The case for Book of Mormon socialism

[WalkerW]

But it is good you admit we have no pure free market. Therefore you are in no position to be boasting about what it would do if we had one. All you can do is fanatasize about what you would like to believe it would do.

Anarcho-capitalism is not to be equated with free markets.

[frankenstein]

while I disagree with some of the characterzations of what Christ taught, I think there is some truth to the article.

pertinent article to the subject "Why Evangelicals hate Jesus"

They hate anything that smacks of "socialism," even though that is essentially what their Savior preached. They despise food stamp programs, subsidies for schools, hospitals, job training -- anything that might dare to help out those in need. Even though helping out those in need was exactly what Jesus urged humans to do. In short, Evangelicals are that segment of America which is the most pro-militaristic, pro-gun, and pro-corporate, while simultaneously claiming to be most ardent lovers of the Prince of Peace.

[Vance]

Madison and Jefferson, no. But the majority of the Fathers believed it did, including Hamilton, Washington and others mentioned in the previous post which you obviously chose to ignore. And yes, you have completely ignored it.

Well, in a fast paced world some things get skipped.

So, there was conflict about what it meant even just after it was written. The problem with the Madisonian view is that, taken to the limit, there is no legitimate limit upon what the Federal Government can do. (As we are seeing).

Welcome to tyranny in the making.

To your benefit, no doubt.

Impugning me are you?

You're not faring well here.

Ah, Ad populum.

You keep reasserting the same bald assertions and ignoring detailed responses that refute your premises.

You keep saying socialism will work. But it never has.

It neglects the fundamental facts of human nature.

But you have not even begun to make an argument that welfare is unconstitutional.

Well, if the Constitution doesn't limit the Federal Government then there is no limit to the tyranny it can IMPOSE.

And even if it were, this is no way changes the fact that you have a double standard.

Still not accepting the difference between common defense and welfare, aye.

On one hand you oppose the notion that government can take our wealth without our permission, especially when it is being used to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, shelter the abused, etc.

At the Federal level, YES!!

But on the other hand you support government seizure of personal wealth, so long as it is used to kill others.

I was talking about the common defense, yes.

Now you want to add capital punishment?

Guess which part of this doesn't bode well with a Christ-like government?

Well, obviously, the confiscation of wealth by the government to give to the indolent. Duh!

[WalkerW]

True, but it is possible because of those principles.

It isn't possible because of free market principles. Bribery exists in any system. My initial claim was that cronyism runs counter to free market principles.

Cronyism is a statist system.

And yet, Big Business is overwhelmingly Right Wing.

Big Business influenced by Progressive Era principles (which is largely considered "left wing") certainly are not. But I think "the Right" is such an arbitrary label since any and everyone who opposes the general statism on "the Left" is lumped into "the Right."

Exactly. It is all about gaining an advantage in the market. Sometimes government is their best friend, other times it is their enemy.

But this isn't free market oriented.

The reason they hate Obama is because he declared his intentions to rid Washington of the corruption.

Yet, he bailed out numerous businesses.

That isn't anti-Capitalist.

If capitalism is to be equated with a free market system, then yes, it is.

tweak the system to suppress further competiton and make their monopoly secured, etc.

Doing so goes against free market principles. You're arguing against cronyism, not the market.

It is the American way.

Mainly since the early 20th century.

The only thing preventing this is government intervention.

The only thing preventing buddying up with the government is government intervention? If by "government intervention," you mean laws, then certainly.

But the problem nowadays is that companies are getting "too big to fail" so that when they do fail, they run to the government and make the case that their failure will destroy the economy, therefore the next three generations of taxpayers must fork up the money to bail them out.

"Too big to fail" is an anti-capitalist mentality. Isn't government bailouts government intervention?

Whose fault is that? No one's.

It is the fault of all those shoppers at Wal-Mart.

It is just the nature of capitalism run amuck.

You make it sound as if Wal-Mart is a bad thing. I've really never understood the hostility toward Wal-Mart.

[WalkerW]

As Matt Ridley put it, "A Wal-Mart store drives small general retailors out of business as surely as the computer drove the typewriter out of business" (The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves, 113).

[Vance]

According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare. Alexander Hamilton maintained that the clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation. The winner of this debate was not declared for 150 years.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/General+Welfare

Sounds to me like there was no consensus of its meaning, even at the time of its writing. It is also interesting that it took 150 years for the Jeffersonian view to be discarded and the Madisonian view to be imposed. And even then not fully.

But now we have this.

It also established that determination of the general welfare would be left to the discretion of Congress.

Well, Congress has decided that the bailout of Big Business is the general welfare (and just to be clear, I am opposed to this). How do the socialists like them apples?

[Doctor Steuss]

I like what Steve Harper said,

Interesting read. Thank you.

Politicians should be required to wear NASCAR type uniforms so we can all see who is sponsoring them.

In a thread of many opposing views, hopefully the above is something we can all find commonality in. This line seriously gave me a good chuckle.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: I would like to thank everyone for their participation. Unfortunately, while the first several pages were interesting and respectful on all sides, it has rapidly turned into a fast-moving fight, contrary to my request. I would like to remind everyone that just because one person insults you, you do not have justification to do the same. I would simply block those who allowed this to happen from the thread, but it has progressed to far to be saved. Everyone made some good contributions though, so thank you again.

Thank you,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff