The case for Book of Mormon socialism

[semlogo]

First off, to everyone, thank you for keeping the conversation clean and keeping it mostly to a scriptural debate about the article and topic. It's good to keep a topic open and on track!

Frankenstein,

The major difference is who is in control. If a perfect being is in control, great. But no one here on earth is. Further, in any socialist government, it includes a method of compulsion led by one or a small group of people. Those people may initially be very wonderful and benevolent. The problem is that the system is then in place for those with evil intent to take power and abuse people. It's why George Orwell, once a staunch socialist who fought for Russian Socialism, became very anti-socialist when he saw those who were already clawing for power and using the system. He realized there was no way to stop it from happening, and fought against it the rest of his life.

Governments are never run by saints. That said, there is nothing inherent in the economic system of socialism that proscribes Soviet-style totalitarianism. They're unrelated. You can have totalitarian socialism or totalitarian capitalism, or democratic socialism or democratic capitalism.

[semlogo]

God's compulsion is always righteous. Man's not necessarily so. God has already given doctrine and scripture for how to act in this area and it has been demonstrated that socialism is contrary to these. It's not just economic, socialism leads to compulsion in other areas. Religion is the enemy of socialism, for example. Religious beliefs are invariably connected to economic performance and loyalty to the government under socialism and therefore, thought control will be attempted. It's happening even now as we become more socialist and it's going on in every socialist country. Socialism is the antithesis of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in every way.

Which government doesn't compel people to do things?

[Jeff K.]

semlogo suffers from a degenerative eye disease that only allows him to read posts that agree with him.

I am sure semlogo probably thinks of the government in the same honorific terms as God, with the same abilities so for him the terms are as interchangeable as Frankenstein makes them out to be.

Is there a double standard between how we see God and how we see government? Not for Semlogo. If we take him at his post, God is government and government is God, so compulsion is the same and for the same reasons.

I just don't buy it. Can't see myself praying to Obama, Merkel, Quadaffi, or Wen Jiaboa. I would curious to see semlogo's altar though.

[Jeff K.]

Which government doesn't compel people to do things?

The less a government compels, the greater the freedom. It isn't about an absence of compulsion, but keeping that compulsion to a minimum.

[semlogo]

semlogo suffers from a degenerative eye disease that only allows him to read posts that agree with him.

I am sure semlogo probably thinks of the government in the same honorific terms as God, with the same abilities so for him the terms are as interchangeable as Frankenstein makes them out to be.

Is there a double standard between how we see God and how we see government? Not for Semlogo. If we take him at his post, God is government and government is God, so compulsion is the same and for the same reasons.

I just don't buy it. Can't see myself praying to Obama, Merkel, Quadaffi, or Wen Jiaboa. I would curious to see semlogo's altar though.

Nice strawman.

All of the arguments against socialism I've seen so far here work equally well as an argument against secular government of any sort. Are all the anti-socialists here anarchists? I don't think so, but you'd never know it from their reasoning.

[semlogo]

The less a government compels, the greater the freedom. It isn't about an absence of compulsion, but keeping that compulsion to a minimum.

Do you have a red A with a circle around it drawn on your notebook?

[semlogo]

And whether you like it or not, the Nephites, at their most righteous, practiced theocratic socialism. At their most wicked, they were hardened capitalists. Those are the facts.

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm

Federalist Papers #51

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

[Vance]

Godwin'd

Hehe.

Yes, the National Socialist party was indeed Socialist. Did you think you could talk about socialism without Godwin's rule being invoked?

[frankenstein]

The problem is that the system is then in place for those with evil intent to take power and abuse people.

which has been said from the time of Nephi concerning governments. What you assert can be said of any government form, it is not unique to any form of gov. and thus not a compelling argument.

-----------------------------------

No, government takes away the choice to give and decides for itself who to give to. You lose the ability to make that choice and to do good because you have abrogated your choice to a government which does not, by its existence under our Constitution believe in virtue beyond its own definition of it.

Nope, you still have the choice to give. You have two choices, which are the same with God, you play by the rules or get punished, either way, YOU ALWAYS have can choose to play by the rules or not.

And if you are following God, you have no need to break the laws of man; so for those following God, there shouldn't be much of a debate should there?

As always, in the end you have a choice. Someone holds a gun to you and says give me your money, you have a choice, you can give your money or risk being shot, either way the choice is yours to make. Same with God, obey or burn, the choice is yours.

[Nathair/|\]

And whether you like it or not, the Nephites, at their most righteous, practiced theocratic socialism. At their most wicked, they were hardened capitalists. Those are the facts.

CFR

Specifically, where does it suggest that resources were confiscated by force of law rather than being shared by voluntary charitable giving and creation of jobs?

[Vance]

Vance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

Sorry, but the variety of socialism wasn't specified.

Democratic Socialism, National Socialism, not enough difference between them to declare one is bad while the other is good. That which makes one bad is also found in the other.

That would be coercion.

[Vance]

At their most wicked, they were hardened capitalists.

At their most wicked, they were hardened CRONY capitalists.

There, improved it for you.

[semlogo]

Hehe.

Yes, the National Socialist party was indeed Socialist. Did you think you could talk about socialism without Godwin's rule being invoked?

National Socialism was its own blend of ideals, and not an authentic form of socialism. Furthermore, it's completely irrelevant to the conversation.

[frankenstein]

CFR

Specifically, where does it suggest that resources were confiscated by force of law rather than being shared by voluntary charitable giving and creation of jobs?

cfr that the practice of socialistics principles must and can not exist without confiscation by force of law.

and while we are talking about force of law and socialism, I recall two people being killed in the New Testament for withholding under force of law.

-----------

while we at it, look at your phone and come to understand how long you have been socialist (i.e. Universal Service Tax)

how about this little diddy "Pass the increase onto the consumer" so everyone pays, well that sure sounds like socialism.

[semlogo]

CFR

Specifically, where does it suggest that resources were confiscated by force of law rather than being shared by voluntary charitable giving and creation of jobs?

CFR that confiscating by force of law is essential to socialism.

[Vance]

I wrote a brief article in the North Texas Daily (UNT's paper) entitled "Economic, Morality Work Together" (not my title...). It was based on my blog post "The Spirit of Giving & the Morality of Markets." I think there is plenty of evidence that markets not only run on virtue, but actually can foster it. Markets also create a collective intelligence of cooperation. I would suggest Nate Oman's unpublished "Property, Contract, and the Market: A Mormon Perspective."

I am afraid that too many in this discussion haven't read and understood your fine article.

[semlogo]

That would be coercion.

Right, like being forced to pay your taxes. Or drive the speed limit!

More arguments for anarchy.

[Vance]

CFR that confiscating by force of law is essential to socialism.

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money (gotten by confiscation). Paraphrasing a wise woman.

[semlogo]

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money (gotten by confiscation). Paraphrasing a wise woman.

An old cliche.

[Vance]

Right, like being forced to pay your taxes. Or drive the speed limit!

More arguments for anarchy.

Yup. Taxes are collected by COERCION! You realize that don't you?

So when your taxes are used for socialist projects that you are against (like abortion), you are being coerced.

Perhaps you can't distinguish between providing for the common defense and helping the indolent.

[Vance]

An old cliche.

Right! That is why NONE of the socialist countries through out the world aren't BROKE!!!

What do you think is causing the US to go broke? Defense spending?

[David Bokovoy]

Right, like being forced to pay your taxes. Or drive the speed limit!

More arguments for anarchy.

Or not steal, or not murder, or should a government be allowed to keep same-sex couples from marrying each other? In reality, many arguing in this thread that governments should not force people to behave morally only want this standard to apply to the realm of personal wealth.

[Nathair/|\]

CFR that confiscating by force of law is essential to socialism.

From Mirriam-Webster

so

[LeSellers]

Capitalism requires a poorer class. It thrives off inequality. This is its greatest deficiency and why it can never be viewed in God's eyes as a just system.

This is false. Capitalism doesn't "care" whether people are unequal or not, and it certainly does not require inequality. Inequality just is. I recall reading somewhere that "the poor always ye have with you". (I'm not saying that this is a commandment, it's just the statement of a fact.)

Capitalism (or what I prefer to call the free market) responds to the differences in men's abilities, determination, desires, and focus. Some people are just never going to do the thing that being rich requires: serving others by identifying their needs and wants, and then providing some means of meeting those needs and wants. When a person serves others, he can and should expect to be compensated for that service, and those others should expect to compensate him. If they do not, they are greedy, irrespective of whether they are poor or rich. Poverty is not, ipso facto, meritorious.

Anyone who is not rich must take into account this thing: his lack of wealth is a direct result of his failure to make enough other people happier (or failing to make people happy enough). That is the only reason for poverty.

The free market is wholly dispassionate. It plays no favorites. It rewards everyone who follows the rules. (Whether he knows the rules or not is immaterial.)

Socialism, on the other hand does play favorites; we may rightfully say it must play favorites in order to retain power. Take the example of government-run, tax-funded (grtf, aka welfare) schools. One of the current favorites is "the poor" (often, or even exclusively, considered minorities). Everyone "knows" that they should be given extra assistance, assistance unavailable to middle income students, and definitely not for the "rich" (who deserve nothing, as they are despicable and evil). Schools brag about how many of their students (or inmates, depending on the point of view) qualify for subsidized lunches and breakfasts. Socialist schools are not egalitarian, they are strictly "favoritist", and all socialist schemes function in the same way.

Furthermore, it is incontrovertible that socialism cannot function without coercion. That was the reason there were "economic" crimes in the old Soviet Union: people do not naturally act in ways that will harm themselves, and socialism always harms some groups in order to benefit others. People will act in ways that benefit others, as long as there is a reciprocity of benefit. Some people will act to benefit others without measuring the benefit to themselves, we call this altruism, but it is rare (to the point of nonexistence) to find an altruist who does not benefit from his actions, even though that benefit is typically intangible. I believe that even Jesus, the Ultimate Altruist, derived, and even sought, great benefit from His sacrifice. He acted, not directly for Himself, but for our Father: to increase Father's glory. And, because He, Jesus, wanted that, He derived satisfaction from the action. It was, after all, a sacrifice, and sacrifice means making something holy. In this case, it was His making Himself holy, and that was His goal.

Lehi