Mormonism and the United Firm

[Ahab]

I have read your posts in this thread with interest, and I have done some thinking about it; and I don

[mfbukowski]

So the church pays for my vacation to Greece or a trip to Mickey Dees?

I really think I could use a new shotgun, and then there's that iphone that just came out....

And in case of emergency I really should have a good ham radio instead of the junky one I have now.

If it is going somewhere else, it is not going to the church.

Who pays for fun and recreation, date nights and birthday presents?

(I have kind of always agreed with the JW's on that last one anyway)

"Bishop, I really need to take my wife out for a steak dinner because....."

If someone is eating only cracked wheat and beans, should I have hamburger? Who decides that?

[mercyngrace]

Mercy

But I thought we were talking about a change here......!

For many people that would be a radical change.

The law is suupposed to be written on the fleshy tables of the heart not sealed by a notary and registered at town hall.

[Ahab]

So the church pays for my vacation to Greece or a trip to Mickey Dees?

I really think I could use a new shotgun, and then there's that iphone that just came out....

And in case of emergency I really should have a good ham radio instead of the junky one I have now.

If it is going somewhere else, it is not going to the church.

Who pays for fun and recreation, date nights and birthday presents?

(I have kind of always agreed with the JW's on that last one anyway)

"Bishop, I really need to take my wife out for a steak dinner because....."

If someone is eating only cracked wheat and beans, should I have hamburger? Who decides that?

It's much easier for some people to fork over some "money" rather than simply asking someone to do something for them, isn't it.

Some people just have way too much pride to accept any form of Charity, and that's sad, because Charity is the most perfect basis for establishing and building up any society.

[wenglund]

[mercyngrace]

... Who decides that?

You do. The people who commit to live this law will be those prepared and willing to live it. These are they whose hearts are not set upon the things of this world. For them, the only accounting necessary is with the Lord. It could be handled much in the same manner as tithing settlement.

Remember the scriptures say there were no poor among Zion. There was plenty of wickedness, selfishness, and poverty outside of Zion. Only those who commit to live the law will benefit from the society.

Verily I say unto you, it shall come to pass that all those who gather unto the land of Zion shall be tithed of their surplus properties, and shall observe this law, or they shall not be found worthy to abide among you. D&C 119:5

And the benefits shall be consecrated unto the inhabitants of Zion, and unto their generations, inasmuch as they become heirs according to the laws of the kingdom. D&C 70:8

Over time, all those who are righteous will come unto Zion.

And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. Is. 2:3

[wenglund]

So the church pays for my vacation to Greece or a trip to Mickey Dees?

And, if money is eliminated, how will that trip be paid for? (I can only imagine how many sacks of carrots you would need to take with you--assuming the good folks in the airline, hotel, restaraunt, taxi, and tourist shops can use your sacks of carrots.

Or, will the good folks in Greece provide you with your dream vacation as an act of charity?

Maybe, since some people here seem to assume that we will be reverting back to an agrarian society, you can sail to Greece on a remake of the Nina or Pinta or Santa Maria. I am sure you wuoldn't mind the month or so it will take sailing around the Cape of Good Hope in cramped quarters along with the livestock and sleeping in hammocks.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mercyngrace]

So the church pays for my vacation to Greece or a trip to Mickey Dees?

What if I told you that I was raising my children alone and that they don't get enough to eat. What if I told you that we're doing the best we can but it isn't enough. What if it were me in need, Mark?

Would Greece still seem important? Would a steak dinner taste as good?

The point I'm trying to make is that this law is about love. It's the height of the two great commandments. Until we have pure hearts filled with pure love, we won't have the privilege of living this law and until we love each other enough to live this law un begrudgingly, we are unworthy to walk with God.

[Ahab]

And, if money is eliminated, how will that trip be paid for? (I can only imagine how many sacks of carrots you would need to take with you--assuming the good folks in the airline, hotel, restaraunt, taxi, and tourist shops can use your sacks of carrots.

Or, will the good folks in Greece provide you with your dream vacation as an act of charity?

Maybe, since some people here seem to assume that we will be reverting back to an agrarian society, you can sail to Greece on a remake of the Nina or Pinta or Santa Maria. I am sure you wuoldn't mind the month or so it will take sailing around the Cape of Good Hope in cramped quarters along with the livestock and sleeping in hammocks.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Remember, everyone who accepts the law of consecration will at some point be giving all of their possessions to the collective whole of Zion, and there are more than a few of us who have some jet airplanes who could fly someone to Greece. And then once you're over there, you'll be able to live with someone who lives in Greece, either while they're still there or while they're also away on one of their own vacations.

It will basically be the same as how the richest of people live now, only better, and with no need to give anyone any money.

I think some people get stuck on the idea because, for some reason, they think nobody in Zion will need to do any more work, as if there will be some other servants in Zion who will do all of the work, but that isn't how it has been explained to us. All of us will still do some kind of work, or in other words, all of us will still provide some type of service, even in Zion, and what some people think of as the "really hard work" will be exactly the type of work that others will actually enjoy doing.

Personally, I'd like to be a farmer, with a lot of land and with all kinds of plants to take care of, including plants for food and for lumber and for just making places look pretty. Some others in Zion will probably think that is too much work, or maybe they would just rather do something else with their time, but for me that would be a wonderful life and I could probably go on doing all of that forever. And, yes, if you would like to come over and help me, I would welcome both your help and your fellowship as we work together, and you could even have your own farm house on some other part of the property.

[wenglund]

Remember, everyone who accepts the law of consecration will at some point be giving all of their possessions to the collective whole of Zion, and there are more than a few of us who have some jet airplanes who could fly someone to Greece.

That sounds great except that there may be no pilots, or too few pilots, to fly the jets since the pilots may decided that it is more rewarding for them to do geneology and temple work. Same may go for the jet fuel suppliers and the airplane maintenace people. (Here is where we start to see the allocation issue raising its ugly head)

And, then there are those who currently have substantial assests in monitary instraments (currency, money-markets, bank accounts, etc.). When they consecrate those assest to a non-monetary system, their assest suddenly become worthless. Right?

I guess I am just struggling to see the advantage in de-monitizing things.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

That sounds great except that there may be no pilots, or too few pilots, to fly the jets since the pilots may decided that it is more rewarding for them to do geneology and temple work. Same may go for the jet fuel suppliers and the airplane maintenace people. (Here is where we start to see allocation issue raising its ugly head)

That's why you would need to schedule ahead to see if other people were willing to get you there, or possibly teach you how to fly and fuel the plane yourself, that is, if it was left in good condition the last time somebody else used one of the jet airplanes at the Zion international airport.

Nobody said anything about everyone being willing to drop everything they're doing just to get somebody to Greece at any moment when they feel like going over there for a vacation.

And, then there are those who have substantial assests in monitary instraments (currency, money-markets, bank accounts, etc.). When they consecrate those assest to a non-monetary system, their assets suddenly become worthless. Right?

Money is not a true asset. It represents power to use something ELSE which is tangible, but in itself it is totally worthless, unless you need some paper for something, but since that paper already has writing all over it it's pretty much good for nothing but fuel for fire, or for landfilll, because nobody wants ink in their compost.

I guess I am just struggling to see the advantage in de-monitizing things.

Try thinking, instead, that it is the "power" of money that will be disposed of, because that will no longer be an incentive (or enough of an incentive) for anyone to do anything for you. It certainly won't be an incentive for me to do something for you, because I will already have enough of everything that I need, so anything that I would do for you I would do because I wanted to help you out of the charity in my heart.

[LeSellers]

I do understand that, and I am all for trading (which is a form of sharing) resources. I'm simply suggesting that we elminate money from our economic system as well as the competition that usually goes along with it.

I'm not sure you know what money is. Please see the message to which you responded for an explanation.

Money is symbolic of several things, none more important than the store of value; i.e., it is a resource, it represents the person's life who earned it.

Money is not the root of all evil, it is the love of money that fills that role. Money is simply a tool.

Furthermore, you strongly imply that competition is, ipso facto, evil. How so?

You go on to answer a question, but not the one I asked. I asked how resources would be used effectively, to provide the greatest happiness among all people. You answered only the first part, how resources would be allocated, but that's not the point of the question.

One way scarce resources could be allocated is on a first come first served basis, meaning the first people to get it would have the right to choose how to use it, including who to trade/share it with if they choose to trade/share it with others.

Fine. I agree. He who first finds and employs any resource does have the right to use it as he sees fit, including giving it away. No one here has ever said people cannot give away their resources.

Perhaps at this point you might see why I am suggesting that we take money out of the system, because without money as a means to get gain and thus create an unfair advantage for the person with that resource, ...

I am not seeing your point here at all.

Money is not evil itself, and money only plays a role when the person who has the resource accepts money in trade for that resource.

We assume that the money was fairly and legitimately acquired, otherwise, it is completely immoral. But all legitimately acquired (received in trade for other resources from a willing party, received as a gift or inheritance, or discovered by the first finder) money is honorable.

the first person to get that resource would have one of 3 choices:

1) Use it himself, or herself, for whatever purpose he/she desired.

2) Give it away to someone else who would use it for their own purposes.

3) Leave it there for someone else to get later.

Neither of these options is interesting because they do not address the question of how.

That's just one way to do things, though, and there are many other ways we could all choose to trade/share our resources, and it would be good to bear in mind that some resources can be re-cycled for use in another product, such as taking some steel that was once used to build a car to create something else from that metal, as well as from the other resources that were used to build that car.

This does not explain at all the way this creates the greatest happiness for humanity.

Consider that many resources cannot be recycled. "Ideas" are one, "energy" is another. No one can recycle his time.

The following is not true, not because it is false, but because the premise is false. But it may be useful because it does illustrate where I am trying to arrive.

The false premise is that we can quantify "happiness"; we cannot, but if we could, let us say that, considering five resources, situation 1 results in a happiness value of 8 for persons A~Q and of 6 for R~Z. That is a total of 160. Situation 2 results in a total of 164 "happies", situation 3 of 195; and situation 4 of 205. We assume, against all evidence, that these are the only possible outcomes, so the obvious thing is that situation 4 is the optimal solution.

In a more realistic world, there would be, not four, but four billion possibilities. No person or committee could choose the optimal solution from the 4,000,000,000. We have, in the free market a very effective solution: people just choose, based on their personal preferences, which of the combinations of these five resources makes them happiest, as individuals, and the sum of those choices turns out to be the most effective total solution.

So, I ask again, in a Zion society, as you envision it, how do these resources get allocated so as to make the total happiness of all the people, including those who decide to opt out (i.e., not trade available resources for the offered combination(s)) because the offerings do not make them happy at all?

Money makes all of this easier, but it is not requisite for a free market.

It appears that "money" is a bugaboo and taints the discussion on this question. Forget "money"; it's trade (which is just another word for "cooperation" or "sharing") that makes people better off. The fact that people have always traded is evidence of this. People do not consistently do, particularly for millennia, things that do not make them better off in their own eyes.

So, once again, I repeat the question: what mechanism do you imagine that would create the greatest happiness among the children of men when resources (e.,g time, energy, land, steel, light, grain, ideas, health) are not limitless?

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

What if I told you that I was raising my children alone and that they don't get enough to eat. What if I told you that we're doing the best we can but it isn't enough. What if it were me in need, Mark?

Would Greece still seem important? Would a steak dinner taste as good?

The point I'm trying to make is that this law is about love. It's the height of the two great commandments. Until we have pure hearts filled with pure love, we won't have the privilege of living this law and until we love each other enough to live this law un begrudgingly, we are unworthy to walk with God.

I understand what you are saying totally and agree. And as you said, there are some in the church who live this way now.

Let's play "you are the Bishop, and we are transitioning to the LOC".

The reality of human nature is that there are people who abuse the system. There are people who go to their bishop for mortgage money because they are in "dire need" because they couldn't make the car payment on the new SUV and the cell phone bill was too high this month, and the payment on the adjustable mortgage they got with their 3% down payment which FNMA insured because some politician said everyone should have affordable housing just went up.

Today, you might give them a portion of what they need and tell them to get a second job or get an older used car. Under the conditions we are talking about, that might not be possible. They might actually get them mad enough at the church that they leave. No kidding. It happens more often than one might think. There are people who just don't get it. So do you just say "bye bye"?

But what do you say when we are living in a communal system? When, as some here suggest, there is no money.

Do you just not allow people who are not ready not to enter the kingdom, or do you cave and give them pretty much what they want, or do you find a middle ground somehow- and how do you "make" them compromise if they don't want to?

What do you do with the folks who keep complaining that is "unfair" and in fact it is- because there is no way to make it "fair"?

(Moms and dads know all about the kid who says "It's not fair....")

I mean why should I skip the steak dinner or the new radio which I can genuinely afford because they decided to buy a house they could not afford?

Or the newly graduated student couple with their second child on the way- do they get a house they normally could not afford because he is diligent and the best Elder's Quorum President you have ever seen in your life, and his wife, the Primary president, is totally brilliant in her leadership abilities?

Where is the answer "with love" in these situations?

I guess the point I am making is that the transition to the LOC will by its very nature present difficulties that even Solomon could not solve and there will be unfairness in it which is unavoidable- so how do you teach people that without them leaving? Or do you just let them leave? To what?

There is a reason why this has not worked before-- why does anyone think that a transition in this culture can work now? One definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results.

What has changed or what needs to change to actually pull this off?

Maybe the great equalizer will be the destruction itself. That is the potential lesson in Haiti. If everyone's lives are reduced to rubble, perhaps we will actually be grateful to share a pot of boiled cracked wheat with our neighbors if it is all anyone has. Then maybe we can go from there.

But barring that, knowing human nature to be what it is, it is very difficult to see how this transition is supposed to work.

And yes the answer "The Lord will make it all work out" is probably true, if he wants it to work out. But remember we are supposed to work this all out in our minds?

That is why I am still hanging out on this thread. I still don't get it. I think in this case "deus ex machina" will not make it.

[Ahab]

I'm not sure you know what money is... it is a resource, it represents the person's life who earned it.

Would you like to rephrase what you said?

If I understand you correctly, you're saying money represents a persons life, meaning the life of the person who earned it.

Compare the life of a school teacher to the life of an athlete, and then tell me again what you think money represents.

It doesn't represent a person's life to me. It may represent the value that some people place on a person's life, but it doesn't really represent that person's life, to me, because each of our lives is way beyond the price of any amount of money.

Money is not the root of all evil, it is the love of money that fills that role. Money is simply a tool.

As I explained earlier, money is a tool that is used to induce people to do something for the person who has the money, but nobody really needs any money to do something for someone else, as evidenced by many people in the Church who constantly do things for other people without any exchange of money. We do need resources to work with, though, and I'm not saying we don't. I'm just saying that we can do what it takes to get resources without the use of any money, becuase money is not an inherent part of obtaining any real, or natural, resource.

Furthermore, you strongly imply that competition is, ipso facto, evil. How so?

If you're having a hard time seeing how competition is evil, at least sometimes, by producing results which aren't good, try instead to think of how cooperation is just so much better than being in competition.

I will tell you one thing that may help you to understand, though. In competition there are usually both winners AND losers, but with cooperation, everyone can be a winner.

You go on to answer a question, but not the one I asked. I asked how resources would be used effectively, to provide the greatest happiness among all people. You answered only the first part, how resources would be allocated, but that's not the point of the question.

Using resources effectively, in my mind, simply refers to putting resources to a good use, and I don't believe anyone in Zion needs to have anyone standing over him (or her) to tell him (or her) exactly how to put each resource to good use. We can either use something for ourselves, for some good purpose, or we can give that resource to someone else so they can put it to good use, or we can just leave that resource there if we don't want to use that resource at that time.

Fine. I agree. He who first finds and employs any resource does have the right to use it as he sees fit, including giving it away. No one here has ever said people cannot give away their resources.

Good. I'm glad you agree, to that extent.

I am not seeing your point here at all.

Money is not evil itself, and money only plays a role when the person who has the resource accepts money in trade for that resource.

My point is that nobody needs to accept any money for a resource.

What would be the point of that? Why use money when we can simply give things away?

We assume that the money was fairly and legitimately acquired, otherwise, it is completely immoral. But all legitimately acquired (received in trade for other resources from a willing party, received as a gift or inheritance, or discovered by the first finder) money is honorable.

Try imagining how it would be more honorable to just give something away to someone who will use a resource for a good purpose, if you're not going to use it, and that it is a given that someone in Zion would use their resources for a good purpose, otherwise they would not be in Zion.

Remember, getting rich or making a monetary profit will not be in the mindset of someone in Zion, because they will already be rich with everything that has been given to the collective whole of everyone in Zion.

Neither of these options is interesting because they do not address the question of how.

This does not explain at all the way this creates the greatest happiness for humanity.

Zion is all about doing not only what is good for you, but also doing good for all of the other people you can help, in any way you can help them. There will be no rich/poor distinctions in Zion. Everyone will be equally rich, or equally poor, with no one person or group of people having an advantage over anyone else, because they'll all be in that enterprise together.

You do realize this thread is all about "Mormonism and the United Firm" don't you?

Try thinking about how things will be done in Zion, rather than how things are done now by people of the world, generally.

Consider that many resources cannot be recycled. "Ideas" are one, "energy" is another. No one can recycle his time.

I'm aware of that, and that's why I said the "first come first served" idea reflects only one way to distribute resources.

The following is not true, not because it is false, but because the premise is false. But it may be useful because it does illustrate where I am trying to arrive.

The false premise is that we can quantify "happiness"; we cannot, but if we could, let us say that, considering five resources, situation 1 results in a happiness value of 8 for persons A~Q and of 6 for R~Z. That is a total of 160. Situation 2 results in a total of 164 "happies", situation 3 of 195; and situation 4 of 205. We assume, against all evidence, that these are the only possible outcomes, so the obvious thing is that situation 4 is the optimal solution.

In a more realistic world, there would be, not four, but four billion possibilities. No person or committee could choose the optimal solution from the 4,000,000,000. We have, in the free market a very effective solution: people just choose, based on their personal preferences, which of the combinations of these five resources makes them happiest, as individuals, and the sum of those choices turns out to be the most effective total solution.

So, I ask again, in a Zion society, as you envision it, how do these resources get allocated so as to make the total happiness of all the people, including those who decide to opt out (i.e., not trade available resources for the offered combination(s)) because the offerings do not make them happy at all?

I see each person in Zion as an individual who makes his (or her) own choices about WHICH way to put some resource to good use, among the (you said 4 billion ?) possibile ways to put something to good use, if that person decides to use that resource at all. As I suggested, that person could decide to just not use it, leaving it there for someone else to use.

Considering the fact that we're talking about people who will be in Zion, I'm simply saying it will be up to each person to decide how to put something to good use, with one possibility being that each person will decide to ask someone else, or some other group of people, if they would like to use a particular resource... FOR FREE!!!

Money makes all of this easier, but it is not requisite for a free market.

Exactly. Money isn't requisite, or necessary, and, personally, I don't see any good reason to use it.

It appears that "money" is a bugaboo and taints the discussion on this question. Forget "money"; it's trade (which is just another word for "cooperation" or "sharing") that makes people better off. The fact that people have always traded is evidence of this. People do not consistently do, particularly for millennia, things that do not make them better off in their own eyes.

Earlier in my posts, I defined money as something which is used to get something ELSE of some real value, with money, itself, having no intrinsic value of it's own, and based on my definition I was saying it's not necessary to have money because there is no need to use a "medium" when instead you can just get what you really want to get, without having to have a medium first.

So, once again, I repeat the question: what mechanism do you imagine that would create the greatest happiness among the children of men when resources (e.,g time, energy, land, steel, light, grain, ideas, health) are not limitless?

Lehi

Charity in our hearts, with the desire to help both ourselves and each other get all the good things we can get and while distributing the products we produce with the resources we have to work with as fairly as possible, through common consent, with no rich or poor people among us, at all.

Charity is the key.

[wenglund]

That's why you would need to schedule ahead to see if other people were willing to get you there, or possibly teach you how to fly and fuel the plane yourself, that is, if it was left in good condition the last time somebody else used one of the jet airplanes at the Zion international airport.

I take from your answer that you have little or no idea what it takes to learn to safely pilot a jet. I take also from your answer that you didn't grasp the problem of allocation.

Nobody said anything about everyone being willing to drop everything they're doing just to get somebody to Greece at any moment when they feel like going over there for a vacation.

True. But, people are asking about whether your demonitized system would work as effeciantly as a monitized system. I hope you are beginning to see that it clearly won't. You are proposing a terribly inefficient system, and you have yet to justify our going from a relatively efficient to inefficiency market system, except to mistakenly assume that money, as distinguised from the love of money, is the root of all evil.

Money is not a true asset. It represents power to use something ELSE which is tangible, but in itself it is totally worthless, unless you need some paper for something, but since that paper already has writing all over it it's pretty much good for nothing but fuel for fire, or for landfilll, because nobody wants ink in their compost.

With all due respect, apart from not addressing my point, you are making assertions here that from any rational accounting position are both demonstrably false and confused.

Try thinking, instead, that it is the "power" of money that will be disposed of, because that will no longer be an incentive (or enough of an incentive) for anyone to do anything for you.

The so-called "power" (I prefer the term "value") isn't disposed of, it is merely shifted from one entity (money) to another (commodities). By getting rid of money, you haven't disposed of the assumed problem, you have merely transferred it to a less efficient medium of exchange. All you have done is offer a proposition that will leave people in general worse off. Does that make sense?

It certainly won't be an incentive for me to do something for you, because I will already have enough of everything that I need, so anything that I would do for you I would do because I wanted to help you out of the charity in my heart.

Do you have a license to fly jets? If not, then your charity will avail the lovely Bukowski's little in relation to their desired Greecian vacation--that is, unless you can somehow schedule from the Bishop's storehouse a row boat to paddle the Bukowskis to Greece,

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

I take from your answer that you have little or no idea what it takes to learn to safely pilot a jet.

Getting up in the air while not running into anything in the air, or while landing? I am willing to learn, if there is more to it.

I take also from your answer that you didn't grasp the problem of allocation.

I do. What scenario did you have in mind? A pilot waiting at the airport 24/7 with a jet fueled and ready for take-off as soon as he gets a phone call from someone who wants to go for a ride?

Unless there are a whole lot of people who want to go to the same area at a moments notice, and a lot of other people who are always standing by ready to get them there, what would you suggest other than some scheduling to get everything coordinated?

True. But, people are asking about whether your demonitized system would work as effeciantly as a monitized system. I hope you are beginning to see that it clearly won't. You are proposing a terribly inefficient system, and you have yet to justify our going from a relatively efficient to inefficiency market system, except to mistakenly assume that money, as distinguised from the love of money, is the root of all evil.

Money is only useful if it induces someone to do something for the person who has the money, otherwise it's just something someone else is trying to get you to believe is valuable.

Imagine what the Indians (or Native Americans) thought about the concept of trading their land for money when the white people tried to teach them how valuable their money was, or was going to be.

Indian says: Nuh uh. Me no need money. Me have land, and me want'm my land. You keep'm your money.

And then the white guys brought out some shiny metal, and then some pretty rocks, and the Indians still woudn't fall for it, so, well, you probably know what happened next with the white guys still wanting the land the Indians were living on.

With all due respect, apart from not addressing my point, you are making assertions here that from any rational accounting position are both demonstrably false and confused.

I simply don't fall for the idea that money is valuable, in and of itself. I know how it is used in today's world, and I do use it sometimes, but I truly believe we would all be better off without it and the "high regard" for it that usually goes along with it.

The so-called "power" (I prefer the term "value") isn't disposed of, it is merely shifted from one entity (money) to another (commodities). By getting rid of money, you haven't disposed of the assumed problem, you have merely transferred it to a less efficient medium of exchange. All you have done is offer a proposition that will leave people in general worse off. Does that make sense?

I'm suggesting NO medium of exchange.

If you want some shiny metal or pretty rocks, then why not just go to someone who has some of those things to give you while using any means of communication and transportation necessary to find out about them and get there to get them?

No medium necessary. You just get what you want from someone who has it to give to you.

Remember, I'm talking about how I think it should be in Zion, or the "United Firm" in which all of us are united, as one, for the good of us all.

Do you have a license to fly jets?

Are you referring to a piece of paper written out by someone who has said it's okay for me to fly a jet airplane?

Well, just a minute. Yes, I have one now, and I expect it to be honored by at least one person with a jet airplane in Zion.

If not, then your charity will avail the lovely Bukowski's little in relation to their desired Greecian vacation--that is, unless you can somehow schedule from the Bishop's storehouse a row boat to paddle the Bukowskis to Greece,

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Don't worry, bukowski. I'll get you there, somehow, along withi anyone else who wants to go along with us for the ride.

NOTE: I'm tired of trying to help some of you people see what I can see, so now I'm getting playful because that's what I do when I get tired like this.

[mfbukowski]

Don't worry, bukowski. I'll get you there, somehow, along withi anyone else who wants to go along with us for the ride.

NOTE: I'm tired of trying to help some of you people see what I can see, so now I'm getting playful because that's what I do when I get tired like this.

I'm waiting.

You think you're tired now, wait til you are in charge of figuring this out and there are 200 more at your door with similar concerns about why I got to go to Greece and they didn't get their SUV.

Just tell them there weren't enough ears of corn in the storehouse to do the trade.

[USU78]

I'm waiting.

You think you're tired now, wait til you are in charge of figuring this out and there are 200 more at your door with similar concerns about why I got to go to Greece and they didn't get their SUV.

Just tell them there weren't enough ears of corn in the storehouse to do the trade.

Is a pair of all-leather shoes with rubber soles worth 3 or 4 bushels of wheat?

Does it depend upon how long the shoemaker had to walk to the tanner to pick up his raw materials? Or does it depend solely upon how long it took to make the shoes [the cost of raw materials being otherwise the same]?

[Ahab]

I'm waiting.

Okay. All I'm waiting for is the name and phone# of someone in Zion who has donated a jet airplane for the use of all others in Zion, well, that, and someone who will also honor my license to fly. As soon as I get that, I'll be all ready to go.

You think you're tired now, wait til you are in charge of figuring this out and there are 200 more at your door with similar concerns about why I got to go to Greece and they didn't get their SUV.

I'm now recommending that we use an electronic bulletin board to keep track of everything that has been donated for the use of all in Zion, complete with all the details explaining how we can access all of the services and products that are available.

I don't know much about web page design, myself, and I also don't have all the details about everything everyone has given, but I'm sure someone has all of that information, and I'm sure they will do it when they feel good and ready.

[USU78]

Oops.

[mfbukowski]

NOTE: I'm tired of trying to help some of you people see what I can see, so now I'm getting playful because that's what I do when I get tired like this.

You don't get to be tired of helping people.

Nobody donated a jet and there are waiting lists for everything else which was donated. People are standing in lines waiting for potatoes because someone got tired of entering the inventory and just guesstimated because they weren't getting paid and after all what difference does it make? There was no incentive to get it right.

And that woman is still complaining about the SUV because surprise surprise everyone wants one and only 17 were donated.

And there won't be any more coming because the steelmaker got ticked off and decided to leave the church because he didn't get the house he wanted.

You think everyone's nature is going to change tomorrow morning?

[mfbukowski]

Is a pair of all-leather shoes with rubber soles worth 3 or 4 bushels of wheat?

Does it depend upon how long the shoemaker had to walk to the tanner to pick up his raw materials? Or does it depend solely upon how long it took to make the shoes [the cost of raw materials being otherwise the same]?

Man, don't you know anything? Property is theft and all that makes anything worth anything is labor. It is the value of the alienated labor in these products which matters- who needs materials to make things?

Do I have to teach you everything? Cheesh!

[Ahab]

You don't get to be tired of helping people.

Yes I do, and when I get tired I get playful. I hope you will learn to like it.

Nobody donated a jet and there are waiting lists for everything else which was donated.

Uh, CFR. It could be that someone did and somebody else just hasn't made a note of it yet to let us, and others, know about it.

People are standing in lines waiting for potatoes because someone got tired of entering the inventory and just guesstimated because they weren't getting paid and after all what difference does it make? There was no incentive to get it right.

The incentive for a person to do good in Zion comes from the charity in that person's heart.

Looks to me like you've got some bad information.

And that woman is still complaining about the SUV because surprise surprise everyone wants one and only 17 were donated.

Just tell her she's on the waiting list, then, if she wants one of her own, otherwise she can ask to use someone else's SUV.

And there won't be any more coming because the steelmaker got ticked off and decided to leave the church because he didn't get the house he wanted.

Hmm. Maybe we can recycle some olders cars to use the metal from them.

Check with one of the junkyards in Zion to see if anyone else is using the metal recycler right now.

You think everyone's nature is going to change tomorrow morning?

Yes, a little bit at a time, just as everyone's nature always changes a little at a time, unless they are already as perfect as God is perfect and they will remain that way as he does, otherwise there is no way for them to get better and the only other way is worse.

...

Oh. Nevermind. I thought you had said something else.

[LeSellers]

If I understand you correctly, you're saying money represents a persons life, meaning the life of the person who earned it.

Compare the life of a school teacher to the life of an athlete, and then tell me again what you think money represents. It doesn't represent a person's life to me. It may represent the value that some people place on a person's life, but it doesn't really represent that person's life, to me, because each of our lives is way beyond the price of any amount of money.

All those who pay to see the athlete disagree.

They value his talents (which few possess) far more than those of a school teacher (which nearly all possess). Why? It's precisely because few can play ball, and (nearly) all can teach.

It represents that portion of the person's life who earned it that he spent earning it.

A dollar is a certificate that attests to the fact that someone (or many people) valued his effort more than they valued anything else at the time. It applies whether we're talking about a teacher or a baseball star. It applies whether we're talking about a head of lettuce or a Maserati. If the potential buyer wants the pack of gum more than a newspaper, that's the choice he'll make.

If an employer wants (or needs) an accountant more than he wants a new roof, then there will be a job created or saved. but if he needs a roof more, then it will be the roofer who works.

As I explained earlier, money is a tool that is used to induce people to do something for the person who has the money, but nobody really needs any money to do something for someone else, as evidenced by many people in the Church who constantly do things for other people without any exchange of money.

True, but there was still an exchange made. The person serving got what he wanted. There is no such thing as altruism.

We do need resources to work with, though, and I'm not saying we don't. I'm just saying that we can do what it takes to get resources without the use of any money, becuase money is not an inherent part of obtaining any real, or natural, resource.

I already said money is, in and of itself, not a necessity in a free market. but it makes all the rest much, much easier. How much is a taxi ride from SLC to the Salt Lake Temple worth in carrots? Why would a taxi driver take carrots anyway? And how did the traveler get all those carrots from Des Moines to Salt lake City in the first place? Money is much easier to transport, easier to find a trading partner for, and far easier to use for nearly any trade.

It seems you hate money. This is illogical: money is inanimate. It is not evil, it is not good. It just exists, the same as carrots exist. And, like carrots, it has some uses that are more effective than others.

Speaking of effectiveness, oyu have not yet answered the question I posed long ago:

Absent a pricing mechanism (monetary or not), how does a Zion society allocate its scarce resources so as to provide the maximum happiness to its citizens?

You have not addressed the limited resource, nor have you talked about maximizing happiness. And, don't you know, man is that he might have joy?

Lehi

[LeSellers]

If you're having a hard time seeing how competition is evil, at least sometimes, by producing results which aren't good, try instead to think of how cooperation is just so much better than being in competition.

Cooperation may be efficient, but it is not, ipso facto effective. Doing the wrong thing well does not advance humanity. The question is, how does a society choose which things to do? Then, and only then, should we decide what way to do them. Otherwise, we may make wonderful buggy whips, and make them efficiently, but with automobiles taking over the highways, no one will want them, no matter how cheap we can provide them.

I will tell you one thing that may help you to understand, though. In competition there are usually both winners AND losers, but with cooperation, everyone can be a winner.

Yes, everyone can win, but there is no guarantee; exactly the same as with competition. The thing about competition is that the losers learn quickly that they must change what they're doing, while with cooperation, there is no signal to tell them they are doing the wrong thing.

Using resources effectively, in my mind, simply refers to putting resources to a good use, and I don't believe anyone in Zion needs to have anyone standing over him (or her) to tell him (or her) exactly how to put each resource to good use.

Why be redundant? The phrase "[verb] him (or her)..." is no improvement over "... [verb] him ...".

In a free market, there is no one standing over anyone telling him what to use and how to use it. Freedom is much better than any alternative.

We can either use something for ourselves, for some good purpose, or we can give that resource to someone else so they can put it to good use, or we can just leave that resource there if we don't want to use that resource at that time.

How is this different than what happens on a free market?

Lehi