperate like Christ and we may see a more socialist anarchy, but a non perfect people that do have self interest, will most likely opperate in an anarcho-capitalist society.
Lets define terms,
Capitalism is traditionally defined as free enterprise, but that is NOT what exists in this country, nor is it what is referred to in your article. What you did describe was corpratism, a form of mercantilism, also a form of private enterprise system (fascism is an example of private enterprise) commonly miscalled capitalism today.
Free enterprise is laissez faire, no government involvement in the economy, no use of government power to concentrate wealth into government favored monopolies, no laws written to favor the "robber barrons". In a free enterprise system wealth and power does not get concentrated in a few hands, and when people tried to do so by buying out competitors to create Monopolies they failed usually in the 1st year.
People may paint socialism with a broad brush, but you painted capitalism with an even broader one. When no government exists, when there is anarchy, everything is done voluntarily. Maybe people will opperate like Christ and we may see a more socialist anarchy, but a non perfect people that do have self interest, will most likely opperate in an anarcho-capitalist society.
Poster: Holden Caulfield
I'm a little confused about why people believe that they have less agency with
paying taxes than with paying tithing. Both are cause and consequence
propositions. Meaning, you choose to pay or not, and there are consequences for
that decision.
It must be either: They fear the consequences of man over the consequences of
God. Or, like way to many Christians, they think that being part of the 'right'
religious organization will somehow end up voiding the eternal consequences of
their actions.
And we can talk temporal politics all we want, but I've always felt that 'take care of
the poor' is a pretty clear mandate. And I'd hate to end up before God trying to find
some sort of loophole from a political platform to justify why I didn't actually end up
'take care of the poor'.
I'd also hate to stand at the judgment bar and bring up the argument, 'but I took the
sacrament every Sunday,' only to have it brought to my attention that I wasn't
worthy to do so, because I hadn't been doing everything I could to help the poor.
And so what if they use your taxes to help the homeless, jobless and hungry? So
what if some people take advantage of the system? Any bureaucracy (political or
religious) is going to misappropriate funds, is going to have some bloat and excess.
But that doesn't invalidate the overall point of having some sort of social
conscience to care for those that are in worse circumstances that all y'all.
Every time somebody asks me for change, I empty my pockets. I don't care what
they look like, or how they smell, or what excuse they give me for needing money.
And I'm sure that many if not most of them are probably spending that money
ineffectively. But I know I've helped somebody. I didn't deprive the one sorry guy
because of the others.
paying taxes than with paying tithing. Both are cause and consequence
propositions. Meaning, you choose to pay or not, and there are consequences for
that decision.
It must be either: They fear the consequences of man over the consequences of
God. Or, like way to many Christians, they think that being part of the 'right'
religious organization will somehow end up voiding the eternal consequences of
their actions.
And we can talk temporal politics all we want, but I've always felt that 'take care of
the poor' is a pretty clear mandate. And I'd hate to end up before God trying to find
some sort of loophole from a political platform to justify why I didn't actually end up
'take care of the poor'.
I'd also hate to stand at the judgment bar and bring up the argument, 'but I took the
sacrament every Sunday,' only to have it brought to my attention that I wasn't
worthy to do so, because I hadn't been doing everything I could to help the poor.
And so what if they use your taxes to help the homeless, jobless and hungry? So
what if some people take advantage of the system? Any bureaucracy (political or
religious) is going to misappropriate funds, is going to have some bloat and excess.
But that doesn't invalidate the overall point of having some sort of social
conscience to care for those that are in worse circumstances that all y'all.
Every time somebody asks me for change, I empty my pockets. I don't care what
they look like, or how they smell, or what excuse they give me for needing money.
And I'm sure that many if not most of them are probably spending that money
ineffectively. But I know I've helped somebody. I didn't deprive the one sorry guy
because of the others.
Poster: Nick Boyer
Thought you might be interested in the debate I've started with local Utah Free Capitalist celeb Rick Koerber. I used to listen to Rick and I remember him going on and on about how great Ayn Rand is and that she is in the Celestial Kingdom right now. I find that disgusting. So, I sent him an email on Facebook one night asking "How was Jesus Christ an example of the 'Virtue of Selfishness?'" and he wrote back in this long vague blog, questioning the altruism of the gospel and asking if Christ really was an altruist. Its disgusting and very exposing of what I think many conservative Mormons (and there are many) think of Ayn Rand and her writings on selfishness.
Here is the link- http://www.rickkoerber.com/2010/07/23/jesus -is-a-capitalist/615
Here is my link to my blogs about Ayn Rand on my Mormon blog-
http://notesfromamor mon.blogspot.com/2010/08/ayns-fai lure-dismantling-of- anti.html
http://notesfromamor mon.blogspot.com/2010/07/more-on- ayn-rands-philosophy .html
http://notesfromamor mon.blogspot.com/2010/07/ayn-rand -is-korihor-anti-chr ist-in-book.html
Here is the link- http://www.rickkoerber.com/2010/07/23/jesus -is-a-capitalist/615
Here is my link to my blogs about Ayn Rand on my Mormon blog-
http://notesfromamor mon.blogspot.com/2010/08/ayns-fai lure-dismantling-of- anti.html
http://notesfromamor mon.blogspot.com/2010/07/more-on- ayn-rands-philosophy .html
http://notesfromamor mon.blogspot.com/2010/07/ayn-rand -is-korihor-anti-chr ist-in-book.html
Poster: Dan
Almost 100‰ of the free market critiques I read are completely misguided. Treating corporatism/crony capitalism as if it were free-market economics is like calling the Pope a Muslim.
It would be great if we could alleviate world poverty, but it won't be done through government interventionism. It should be painfully obvious at this point in history, that the US politicians are more concerned with maintaining power, than solving problems.
General welfare may mean many things to many people, but our founders never intended on it meaning taking from one to enrich another (rich or poor). I sincerely want a better world, but let us remember that Christ didn't train his disciples to be IRS agents, he trained them to give as he gave - freely and voluntarily.
Love to discuss this further with anyone on this site. thefish103@hotmail.com
It would be great if we could alleviate world poverty, but it won't be done through government interventionism. It should be painfully obvious at this point in history, that the US politicians are more concerned with maintaining power, than solving problems.
General welfare may mean many things to many people, but our founders never intended on it meaning taking from one to enrich another (rich or poor). I sincerely want a better world, but let us remember that Christ didn't train his disciples to be IRS agents, he trained them to give as he gave - freely and voluntarily.
Love to discuss this further with anyone on this site. thefish103@hotmail.com