All Activity

So you aren't opposed to government coercion, but rather only against unchecked government coercion? Effectively, yes. A state must exercise force when enforcing laws. A recent example: See, I think the police officer properly exercised coercive force against the assailant. The Police Power is a necessary component of the State and our constitutional order. Fortunately, it operates within constraints. Thanks, -Smac

I think this is the bait and switch though, isn't it? This is indeed a fine definition of socialism. But there are very few people advocating for this. Oddly, I think "bait and switch" explains what is going on. See also Motte and Bailey. Many (most?) people advocating for "Socialism" are, I think, intending to convey the sine qua non idea noted above. But they don't want to actually say that, as it almost immediately sounds creepy and authoritarian. So we get evasions and equivocations and bright and airy and cheerful characterizations of Socialism to get it implemented. The compulsory element is what happens after the changeover. Yes, the distinction matters, and the conflation is common. The definition I am using—compulsory replacement of private ownership of the means of production and market allocation with collective or state ownership and central direction—is the one that corresponds to the historical program that produced the large-scale violence and one-party systems we have been discussing. It is also the definition that still appears in the platforms and self-descriptions of parties and movements that call themselves socialist or communist in the classical sense. Social democracy, by contrast, accepts private ownership of most productive assets, market allocation, and constitutional multi-party competition, while favoring higher taxation, broader regulation, and a larger welfare state. That is a different program. It does not require the abolition of the private-property foundation of a constitutional order, and it has not historically required revolutionary violence or one-party rule. Again, the bait-and-switch problem runs in both directions: Critics sometimes apply the classical definition to people who are only advocating higher taxes and more regulation inside a market system. Advocates sometimes use the milder and cheerier language of “social democracy,” “democratic socialism,” or simply “socialism” while retaining the classical goal of socializing major sectors or treating private ownership as illegitimate in principle. When the same speaker or organization moves between the two without clear demarcation, observers reasonably ask which program is actually intended. And the likely answer is Motte and Bailey. Bait and switch. I am not claiming every person who favors a stronger safety net or higher marginal tax rates is pursuing the abolition of private ownership. I am claiming that when the stated or practiced objective is that abolition, the requirement for compulsion reappears, and that this objective is still actively advanced under the socialist label by some parties, intellectuals, and governments. The practical question in any given case is which of the two programs is being proposed, not whether the labels are sometimes used loosely. Thanks, -Smac

So you aren't opposed to government coercion, but rather only against unchecked government coercion?

I think this is the bait and switch though, isn't it? This is indeed a fine definition of socialism. But there are very few people advocating for this. Rather more common is advocacy for social democracy, which at it's base maintains a capitalistic system while pushing a stronger regulatory framework, higher taxes and a stronger social safety network. So it seems pretty common for me to see people define socialism as you do, and then label advocates of social democracy as socialists. Do you see that too?

Sailing in the Mediterranean every summer comes pretty close to your heaven. And I agree completely. It is heaven here on earth.

Can't this describe every government action? Speeding laws. Drunk driving enforcement. Removing immigrants from the country. Income and property taxes. Everything any government does comes down to the threat and eventual use of violence. That is a fair and reasonable question. Here are my thoughts, and I would like to hear more of yours. Ordinary government coercion as seen in the U.S. (speed limits, drunk-driving laws, tax collection, border enforcement) operates inside a constitutional framework that imposes material constraints on the use of coercive means. That framework still leaves the bulk of productive property in private hands and allows individuals to buy, sell, work, invest, and exit under generally known rules. Locke's "Life, Liberty and Property" has a strong presence in the Constitution. State force is further constrained by constitutional limits on what the state may take, how it may take it, and what procedural protections apply. The threat of force enforces rules within that system; it does not abolish the system itself. Socialism, in the sense I am using the term, has a different sine qua non: the compulsory replacement of private ownership of the means of production and market allocation with collective or state ownership and central direction. That is not a marginal regulation of an existing constitutional order; it is the abolition of the private-property foundation that the constitutional order presupposes. Human nature must, I think, be taken into account. America has traditionally been called the "Land of Opportunity." That opportunity requires the individual to have some assurance that he can work hard and get ahead and (mostly) keep the fruits of his labors, and not have it compulsorily taken away from him and redistributed to others. The people who currently own factories, farms, shops, and capital, and the people who prefer to make their own economic decisions, do not, as a rule, voluntarily surrender those things on a society-wide scale. The gap between what the program requires and what people will freely give is closed by expropriation, prohibition of private trade, suppression of exit, and the criminalization of independent economic activity—measures that cannot be squared with constitutional protections for property, contract, and due process without effectively suspending those protections. That is why every historical attempt to carry out Socialism has required sustained, large-scale political violence and one-party control, while ordinary regulatory and tax states operating under constitutional constraints have not. The difference is not the mere presence of coercion; it is the scope and purpose of the coercion—whether it enforces rules inside a constitutionally limited system of private property or whether it is used to eliminate that system. USSR. China. Cambodia. Eastern Europe. North Korea. Cuba. Venezuela. The examples of socialism as a failed experiment are extensive, and the human cost has been terrible. In contrast, constitutional republics that protect, rather than appropriate, private property, enforce contracts, and allow market allocation (the United States, post-war West Germany, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Nordic countries in their more market-oriented phases, etc.) have produced higher average living standards, longer life expectancy, greater technological innovation, and more durable political competition than the systems that attempted society-wide replacement of private ownership with state or collective direction. Thanks, -Smac

I retract my statement. 😁

I agree. How does that work with your statement "Odd that that Jesus never said one word about abortion. Not while alive. Not in an canonized modern revelation."? D&C 59:6 is presented in a "saith the Lord" context (see verse 1). I have more or less the same stance. I think Dobbs was correctly decided, and I think those opposed to abortion need to focus on a "persuading the hearts and minds" approach as much as, or more than, legislative remedies. That's understandable. And not just with candidates, but with political parties and platforms. A lot of nose-holding going on these days. Thanks, -Smac

Can't this describe every government action? Speeding laws. Drunk driving enforcement. Removing immigrants from the country. Income and property taxes. Everything any government does comes down to the threat and eventual use of violence.

Certainly the passage can be extrapolated to include abortion. I really do not want to wade into an abortion debate. Personally, I oppose abortion and think the stand the church has is reasonable. As my politics have trended more liberal over the years I have struggled to reconcile my view on abortion with my support for more liberal candidates on the issue. My only reconciling factor is that the current GOP and their filed of candidates so repugnant that I have to hold my nose on the liberal candidates abortion provisions.

I am glad we agree on that. What are your thoughts about how these terms are being used in today's American discourse? Nehor uses both of these terms a lot, a lot, but he notably never defines them (I am open to correction on this point). I think this is because he is not using them in a "tightly defined" sense or "for the correct political ideology," but rather for their emotive and pejorative effects. What do you think? Nehor uses "nazi" fairly frequently, though not as much as "fascist" these days. See, e.g., here, here, here, here, Couldn’t have said it better myself. here (referring to Sen. Mike Lee) : And so on. I think the vast majority of "nazi" and "fascist" usage is straight-up unreasoned demagoguery. If I'm wrong, I'd like to see the reasoning used to get there. I think it is. Two main reasons for this: First, I think Socialism is "inherently violent" because its sine qua non tenet is to replace private ownership and market allocation with collective or state ownership and central direction. I don't think that can be done without the threat and eventual use of violence. Socialism requires the compulsory transfer of productive assets (land, factories, capital) from their existing owners and the suppression of independent economic decision-making. Most people who currently own or control those assets do not voluntarily surrender them. Most people who prefer to work, invest, or trade on their own terms do not voluntarily accept permanent direction by a planning authority. Therefore the transition and the maintenance of the new system both depend on the credible threat of force. Second, historical practices make the foregoing point manifest: Collectivization of agriculture in the USSR, China, and elsewhere was enforced by confiscation, deportation, and lethal coercion against peasants who resisted. Nationalization of industry was accompanied by the elimination of independent unions, the banning of opposition parties, and the criminalization of “speculation” or private trade. Once established, the system required ongoing repression (secret police, internal passports, labor camps, border controls) to prevent exit, black markets, and political challenge. Where that repression was relaxed, the economic and political structures quickly unraveled. Social-democratic welfare states avoid this problem by leaving the bulk of productive assets in private hands and operating inside competitive elections and the rule of law. They redistribute through taxation and regulation rather than through the abolition of private ownership (and taxation and regulation are effective because noncompliance is threatened with force and, ultimately, violence). That is why they have not needed revolutionary violence or one-party dictatorship. The moment the goal shifts from redistribution inside a market order to the replacement of that order, the requirement for compulsion reappears. In short, voluntary socialism on a society-wide scale has not been achieved because the number of people willing to surrender their property and autonomy is never large enough. The shortfall has always been made up by force. Thanks, -Smac

Excellent suggestion, and yes. I've done extensive DBT, MBCT and CBT. Incredible tools. Never really seems to have had much impact on my hobbies though (and the inevitable transition from obsession to apathy). Then again, that was never a stated goal that we were working towards, so might be worth bringing up next time I do a round of therapy, and have it as a goal.

"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it." Doctrine and Covenants 59:6. Spencer W. Kimball linked this passage to abortion at least three times. From then-Elder Nelson in 2008: Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless Do you think the D&C passage can reasonably be construed as referencing abortion (perhaps among other things)? Thanks, -Smac

‘Native American angels’: The Chosen teaser sparks fierce debate over Jesus scene So what is the teaser? This: Screen caps: Images from the article: Wow. It looks like there are three angelic warriors, a Native American man with a bow, an East Asian man with a sword, and an African woman with a spear. Has the Church or any of its members of an artistic/literary bent previously characterized/imagined an angel as looking Native American? Apparently so: From this website: The robe, belt, and headband convey Mayan culture as understood from the era the statue was sculpted. Back to the article: Interesting. I only interpreted the bow-wielding figure as "inspired by Indigenous American cultures." The other two looked to be from Africa and East Asia. Thoughts? Thoughts? The moving image is a different storytelling medium from text. Referencing Matthew 26:53-54 seems to be a likely explanation. Perhaps also a foreshadowing of Luke 22:43, when Jesus was in Gethsemane: “And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.” I think this link is fairly weak, as there are three angels, each from a different area of the world. If the Native American warrior is coded to allude to The Book of Mormon, then what is the code behind the East Asian man and the African woman? I think Dallas was trying to signal the universal nature of Christ's Atonement and divine mission. Thoughts? -Smac

Vote by mail has to be the best thing ever. Haven’t waited in a poll line in years!

Since some here might be as easily distractable as I am, posting this before I forget about it until it is too late!

Advice to be kinder? Absolutely necessary. More christlike behavior is a crucial necessary daily pursuit of which most of us fall short. Anonymity has simply allowed the deeper flawed self to be exposed. We should probably look deeper.

Forgive me for retrogressing, but I prefer to use scriptural definitions for various principles. The definition of faith has already been given in several posts. Faith is a principle of action. It is a virtue like Hope and Charity: These three principles or virtues bring the "fountain of all righteousness." They are in operation throughout our progression. In one instance it says that you have to first have hope (verse 40) and, then it says that without faith there cannot be any hope. So, which comes first hope or faith? Don't get caught in the sequential trap. These virtues aren't sequential. They are of different dimensions. We can sometimes understand things by their opposites: (Note: Intellectual refers to the "mind" and Emotional refers to the "heart.") By inspection we see that a Faith is of the mind and is just as much a principle of action as it's opposite: Fear. Hope is of the Heart because it's component is Care. Now to use the scriptural definition of Truth: Truth is a correct knowledge of things in the present, past, and future. Please note that Faith is vain and fruitless if it operates on anything but Truth. By symmetry, Knowledge is gained by diligence and Intelligence is gained by obedience. Obedience is in accordance to the knowledge gained. Intelligence is the Light of Truth. (A conscious awareness of internal and external things in the time domain.) Therefore, What? It seems to me that truth has to be a static, not dynamic, thing that would not change in the sphere that it is placed in. So, Faith that is based on Truth is no longer Faith, but Knowledge. The proper application of that Knowledge is Intelligence. The proper application of Intelligence is Wisdom.

Like, I presume, many people, have regretted things that I have said, and also done, while younger. However, with age, comes a better understanding and knowledge. The things that I have said and done while younger, I try and turn from a regret, into a lesson learned.

So… ICE?

I agree that Fascist and Nazi should be tightly defined and used for the correct political ideology. It is extreme enough it needs to be precisely used so it can used for an effective warning***. I did not like it when I noticed Nazi started to be used in a humorous way (soup Nazi which mainstreamed the usage iirc, grammar Nazi, etc) and I still don’t. I see a related*** problem with term “socialist”, though that it is typically misapplied too broadly in politics in my experience….though maybe I am just out of the humor loop these days. In the US it is pretty meaningless, just tells me the other thinks the person is too liberal. ***I don’t think “socialist” is inherently problematic as an ideology, unlike fascism. Socialism is not inherently violent for one thing. So I see it should be kept precise for informational purposes in political dialogue, not because we need warnings against signs of it, though it can go too far just like capitalism.

When I stop seeing people misunderstanding something someone said or did, and mobs attack them because of that misunderstanding and ruin their lives, maybe I will worry less about people knowing who I am. When I can be in another country and ask about where I can find such and such or how to do ____ without worrying that someone will rob my house while I'm gone then I'll think about not being anonymous. When I don't have to worry about what people will do to my loved ones or me because I advocate for refugees and other immigrants, then I will consider not being anonymous. I read through the transcript on YouTube, and it seems to me that he is less worried about actually being anonymous and more worried about how being anonymous may tempt you to be unkind and cruel. I try to be the same person I am online as I am offline. I try to be kind. I try to love friend and foe. I try to be empathetic. I understand that isn't the case for everyone. Until I feel safer communicating online, I'm always going to take some measures of anonymity. I'm aware that people will be able to figure out who I am anyway, but I hope that the measures I take can reduce how many people try.

My first response was thinking he is not female. Probably never homeless, etc. I wondered if he considered the other side of life and figured it wasn’t likely to be relevant to his audience, who demographically are more likely well off I believe. I do think avoiding anonymity would be best if one could trust those in power, but I prefer the teaching of acting morally no matter if someone knows who you are or not. I get that we are more likely to be civil if we know we can get in trouble if we are not, but if that’s the reason we allow ourselves to cross lines, we are in need of moral and emotional maturity. What if the Ku Klux Khan are the ones in power with access to one’s personal info? I worry about minorities—which LDS members are in most places—and any others not particularly welcomed in China and Russia. Not happy with some stuff going on in the US right now as well. In Canada, my husband had a couple of students had changed their names, the ultimate anonymity, so they can join the Church….with the approval of the First Presidency. We are much more likely to be able to change our own behaviour rather than others. Perhaps that is why he focused on the individual a the potential abuser rather than then a potential victim.

A few direct answers: On Nehor and Charlie Kirk: Nehor did not explicitly endorse the killing (he never said “yes, it was justified” or “someone should have done it”). When asked directly whether he endorsed shooting a different person he had labeled a fascist, he answered “Do I endorse shooting the guy? No.” What he did say about Kirk: He called Kirk a fascist (“cut from the same cloth” as the person he said “needs to be punched in the face”). When asked if Kirk “had it coming,” he replied: “Live by the gun, die by the gun.” He stated: “I do find it somewhat satisfying that a staunch opponent of gun control got shot that time instead of some school kid. In that sense he was much more deserving of it happening. Not fully deserved but more than a lot of the actual victims his rhetoric perpetuates. . . . I do not mourn his death. Nothing of value was lost.” Nehor’s position is one of non-mourning and partial satisfaction that Kirk was the victim rather than others, coupled with the view that Kirk’s own rhetoric made him more “deserving” of being shot than some other people. He stops short of saying the murder itself was morally right or that he endorses it, and he has elsewhere preferred non-lethal violence (punching) over killing because the latter risks creating a martyr. The overall tone is that Kirk’s death was not a loss and was, in his view, more deserved than many other gun deaths. On the moral constraint: Yes, there is a moral constraint against killing ideological opponents outside of a recognized state of war between nation-states, and even then only by lawful combatants under the laws of war. Killing a civilian political commentator, activist, or elected official because someone has decided to label him a “fascist” is murder, not legitimate resistance. The fact that fascist regimes of the 1930s–40s committed mass murder does not license private individuals in 2026 to apply that label to domestic political opponents and treat them as legitimate targets. On the hypothetical about me: If someone took a position I hold and treated it as evidence that I therefore support assassination or other extreme violence associated with people who share that position, I would call it a bad-faith inference. Agreement on one or more issues does not equal endorsement of every method or outcome associated with other people who hold that issue. That is the same standard I am applying here. Nehor’s endorsement of killing actual fascists in an actual war does not, by itself, mean he endorses killing people labeled “fascists” today. It does, however, make the imprecise use of the label consequential, because others are already using it that way. On wartime assassinations: I would not "celebrate" the assassination of Hitler or his high command by a private resistance member if it occurred outside the framework of the ongoing war between states. Within that war, the killing of enemy combatants and the leadership of a regime that had initiated aggressive war and was committing mass murder was treated as legitimate under the laws of war. The distinction is the existence of a formal, recognized armed conflict between states, not a private determination that someone is an ideological enemy. On bin Laden and al-Zarqawi: I do not disapprove of those operations. Both were enemy combatants (or leaders of organizations engaged in ongoing armed attacks against the United States and its allies) targeted in the context of an authorized armed conflict. That is different from a private citizen deciding, unilaterally and arbitrarily, that a domestic political figure (or even a private citizen like Charlie Kirk) is a “fascist” and therefore a legitimate target for assassination. The practical problem remains the same: once “fascist” (or “nazi”) becomes a free-floating epithet that anyone can apply to anyone, and once that epithet is treated as sufficient justification for violence, the distinction between wartime military necessity and peacetime political murder collapses. I am troubled by that. Thanks, -Smac