The case for Book of Mormon socialism

[semlogo]

"General welfare" is a phrase used by the founders to PRECLUDE the government from helping SPECIFIC individuals.

Any check provided to an individual from the Federal Government is a VIOLATION of this principle.

What a strange idea.

Irrelevant! They are still going broke.

They're doing better than we are.

As a percentage it is chump change.

Not at all. It's a large proportion of our debt.

Wrong again.

From 2000 thru 2008 the deficit increased by 1.31 T. (And that includes the effects to the economy of 9-11)

2009 thru 2011 the deficit will increase by 4.36 T.

Socialism at work.

Source http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php

Also, you do know that spending bills must come from the House, not the President.

I'm afraid you're mistaken. You also seem to be confusing deficits with debt. For accurate figures go to this site and punch in a starting and ending date to get the real figures:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

It's quite interesting if you compare the debt incurred during D vs R administrations. Of course, it's not corrected for inflation.

[semlogo]

Lets not forget that if the Sweden is only able to be socialistic becuase of the US being the worlds army.

With out the US I dare say the utopia in Sweden would cease to exsist in it's current state. I guess we will find out soon enough though.

Right, because Iraq is such a threat to Sweden.

[Tribunal]

Why are you asking this when it has already been conceded that no nation has implemented pure Socialism?

This is like me asking you guys to produce an example of a nation functioning from pure Laissez Faire Capitalism. You cannot do it, and yet you'll probably insist such a system is the best way to go. How do you know?

The United States was never a pure capitalist society. It has always socialized services. From the beginning we have socialized everything from the military to a national bank. So America is what it is not only because of Capitalism. That's myth. It has relied on plenty of Socialistic ideals to get where it is today.

I would say we have had moments of free market capitalism and other than attempts by government to derail the free market the United States has done very well. The problem we have now is with a huge population of people who will vote for whomever will benefit them the most and the socialists are in power - both Republicans and Democrats. This is the failure of democracy. It turns into mobacracy which leads to tyranny.

[Tribunal]

Right, because Iraq is such a threat to Sweden.

No but the Soviet Union was. Having spent almost a decade in NATO I can cite numerous examples of European nations hiding behind the curt-tails of the United States. They were able to divert their budgets from their military to social programs because NATO (the United States) was there to protect them.

[Vance]

You're simply reiterating the same nonsense I already refuted from Jeff. Where do you see anything in this definition that requires Socialism to "destroy the agency of man"? It does no such thing. Of course it is theory, as I have referred to it constantly as an ideal

You haven't refuted anything.

EVERY time socialism is IMPOSED it DOESN'T WORK.

Like I said earlier.

Why don't you socialists get together in a few states, impose your socialism. If it works as you delusionally think it will, THEN the rest of us will voluntarily join in.

PROVE it works first, before you drag the whole country down with it.

[Tribunal]

You haven't refuted anything.

EVERY time socialism is IMPOSED it DOESN'T WORK.

Like I said earlier.

Why don't you socialists get together in a few states, impose your socialism. If it works as you delusionally think it will, THEN the rest of us will voluntarily join in.

PROVE it works first, before you drag the whole country down with it.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! This test has already happened and now my beautiful state of California is going the ways of Sodom and Gomorrah.

[David Bokovoy]

It is a "theory" that DOESN'T WORK!

It NEVER has and it NEVER will, because it destroys the agency of man.

Oh, as if this part is good. "the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles."

Vance,

I have to take issue with your interpretation of agency. In a scriptural context, the term agency is never used to refer to the ability to make choices. Moses 4:3 states that "Satan rebelled against [God], and sought to destroy the agency of man," but the agency of man is not the power to choose. If you think this issue through, it's hard to imagine anyone, let alone a third of the host of heaven, buying into a system in which they could not make choices.

The scriptural term agency refers to man's ability to function as an agent, i.e. a steward over his choices. An agent is one who holds responsibility over a stewardship (in this case decisions to obey or disregard the commandments of God). Note the way the term is used in D&C 64:18:

"And now, verily I say that it is expedient in me that my servant Sidney Gilbert, after a few weeks, shall return upon his business, and to his agency in the land of Zion."

In other words, in the scriptures, agency refers to man's ability to act as a steward, and in the context of "moral agency," the expression refers to man being held accountable for his choices, right or wrong. As explained in modern revelation,

"That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment" (D&C 101:78).

If Satan offered to do away with agency, i.e. man's need to function as a steward or agent over his choices and in the process save every soul, that is a system that could persuade quite a few individuals.

Hence, no human government can destroy or even limit agency. Not when this scriptural term is properly understood.

[Deborah]

But the common folks are the ones who built this country from the ground up.

It was a combination of those with dreams and the skills to create ideas and those who could labor to implement the ideas. There is a fallacy in your thinking if you think that both men of intellect and education and the common masses aren't needed. Unfortunately the socialist idea is that the educated thinkers and movers are there just to provide for their welfare and not realizing that you can only take so much before even the men with ideas cease to function and then no one has anything. Atlas Shrugged becomes more of a reality everyday.

You have a funny sense of history. The Founding Fathers never wanted to break away from Britain until the were denied representation, while remaining taxed.

And you missed the point that they needed to get involved because they saw the anarchy that would erupt and that the colonists would be destroyed if they didn't step in.

[maupayman]

EVERY time socialism is IMPOSED it DOESN'T WORK.

Anytime any system is imposed, it won't work. Imposed being the key word. The point of the article is that LDS should be advocating a more socialist society, based on teachings of Smith, Christ, and the scriptures.

Why don't you socialists get together in a few states, impose your socialism. If it works as you delusionally think it will, THEN the rest of us will voluntarily join in.

Right...... because you strike me as being increadibly open minded Vance

PROVE it works first, before you drag the whole country down with it.

Vance, free market capitalists have the same problem, a fully capitalist system has never existed in a vacuum. Furthermore, anytime someone highlights a successful socialist country, like Sweeden or Canada, you guys just say that they are going to go broke eventually. The point stands, that they have done far better to date, on social issues, than the much more free market US. The gap has only widened in the last 15-20 years.

[Deborah]

The scriptural term agency refers to man's ability to function as an agent, i.e. a steward over his choices. An agent is one who holds responsibility over a stewardship (in this case decisions to obey or disregard the commandments of God)....

Hence, no human government can destroy or even limit agency. Not when this scriptural term is properly understood.

Even assuming the first part is correct, how do you suggest that human governments can't limit agency? If a government by it's control takes away the ability of a man to be a steward over his own property, does that not limit or destroy agency? I own a piece of land, but the government tells me what I can or can't do on it. I am no longer the steward of that land and by interference can no longer exercise agency.

[thesometimesaint]

Deborah:

You have an absolute right to swing your fist. No one in this country is trying to take that away from you. However the right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

Ps. Ayn Rand was a closeted socialist.

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/149721/ayn_rand_railed_against_government_benefits,_but_grabbed_social_security_and_medicare_when_she_needed_them

[David Bokovoy]

Even assuming the first part is correct, how do you suggest that human governments can't limit agency? If a government by it's control takes away the ability of a man to be a steward over his own property, does that not limit or destroy agency? I own a piece of land, but the government tells me what I can or can't do on it. I am no longer the steward of that land and by interference can no longer exercise agency.

Under any system of laws, you will always have a choice, Deborah. Let's say I own a car, i.e. property. If I don't like my neighbor, can I choose to run him over? Of course. Can I choose to use my property while intoxicated. If I want to, sure. Can I choose to drive my property 120 miles per hour in a residential zone? Absolutely!

Will the government take action because I am an agent? Let's hope so. Agency is not the ability to choose.

[David Bokovoy]

You just decimated the primary lynchpin connecting Mormon doctrine with current Right wing political mantra.

Ouch!

I'm pleased you picked up on that. I've been convinced for many years that the lynchpin of agency is based upon a false reading of LDS scripture.

[Vance]

Vance doesn't know what he is talking about.

Psychological projection

Constutional [sic] scholars overwhelmingly disagree with this popular Right wing position.

You mean those LEFT WING SOCIALIST "scholars"? (Isn't rhetoric a wonderful thing?)

And THEY have absolutely no reason to get it right.

They must be wrong, right?

Yup!

I mean, if Glenn Beck says so...

Well if you can prove him wrong by showing where the founding fathers support your interpretation, then feel free to do so.

[Vance]

What a strange idea.

Yes, the constitution was a strange idea at the time.

They're doing better than we are.

Since we have gone down the socialist path for the last century, I don't see how this supports you position.

Not at all. It's a large proportion of our debt.

You haven't shown that.

I'm afraid you're mistaken.

The problem with data is that the more you have the more conflicts you find within it.

You also seem to be confusing deficits with debt.

Yes, I did.

For accurate figures go to this site and punch in a starting and ending date to get the real figures:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

It's quite interesting if you compare the debt incurred during D vs R administrations. Of course, it's not corrected for inflation.

You were the one that brought up Bush. As if inflation would change the numbers drastically.

[WalkerW]

Deborah:

Sweden is very socialistic, does better economically than the US, is freer than the US.

Johan Norberg, "Swede and Sour," TCS Daily (June 10, 2002).

Andreas Bergh, Magnus Henrekson, "Lessons from the Swedish Welfare State," The Wall Street Journal (July 10, 2010).

Andreas Bergh, Martin Karlsson, "Government Size and Growth: Accounting for Economic Freedom and Globalization," Public Choice 142:1 (2010).

[Vance]

Vance,

I have to take issue with your interpretation of agency. In a scriptural context, the term agency is never used to refer to the ability to make choices. Moses 4:3 states that "Satan rebelled against [God], and sought to destroy the agency of man," but the agency of man is not the power to choose. If you think this issue through, it's hard to imagine anyone, let alone a third of the host of heaven, buying into a system in which they could not make choices.

The scriptural term agency refers to man's ability to function as an agent, i.e. a steward over his choices. An agent is one who holds responsibility over a stewardship (in this case decisions to obey or disregard the commandments of God). Note the way the term is used in D&C 64:18:

"And now, verily I say that it is expedient in me that my servant Sidney Gilbert, after a few weeks, shall return upon his business, and to his agency in the land of Zion."

In other words, in the scriptures, agency refers to man's ability to act as a steward, and in the context of "moral agency," the expression refers to man being held accountable for his choices, right or wrong. As explained in modern revelation,

"That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment" (D&C 101:78).

If Satan offered to do away with agency, i.e. man's need to function as a steward or agent over his choices and in the process save every soul, that is a system that could persuade quite a few individuals.

Hence, no human government can destroy or even limit agency. Not when this scriptural term is properly understood.

You make a valid point.

HOWEVER!!

If the government, forcibly removes wealth from me to help the poor, then I am not blessed for helping the poor. I can NOT be condemned for not helping the poor if I am made poor through confiscation.

For me to be bless for helping the poor, I MUST personally do it.

If the government removes for me the ability to choose how and where my resources will benefit the poor and needy, is not my agency damaged?

[thesometimesaint]

WalkerW:

Nothing in there negates a word I have said.

[WalkerW]

Vance,

I have to take issue with your interpretation of agency. In a scriptural context, the term agency is never used to refer to the ability to make choices. Moses 4:3 states that "Satan rebelled against [God], and sought to destroy the agency of man," but the agency of man is not the power to choose. If you think this issue through, it's hard to imagine anyone, let alone a third of the host of heaven, buying into a system in which they could not make choices.

The scriptural term agency refers to man's ability to function as an agent, i.e. a steward over his choices. An agent is one who holds responsibility over a stewardship (in this case decisions to obey or disregard the commandments of God). Note the way the term is used in D&C 64:18:

"And now, verily I say that it is expedient in me that my servant Sidney Gilbert, after a few weeks, shall return upon his business, and to his agency in the land of Zion."

In other words, in the scriptures, agency refers to man's ability to act as a steward, and in the context of "moral agency," the expression refers to man being held accountable for his choices, right or wrong. As explained in modern revelation,

"That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment" (D&C 101:78).

If Satan offered to do away with agency, i.e. man's need to function as a steward or agent over his choices and in the process save every soul, that is a system that could persuade quite a few individuals.

Hence, no human government can destroy or even limit agency. Not when this scriptural term is properly understood.

Excellent. This goes along quite well with the classical understanding of "freedom."

EDIT: Philosopher David Bentley Hart talks about the classical concept of freedom here.

The whole "free agency" argument in favor of markets I find to be rather bland and unhelpful. I support markets because I think they work better economically.

Moderate welfare or social democratic states can work, depending on the variables. But I find the secular system of socialism to be philosophically incoherent and detrimental to innovation (and thus human flourishing).

I like what Steve Harper said,

Empowered with correct knowledge of the law, we are free agents-accountable stewards of the Lord's possessions, including ourselves. We must act right now either in obedience or disobedience to the law of consecration. To ignore it is to disobey. But the bishop neither asks me for a deed nor gives me an inheritance. How can I obey? Elder Orson Pratt wisely observed that there is nothing "laid down in the revelations, requiring us to take [a] particular method." So what does the Lord expect? C. S. Lewis believed that "the only safe rule is to give more than we can spare. In other words, if our expenditure on comforts, luxuries, and amusements, etc., is up to the standard common among those with the same income as our own, we are probably giving away too little. If our charities do not at all pinch or hamper us, I should say they are too small. There ought to be things we should like to do and cannot do because our charities expenditure excludes them." Beside the Lord's open invitation to do much good of our own free will, priesthood leaders extend specific opportunities to offer time, talent, and property to relieve poverty and build the kingdom. One offered this guide (consistent with D&C 42:54; 104:18; and section 119) to exercising agency: "In addition to paying an honest tithing, we should be generous in assisting the poor." President Marion G. Romney asked, "What prohibits us from giving as much in fast offerings as we would have given in surpluses [in the 1830s]? Nothing but our own limitations." President Spencer W. Kimball commanded, "Give, instead of the amount we saved by our two meals of fasting, perhaps much, much more-ten times more where we are in a position to do it."[23] Parents live the law when they "lay aside the things of this world" in favor of raising God's children (D&C 25:10). Couples live the law when they forego leisure to venture into places far and near where they can "bring to pass much righteousness" (D&C 58:27). Professionals live the law when they offer their skills to the needy without concern for compensation or acclaim. We can live the law by becoming "the common property of the whole church," and "seeking the interest of [our] neighbor, and doing all things with an eye single to the glory of God" (D&C 82:18-19). Often the only necessary paperwork is the familiar tithing and offering slip available wherever Latter- day Saints gather. The only limitations, said President Romney, are self-imposed.

I'm wary of overly socialistic interpretations of the United Order (reasons for this can be found in Nate Oman's unpublished "Property, Contract, and the Market: A Mormon Perspective"), but I certainly don't think the system is "divine capitalism." Nonetheless, I believe most of the anti-capitalist mentality has little to do with empirical analysis and more so to do with Marxist rhetoric in popular media and academia. Rhetoric shapes the way people view things. I personally believe that if the rhetoric surrounding markets and innovation was more egalitarian in nature (which the data allows for), there wouldn't be so much backlash.

I also believe in continuing revelation and in revelatory adaptation to an evolving world. I'm not sure how the agrarian model of the United Order will work in a globalized economy.

But that's me.

[Vance]

Anytime any system is imposed, it won't work. Imposed being the key word.

There will ALWAYS be people who reject socialism. So the only way to implement is fully is to IMPOSE it.

The point of the article is that LDS should be advocating a more socialist society, based on teachings of Smith, Christ, and the scriptures.

Yes, the MISinterpreted teachings and scriptures.

Right...... because you strike me as being increadibly open minded Vance

Just like my critics here

Vance, free market capitalists have the same problem, a fully capitalist system has never existed in a vacuum.

Because of government intrusion into the free market for the benefit of a small group. Which is what government should be preventing, not indulging in.

Furthermore, anytime someone highlights a successful socialist country, like Sweeden or Canada, you guys just say that they are going to go broke eventually.

Because they always do.

The point stands, that they have done far better to date, on social issues, than the much more free market US. The gap has only widened in the last 15-20 years.

We haven't had a true free market system since the days of Woodrow Wilson (if we had it all.)

With the free market system we did have, in less that 150 years we went from a backwards nobody nation to being a world dominated superpower. Where our "poor", by comparison to the worlds poor, live in the lap of luxury.

[Vance]

No, scholars in general. Although the few crack pots out there are undoubtedly of the Conservative persuasion, they are a tiny minority. The majority of even the Right wing constitutional scholars still concede the point about the general welfare clause. And you asked me to prove Glenn Beck is wrong (who never went to school but runs Beck University!) and I just did in the previous post. Though I doubt this will phase you...

Oh, please.

[WalkerW]

The debate over the General Welfare clause dates all the way back to the 18th century, shortly after the US Constitution was crafted. On one side of the panel was James Madison and on the other, Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton co-authored the Constitution and wrote roughly two thirds of the Federalist Papers which have traditionally served as an interpretative device for the Constitution.

Madison believed the General Welfare clause should only pertain to the enumerated powers, whereas Hamilton argued that it referred to the "General Welfare," on all future matters that the Founders could not anticipate, including the

[WalkerW]

WalkerW:

Nothing in there negates a word I have said.

You read all of it that quickly? Impressive.

But it does provide some context to the whole "Sweden-is-socialist-and-so-much-better-than-us" talking point. Sweden accumulated much of its wealth by capitalist methods. Its growth stagnated as the welfare state expanded. Depression in the 1990s. It has been growing since then, but largely by adopting more market-oriented policies.

I would suggest reading them a bit more carefully instead of trying to convince everyone that you read it all in 6 minutes.

Here is a 10 minute video of economist Andreas Bergh entitled "

."

[Vance]

You've got straw all over you. Was that fun?

You still don't understand Socialism, nor do you have a grasp of Constitutional scholarship.

And OBVIOUSLY neither do you.

As far as taking our wealth from us, that is essentially what taxation is. And I hate to be the one to tell you this, but the Founding Fathers totally supported the government taking our "hard earned wealth."

But NOT for welfare.

We have to pay for stuff we don't agree with all the time.

That doesn't make it right.

I had to help finance the Iraq war. Your precious President made sure my hard earned wealth was put to the use of slaughtering tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens - all based on a lie - most of whom were women and children. Where is the uproar about "government takeover of our wealth" in these situations? How else do you think they paid for this? It is ok for the government to force people to pay for wars and such, but the second they want to use that money to help the poor, you go into a frenzy and complain about having your money used for such "waste"?

Well, with a political rant like that, I would be surprise this thread gets shut down.

At least be consistent with your grievances about government power.

I am. Your failure to distinguish the Constitutionally legitimate use of resources for defense versus the Constitutionally illegitimate uses.

[WalkerW]

They are bought and paid for.

If we're going to be accurate, cronyism is not part of free market principles. "Big business" does not automatically mean "right wing." Many larger businesses in the early 20th century supported government regulations because the regulations would be too expensive for smaller companies. It was an anti-competition and thus anti-capitalist mentality that supported the regulations.