Bushman: "On Being Ill at Ease in the World"

[T-Shirt]

captialism without morality is dangerous.

Just as agency without morality is dangerous.

Best,

T-Shirt

[mercyngrace]

The key point here is individual excellence without a moral basis. I would agree that captialism without morality is dangerous. But I would also argue that capitalism with a moral basis in the community or culture is better than other systems. Because it is moral and efficient without coercion. To compel means to take away choice. Morality on the other hand "impels" or drives us internally. Adam Smith understood this in his book "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" which explained the need for a moral base.

I think Bushman understands Korihor but misunderstands capitalism.

I always understood that moral restraints in capitalism were unnecessary because, in the absence of true scarcity, demand would set controls. The problems occur with the injection of artificial scarcity (either corporate or government controls). Is it not self-interest that compels suppliers (in the absence of arbitrary government restraints) to meet the demands of consumers thus giving each a voice in price, quality, etc?

Economics isn't my strong suit so help me out if I am misunderstanding.

[Lightbearer]

While this is a popular idea in the Church, does a study of the first 70 years of Church history really support this claim?

And in what way was the United States (1830) different than Canada, Mexico, Australia, England, Germany, France, Spain, Brazil or Norway in a person's ability to start a new religion?

It had the U.S. Constitution and a people willing to fight and die for their freedom and liberty, do you think for one second that the Church could have existed in any of those nations and been able to go forth to all other nations without the freedom that we have enjoyed and now hangs by a thread? I know Ezra Taft Benson thought so:

(Ezra Taft Benson,

[Jeff K.]

I always understood that moral restraints in capitalism were unnecessary because, in the absence of true scarcity, demand would set controls. The problems occur with the injection of artificial scarcity (either corporate or government controls). Is it not self-interest that compels suppliers (in the absence of arbitrary government restraints) to meet the demands of consumers thus giving each a voice in price, quality, etc?

Economics isn't my strong suit so help me out if I am misunderstanding.

The people who told you that capitalism replaces moral virtue were wrong, and they haven't really studied capitalism or economics. You could direct them to read "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" which explains quite clearly why morality must be an integral part of capitalism. So on that count your friends are relatively unknowledgeable on the subject.

Artificial scarcity would need to be defined to properly discuss it. If you mean the natural occurance of artificial scarcity (ie copyrighted music) within a property rights system, then I would say the trade off would be innovation through the ideal of property rights (something Lehi and his sons understood). If you remove any semblence of artificial scarcity, then property rights cannot exist (something Laban understood - after all those boys were not going to be able to haul all that gold into the desert).

[hagoth7]

I enjoyed the article but found myself still feeling empty at the end....If his aim is merely to expose the dilemma we face and explain why we do not fit well into modern America - he's done that. But to what end?

Clarity is a helpful start.

Defining a problem is a first step towards viable solutions.

[hagoth7]

While reading Proudhon's book, What is Property, there were passages that induced very spiritual feelings for me and at times I felt as though dark scales were dropping from my eyes; as if I were beginning to see things a bit more clearly. But, hey, that's just me...

Can you provide a glimpse?

What was the main thrust of Proudhon's argument?

[hagoth7]

And in what way was the United States (1830) different than Canada, Mexico, Australia, England, Germany, France, Spain, Brazil or Norway in a person's ability to start a new religion?

In Norway (and Sweden), a layman preaching in 1830 would have been tossed into prison, by those nation's laws protecting the monopoly of the state church.

In the 19th century, Baptists, Mormons, and the like spent their share of time in prisons, or being exiled by the police to other countries.

[sethpayne]

That is what a Prophet of God thought of communism, and socialism is just communism on the installment plan. I believe in the liberty of this country and I am the enemy of those who would subvert it or try to overthrow it for a pestilent form of government that cannot produce the wealth required to establish Zion and to spread the Gospel to all nations.

ETB also thought that civil rights was part of a communist plot and urges us to read "None Dare Call it a Conspiracy" -- perhaps one of the looniest, anti-semitic, poorly researched, and absurd conspiracy theories every proposed.

I'm quite the proponent of capitalism but I am a proponent not on religious grounds. I think members of the Church would do well to ignore ETBs political rantings.

[Jeff K.]

Artificial Scarcity is an interesting concept that many people think is negative.

I would present a historical basis when artificial scarcity did not take place....

During the 1880's and early 1900's America developed a deep love for baseball. Alot of songs and poems were written. One not forgotten though is Earnest Lawrence Thayer's Casy at the Bat (1888). Now Thayer was an interesting person, from a rich family in the New England area, he had a great student career at Harvard. He edited the Lampoon and graduated magna cum laude. His parents expected great things, and he should have gone on to a great career. Instead he listened to his friend William Randolph Hearst and worked for the paper as a resident humorist.

Casy at the Bat was published June 3, 1888. It did not receive a great deal of acclaim and he was paid five dollars for the poem in the newspaper. Wiliam DeWolf Hopper however was about to give a performance to the New York Giants and Chicago "White Stockings". His friend gave him a clipping and he recited the story. It was a huge hit, so much so that Hopper did little more than go from performance to performance reciting the poem. By retirement, Hopper repeated the poem more than ten thousand times (his estimate). Thayer received no money for the performances. Was it fair? Or should artificial scarcity have been invoked?

Now for the intriguing question: Does the church create artificial scarcity when it requires we keep the commandments in order to enter the temple and do temple work. The means of production are certainly there "the temple". Consumer use would probably increase substantially, so product, means of production, and consumer would all be in sync. Does this then meet the terms of artificial scarcity? Or is more involved?

I will leave those thoughts to others here.

Maybe.

[Calm]

However, I recall that GBH taught that a priesthood man's first priority was to his employer, then his family, then his calling.

I would be very interested in this quote.

[Brade]

I don't really understand how you would define "socially acceptable market price" since it infers a type of price control that is not judged by the individual but by the "government" or "governing entity". Niether of which has a good track record in regard to providing for the people. The market normally is a reflection of individual choices which drive market price, not "socially acceptable market prices" which, if I interpret correctly, are designated by some sort of governing body.

I don't think "socially acceptable market price" implies state price control and I certainly didn't mean it that way. I probably could have just said "market price" instead of adding the extra words "socially" and "acceptable" since the idea I'm trying to convey is that of a fair price that a commodity is sold for at market. My point was simply that taking capitalism at it's word and assuming that nobody is cheating or playing dirty in the marketplace, the way that capitalists generate wealth is by commodities that cost less value at market, according to their fair market price, than the value such commodities can produce. One such commodity is human labor, and I was trying to get at the idea that that is a necessary part of the production of capital. Human labor is a commodity that can be bought at market which costs less at market and in maintenance than the value it generates. Without that sort of commodity, fairly purchased at market, surplus value cannot be generated, and thus, capitalism would not work.

The key point here is individual excellence without a moral basis. I would agree that captialism without morality is dangerous. But I would also argue that capitalism with a moral basis in the community or culture is better than other systems. Because it is moral and efficient without coercion. To compel means to take away choice. Morality on the other hand "impels" or drives us internally. Adam Smith understood this in his book "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" which explained the need for a moral base.

There's a big question about whether capitalism is coercive by nature and that question revolves around first appropriation. Imagine that God creates a planet and intends to populate it with 10 people. The planet has enough resource producing units (whatever those are; for example, land) to provide the necessities of comfortable life for 10 people. Work must be done to extract the necessities of comfortable life from resource producing units. Now imagine that 2 of the 10 own all 10 resource producing units. Only one resource producing unit is needed to facilitate the comfortable life of a single individual, and a single person cannot work on more than one unit at a time, thus the 2 that own all the resources have all that they need, plus they own more than what they need. Without resources, the remaining 8 will die. The 2 individuals that own everything are willing to allow the remaining bunch access to their property on the condition that they work to produce more resources than they each need, and thus provide for themselves and for the 2 that own the resources. The 2 owners, therefore, no longer need to work to provide resources for themselves. It seems that the remaining 8 are coerced in working more than they need to because the 2 own everything.

The question is, assuming that God intended that all 10 people have the means to provide for themselves, how did it come to be that a small minority of the population had ownership in the majority of the resources? Is their ownership legitimate? Do they have a natural right to own more than they need? If there is a natural right to own more than one needs, how does one come to own more than one needs?

Capitalism assumes at the outset certain notions of ownership and property rights and protects those notions by state force. One question is whether those notions are correct to begin with.

[cinepro]

In Norway (and Sweden), a layman preaching in 1830 would have been tossed into prison, by those nation's laws protecting the monopoly of the state church.

In the 19th century, Baptists, Mormons, and the like spent their share of time in prisons, or being exiled by the police to other countries.

Yeah, that's totally different than what happened to the Church in the USA.

[hagoth7]

Yeah, that's totally different than what happened to the Church in the USA.

Funny. I concede the point.

[mercyngrace]

The people who told you that capitalism replaces moral virtue were wrong, and they haven't really studied capitalism or economics. You could direct them to read "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" which explains quite clearly why morality must be an integral part of capitalism. So on that count your friends are relatively unknowledgeable on the subject.

Artificial scarcity would need to be defined to properly discuss it. If you mean the natural occurance of artificial scarcity (ie copyrighted music) within a property rights system, then I would say the trade off would be innovation through the ideal of property rights (something Lehi and his sons understood). If you remove any semblence of artificial scarcity, then property rights cannot exist (something Laban understood - after all those boys were not going to be able to haul all that gold into the desert).

Not so much friends but college professors ;-) Still, they weren't economists either and most of them were social historians addressing other topics like how the bicycle changed Europe or whether African Americans were still enslaved by an increasingly oppressive white middle class. I don't think I had a single professor that taught economics with anything more than a cursory mention. But I did come away with the distinct impression that self-interest was the moral (for lack of a better description) restraint of capitalism. It certainly could have been my misunderstanding but here are Smith's own words from Wealth of Nations.

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

and again

The natural effort of every individual to better his own condition...is so powerful, that it is alone, and without any assistance, not only capable of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity, but of surmounting a hundred impertinent obstructions with which the folly of human laws too often encumbers its operations.

and finally

Every individual... neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it... he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.

I definitely need to read The Theory of Moral Sentiments as it seems he addresses morality more in that book and economics is much more meaningful to me as an adult than it was when I was in college and my folks were paying for everything ;-) Just to clarify, I wasn't saying that Smith saw capitalism as amoral but that he saw it as inherently moral through rational self-interest (see the third quote above).

[volgadon]

Yeah, that's totally different than what happened to the Church in the USA.

There is a difference between individual actions and state policy. When it is state policy, things are worse. One of my ancestors was jailed in Norway for preaching.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I found a pair of nifty Brigham Young quotes in Arrington and Bitton's the Mormon Experience, talking about the first year in the Salt Lake Valley.

I am not sure how to take this reference. I agree with BY that we should do it becuase we want to. It seems that often times when ever any type of socialist policy is introduced it is a slippry slope from choosing to being forced.

[annewandering]

Your opinion seems right on to me. Until we have a perfect government headed by Christ they will all fall far short. We do the best we can and argue forever because we are just imperfect mortals. Still its worth trying.

[Lightbearer]

ETB also thought that civil rights was part of a communist plot and urges us to read "None Dare Call it a Conspiracy" -- perhaps one of the looniest, anti-semitic, poorly researched, and absurd conspiracy theories every proposed.

I'm quite the proponent of capitalism but I am a proponent not on religious grounds. I think members of the Church would do well to ignore ETBs political rantings.

Actually I prefer the book "An Enemy hath done this" by ETB for "political rantings". But the quote I provided was from a General Conference talk, you can try to marginalize his voice and try to drag through the mud a prophet of God with your ad hominids all you want but the truth is communism and socialism were and are the greatest threats to the freedom of all nations the world has ever seen.

[volgadon]

I am not sure how to take this reference. I agree with BY that we should do it becuase we want to. It seems that often times when ever any type of socialist policy is introduced it is a slippry slope from choosing to being forced.

It pays to look at the historical context. Times were dire. Letting everyone go their own way would not have worked.

This quote makes an excellent counter-point to anyone who considers Ezra Taft Benson's politics as doctrinal.

[Ray Agostini]

Bushman wrote:

Asked how he would reply when God confronted him after death with his failure to believe, Bertrand Russell is reputed to have answered: Not enough evidence.

Bushman wrote:

And if scientific agnostics find God and the resurrection of Christ totally unsubstantiated, what about angels, gold plates, and unlearned translation of ancient texts? Mormonism is the extreme example of the imaginary religious fabrications that agnostic scientists find laughable and even repugnant. Hume

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It pays to look at the historical context. Times were dire. Letting everyone go their own way would not have worked.

This quote makes an excellent counter-point to anyone who considers Ezra Taft Benson's politics as doctrinal.

Very well, I agree, but what if some one does want to help, then what? Not everybody is LDS you know, and don't have the same view points we do. Do we force them to do it because we know better?

I have found the only thing you can truley do is educate people and inform them. Hopefully they will make the best choice. But even then they still have agency.

Any way take care.

[volgadon]

Though some things like second Isaiah are really just fashionable academic opinions.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Your opinion seems right on to me. Until we have a perfect government headed by Christ they will all fall far short. We do the best we can and argue forever because we are just imperfect mortals. Still its worth trying.

I actually agree with this quite a bit.

[thesometimesaint]

Mercyngrace:

I believe the term you are looking for is "Enlightened Self Interest".

The discussion then quickly becomes what is "Enlightened" as opposed to simple greed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest

[Jeff K.]

I don't think "socially acceptable market price" implies state price control and I certainly didn't mean it that way. I probably could have just said "market price" instead of adding the extra words "socially" and "acceptable" since the idea I'm trying to convey is that of a fair price that a commodity is sold for at market. My point was simply that taking capitalism at it's word and assuming that nobody is cheating or playing dirty in the marketplace, the way that capitalists generate wealth is by commodities that cost less value at market, according to their fair market price, than the value such commodities can produce. One such commodity is human labor, and I was trying to get at the idea that that is a necessary part of the production of capital. Human labor is a commodity that can be bought at market which costs less at market and in maintenance than the value it generates. Without that sort of commodity, fairly purchased at market, surplus value cannot be generated, and thus, capitalism would not work.

Market price does make more sense. Thank you. I do not think your context regarding generating wealth is quite correct. Production (which is more than simply assembly but includes a myriad of other elements), also deals with synergy, in which individual efforts, combined properly will create greater output. During the early part of this century there were literally hundreds of car companies, people making cars one at a time. Ford introduced the assembly line and with less people than many of these other groups, was able to out perform the other companies to the point where they were almost bankrupt. The coup de grace was the 8 hour day which killed employment competition by most of the other firms and reduced automobile firms to a small handful. Profit was still made and surplus value was generated.

Would Lehi be a trader if he had no ability to produce surplus value? Did the Lord call upon him to refute such a nasty business as trade?

There's a big question about whether capitalism is coercive by nature and that question revolves around first appropriation. Imagine that God creates a planet and intends to populate it with 10 people. The planet has enough resource producing units (whatever those are; for example, land) to provide the necessities of comfortable life for 10 people. Work must be done to extract the necessities of comfortable life from resource producing units. Now imagine that 2 of the 10 own all 10 resource producing units. Only one resource producing unit is needed to facilitate the comfortable life of a single individual, and a single person cannot work on more than one unit at a time, thus the 2 that own all the resources have all that they need, plus they own more than what they need. Without resources, the remaining 8 will die. The 2 individuals that own everything are willing to allow the remaining bunch access to their property on the condition that they work to produce more resources than they each need, and thus provide for themselves and for the 2 that own the resources. The 2 owners, therefore, no longer need to work to provide resources for themselves. It seems that the remaining 8 are coerced in working more than they need to because the 2 own everything.

The question is, assuming that God intended that all 10 people have the means to provide for themselves, how did it come to be that a small minority of the population had ownership in the majority of the resources? Is their ownership legitimate? Do they have a natural right to own more than they need? If there is a natural right to own more than one needs, how does one come to own more than one needs?

Capitalism assumes at the outset certain notions of ownership and property rights and protects those notions by state force. One question is whether those notions are correct to begin with.

I don't think there is a big question as to whether capitalism is coercive in nature. Especially given its embrace in Eastern European nations which were denied that "coercion" for decades. I would say the idea of coercion in capitalism exists perhaps in some academic circles, it is a way that some academics I know comfort themselves when the alternative has shown itself to be less desired by the people in general.

You example regarding the resources is somewhat flawed in that it assumes I feel that capitalism exists without morality, when in fact I believe that morality must exist, as it must with any system. If you were to apply socialism to the model you proposed the same scenario without morality would come about. Simply call the two who control production "aparatchik".

Property rights are important and capitalism presumes ownership. But just as you can go to prison for beating a dog, you own, or dumping poison into a river that runs through your property, so too does abuse of ownership face restrictions under morality codified into law.