The case for Book of Mormon socialism

[David Bokovoy]

Interesting thoughts.

Also interesting is the fact that the military has learned than an all voluntary approach is far more efficient and effective than the non-voluntary approach.

This same lesson can and should be applied to helping the poor. The most efficient and effective approach is the voluntary one, not the coercive/socialist one.

Indeed the current system is far preferable:

Jimmy joined the army

[Vance]

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.

So, basically, you don't trust your neighbor to do right by the needy in your community. The neighbor that you know.

BUT you have implicit trust in some nameless, faceless, unelected, unaccountable unknown bureaucrat to make such disbursements wisely and honestly?

[Vance]

Indeed the current system is far preferable:

--Steve Earle

Ah, the old only the poor "volunteer" mime.

Since I have three children in the service, (two with Bachelors degrees) I will simply say, that mime is offensive.

Edited to add,

I do find it interesting that you don't trust your elected officials to send our troops on legitimate efforts, BUT do trust your UNelected bureaucrats to spend your money wisely.

Oh the irony.

[semlogo]

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

European social democracies are doing quite well, and weathered the global recession better than we did.

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

Defense spending/war costs are a large part of it, yes.

[semlogo]

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.

Good point. It seems their dedication to a hands-off government is shaky at best.

[semlogo]

From Mirriam-Webster

so

[semlogo]

This is false. Capitalism doesn't "care" whether people are unequal or not

But the end result is always inequality, and class stratification. Something that we learn is evil in D&C.

[Nathair/|\]

European social democracies are doing quite well, and weathered the global recession better than we did.

Defense spending/war costs are a large part of it, yes.

Um, can you say Greece, Portugal, Ireland? (Though that last one is further damaged by the loss of Sovereignty to the EU, offending the oldest goddesses of the island.)

[frankenstein]

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.

Lehi

that is not what Jesus taught.

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

the righteous acted without thought of compensation in any form whether temporal or eternal compensation.

[David Bokovoy]

So, basically, you don't trust your neighbor to do right by the needy in your community. The neighbor that you know.

BUT you have implicit trust in some nameless, faceless, unelected, unaccountable unknown bureaucrat to make such disbursements wisely and honestly?

Indeed, from the beginning of time, governments have existed in order to enforce morality upon the population. Historically, an important part of this responsibility was to ensure that the needs of the poor were met. The world's oldest complete law collection makes this code of morality clear:

[Nathair/|\]

No requirement of force. Thanks for proving my point.

It's pretty much the natural consequence of definitions 1 and 2b

[David Bokovoy]

Ah, the old only the poor "volunteer" mime.

Since I have three children in the service, (two with Bachelors degrees) I will simply say, that mime is offensive.

Edited to add,

I do find it interesting that you don't trust your elected officials to send our troops on legitimate efforts, BUT do trust your UNelected bureaucrats to spend your money wisely.

Oh the irony.

Of course there are exceptions to the rule.

[Jeff K.]

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.

Hamilton believed that unless you were a property owner that your rights should never extend to a vote in government. He saw the poor as little more than mobs. Hamilton believed that people like myself who own properties were the ones to make the rules. The context of the statement in the Federalist papers was not about taking care of the poor, but controlling them while simultaneously have the few make the decisions.

I think Hamilton was wrong, that educated men and women could indeed bring about good decisions and therefore sufferage should be extended. No doubt after seeing Shay's rebellion the idea of control took hold on various peoples in order to control unhappy mobs. Hamilton did not mean for his one statement to be the main position for the Constitution. I suggest that Hamilton's argument was never meant to create centralized social issues where the government may take a mans work and wages from him in order to help another man. Indeed all indicators were that American embraced a free enterprise system whose elements include compettion, private property, economic freedom, business owners having the ability to produce that which is most profitable and buyers not being coerced to by anything they do not want. A socialist system, by its nature would limit much of those elements. It is one reason small businesses are the majority of our employers while Germany struggles to create a venture capitalist system. I would not want to destroy that aspect of our nation and have large corporations which cooperate with the government in order to hold their dominance, and few if any small businesses (and those that exist do so only to serve the larger corporations).

[semlogo]

Um, can you say Greece, Portugal, Ireland? (Though that last one is further damaged by the loss of Sovereignty to the EU, offending the oldest goddesses of the island.)

Ireland, ironically, was recently hailed by capitalists for their recent pro-capitalism measures. It seems that in so doing they exposed themselves to greater risk.

[semlogo]

It's pretty much the natural consequence of definitions 1 and 2b

No, it isn't.

[Jeff K.]

But the end result is always inequality, and class stratification. Something that we learn is evil in D&C.

You don't seem to understand the D&C that well or the context of the time it was written.

What makes you think a socialist government does not create its own class stratification in which the aparatchik have the reins of power and live well in their dachas and use "blat" instead of money to obtain their goods. Creating their own set of oigarchs.

If effect it is worse, much worse than the system we have.

It is also something we learn in the D&C when a few men gain power over the many... Or did you gloss over that one little aspect?

[LeSellers]

National Socialism was its own blend of ideals, and not an authentic form of socialism.

This sounds amazingly like the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Socialism (in any of its guises) is the situation where government owns the means of production. Anything more in the definition is what you might term not an authentic form of socialism.

The NAZIs, Godwin's Law notwithstanding, along with the ChiComms and Leninists and Stalinists, North Koreans, and Yugoslavs and Albanians, are exactly the reason we should avoid socialism like the plague, because a plague it is and ever will be unless the proverbial governmental angels arrive. Monopoly, which is what socialism is, cannot be a good thing, no matter which mortals are running it.

Furthermore, it's completely irrelevant to the conversation.

Not only is it relevant, it is the very subject of the conversation, which is, as you may recall, "socialism", the very core of "National Socialist German Workers' Party". One is tempted to ask who gets to define what is relevant to the discussion of socialism such that socialism is out of bounds. One is also tempted to ask if socialism does not require coercion, where one should look to find this model socialist state that has no coercion, for I cannot locate a single example in modern or ancient history. The peoples of late 3 Nephi and early 4 Nephi do not provide such an example because there is no evidence whatsoever that their state was socialist, although their religion did practice the concept of having things in common, which is not the definition of socialism.

Lehi

[Vance]

Of course there are exceptions to the rule.

You mean there are a few trustworthy bureaucrats?

[frankenstein]

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

Is the Honor Code, which seemingly requires reporting others, and prohibits sandles (BYUI) greater freedom under a government or less freedom? Do the student who sign the agreement have a choice? What is consequence of choosing against the honor code?

[Jeff K.]

Ireland, ironically, was recently hailed by capitalists for their recent pro-capitalism measures. It seems that in so doing they exposed themselves to greater risk.

I suggest you read up on the crisis. If you have, you can, perhaps tell us how the government contributed to the pending failure. The central bank of Ireland kept interest rates artifically low which resulted in more loans with greater exposure.

[Vance]

European social democracies are doing quite well, and weathered the global recession better than we did.

Oh, THAT is why they are rioting, because they are doing so well.

Got it.

Defense spending/war costs are a large part of it, yes.

Oh, So that explains why the deficit grew more last MONTH, than it did in AN ENTIRE YEAR during one the Bush WAR years.

Got it.

[Jeff K.]

European social democracies are doing quite well, and weathered the global recession better than we did.

Defense spending/war costs are a large part of it, yes.

Semlogo do you ever get out of your upstairs room? The Euro is on the verge of breaking apart, Merkel with her hands on the purse strings, as Germany, the only nation that was fiscally sound has had to bail everyone out and she risks an election if she has to do it for Spain and Portugal. Greece is already protesting that they shouldn't face austerity for their measures.

Defense spending is roughly 4% to 5% of GDP and has little impact on the economy.

Reality once again smashes a fervant semlogo myth.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You mean there are a few trustworthy bureaucrats?

Bravo. That reply has more class and wit then what I was thinking of writting.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Oh, THAT is why they are rioting, because they are doing so well.

Got it.

Oh, So that explains why the deficit grew more last MONTH, than it did in AN ENTIRE YEAR during one the Bush WAR years.

Got it.

At the risk of getting this rather lovely thread shut down, lets not drag this aspect into this thread.

{Board nanny mode off.}

[LeSellers]

Is the Honor Code, which seemingly requires reporting others, and prohibits sandles [sic, sandals?] (BYUI) greater freedom under a government or less freedom?

BYU Idaho is not a government, they do not have the monopoly on lethal force that governments do. They cannot jail you. The key is in your next sentence.

Do the student who sign the agreement have a choice?

Obviously. They can choose not to sign.

What is consequence of choosing against the honor code?

Look at the voluntarily accepted contract: what are the consequences? They're stipulated, and those who sign (including students and teachers) make a contract, the breaking of which means the contract is no longer in force. That's what contracts are.

Lehi