Social Justice in the Bible

[volgadon]

possibly because criminals are also more innovative at their trade.

Oh yeah. There is an old Odessan criminal song from the 1920s or so, a bit of a shocker, where the safe-cracker boasts about how he'll break into God's dressing-room with his instruments and crack open the safe, then pick Judas' pockets.

This sort of thing developed only in the cities. Crime in the countryside was limited to roughing someone up, or smashing in a door.

[Jeff K.]

Ahh yes. Odessa, prettiest girls is the USSR (less sophisticated than Leningrad though), I miss the Soviet Union when you could go with a pair of blue jeans and be guarranteed a grateful friend. There is something to be said for other people being collectivists while you are not.

[WalkerW]

But capitalism's basis is purely individualistic.

I think this is a very narrow view of capitalism.

Smith stated the individual knew more clearly what was better for him than the government did.

Most definitely. Note the Hayek articles I linked to. But the government does not equal the community. Markets utilize the dispersed knowledge of individuals across the community rather than leaving all the decision-making in the hands of a few government bureaucrats. In my view, the former is actually more communal than the latter.

You would have to toss out "Wealth of Nations" to walk away from that idea.

I don't think so. Exchange involves interaction with others. It involves providing a good and service for others. Markets don't work without a community. One would just need to read The Wealth of Nations through the lens of his The Theory of Moral Sentiments.

EDIT: See Deirdre N. McCloskey, "Adam Smith, the Last of the Former Virtue Ethicists," History of Political Economy 40:1 (2008).

[David Bokovoy]

Another case in point for why this forum has become so problematic. When posters such as Gurn cannot successfully counter the ideas they disagree with, they instead immediately turn to strawman arguments such as this that are easily countered but which the opposition has repeatedly stated they do not believe.

For the last time, I do not believe that socialism or any other man made "ism" is Zion, nor can secular institutions create Zion. Again, my perspective is that the closer a secular government can get to incorporating the principles of Zion, the better off, yea even the more blessed that society will be.

One final point to add. My view is in complete harmony with the perspective taught by the living oracles. Note the public admonition calling governments to implement the principles of Zion applicable to the family:

"We warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

Here we see a specific example of the living prophets calling upon governments to implement one of the principles of Zion. Interesting to contrast their perspective with the view advocated by "Gurn."

But this quote clearly points out that David is willing to impose his gospel of collectivism by the power of Caesar at the tip of a Roman spear. I reject this gospel of collectivism, though I await Zion. I trust the Lord and His appointed servants, from President Monson to my branch president. I don

[Jeff K.]

Quote

But capitalism's basis is purely individualistic.

I think this is a very narrow view of capitalism.

That is like saying believing in God to be Christian is a very narrow view of Christianity. I think individual choice is not a narrow view, but an integral one which defines the ideal. Exchange by itself is not capitalism since powers and others can force exchange. Exchange is simply choice of medium and can work in most economic systems.

Capitalism by experience has three key elements that cannot be set aside without capitalism also being set aside.

1-Private property, which usually depends on the existence of government power that is able to protect that property.

2-The exchange between legally free individuals as opposed to say serfdom or slavery or economiendas. In the latter labor is pulled by political superiority, not choice.

3-Then there is the market mechanism where production and distribution operate. In that sense it counters the idea of custom or common decisions of the village or tribe.

Capitalism has existed to varying degrees under these forms. Note in all three the need for individual choice is manifest.

[Jeff K.]

Most definitely. Note the Hayek articles I linked to. But the government does not equal the community. Markets utilize the dispersed knowledge of individuals across the community rather than leaving all the decision-making in the hands of a few government bureaucrats. In my view, the former is actually more communal than the latter.

That is a good point and it is more communal.

[Calm]

Vance, I wouldn't be too hasten in stating that taxes weren't even being collected. It seems that King Benjamin is saying that he did not place heavy taxes and levies upon the people. It seems rather obvious that KB is alluding to the notorious incident at the beginning of Rehoboam's reign over the united Israelite kingdom. Please note how often certain key words in Mosiah 2 appear in the following account. Hardly coincidental........

Rehoboam's rough treatment of the people cost him half the kingdom.This was seen as a political, social and religious crisis. King Benjamin alludes to it, and contrasts his behavior with that of Rehoboam. Pretty politically savy, actually.

"Laden" means "burdened" or "loaded down" ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/laden ), if the taxes were not only not excessive but were used cost effectively for the people's good, they would not be a burden. Not having taxes that made roads or paid for a military or whatever could be much more of a burden for a community than having taxes that did supply these things.

[WalkerW]

That is a good point and it is more communal.

I think this side of capitalism gets lost in the individualism rhetoric.

[Calm]

I haven't read this entire thread, but, for what it's worth, I read this quote from Pres Faust just this morning: 'When we preach the gospel of social justice, no doubt the devil is not troubled' (link).

When we preach anything alone without the gospel of Christ, I would agree that the devil is likely not troubled. I suspect if the gospel of social justice was preached in the context of the gospel of Christ it would be quite another matter.

[Deborah]

My DIL just posted this on FB, which seems to fit with this discussion:

If we have no peace it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other. ~Mother Teresa

[volgadon]

"Laden" means "burdened" or "loaded down" ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/laden ), if the taxes were not only not excessive but were used cost effectively for the people's good, they would not be a burden. Not having taxes that made roads or paid for a military or whatever could be much more of a burden for a community than having taxes that did supply these things.

I absolutely agree. Also, without levying manpower, public infrastructures could not be built or maintained. The people addressing Rehoboam did not ask to be released entirely from taxes and levies, but to have them lightened.

[LeSellers]

Capitalism by experience has three key elements that cannot be set aside without capitalism also being set aside.

1-Private property, which usually depends on the existence of government power that is able to protect that property.

No, this is not a requirement. No one is questioning that it does help to have the power of the state in protecting the concept of freedom manifested as private property.

But property predated government, and capital is just a form of property that someone has saved (by deferring his own gratification in consuming it) and then used for assisting others in attaining their needs and wants. As long as the individual (or his family and friends) can protect his own property against those who would initiate violence against him and take that property, there is no need for government in a capitalist world. (Please note that I do not like the term "capitalism" for three or four reasons. I prefer "free market" because it does not evoke visions of the Monopoly guy.)

2-The exchange between legally free individuals as opposed to say serfdom or slavery or economiendas. In the latter labor is pulled by political superiority, not choice.

This is absolutely true. Markets cannot exist when the lethal power of the state inhibits people's freedom. Given that government exists to limit people's freedoms, it is easy to see that there are few free markets where there is government, especially big government.

That markets exist at all, however restricted they may have to be, is a testament to the resiliency of humanity. It is also true that those places where government is limited, and consequently where markets are strongest, the people are wealthiest across the board, and they are the happiest.

3-Then there is the market mechanism where production and distribution operate. In that sense it counters the idea of custom or common decisions of the village or tribe.

Markets can exist and flourish under any sort of limited government. When the tribal elders or the courts and legislatures mandate that one person give away (ultimately under threat of lethal force) the fruits of his labors, that market founders and the people, across the board, are the poorer for it.

Note in all three the need for individual choice is manifest.

Yea, verily.

Lehi

[Jeff K.]

I think this side of capitalism gets lost in the individualism rhetoric.

I see that as more a transparent sharing or availablity of communication. Community may mean something more along the lines of like minded individuals, but the sharing of informaiton need not create a like mindedness.

[LeSellers]

I absolutely agree.

I agree only to the extent that we recognize that the market could provide roads and these other things without taxation. Governmental decisions about things like "where should we build the road?" are not always good, and there is no way to rectify the mistakes, while the private market is self-correcting.

We used to think that utilities were natural monopolies, but this is untrue. Many cities installed (and still maintain) electrical utilities because they felt (wrongly) that no one else could supply the need. We should not forget, either, that these utilities have been poorly run, lose money every year

[Jeff K.]

Yea, verily.

I keep thinking "The Court Jester"

Yea, verily yea....

[Vance]

(Please note that I do not like the term "capitalism" for three or four reasons. I prefer "free market" because it does not evoke visions of the monopoly guy.)

I agree!

The ONLY way a monopoly can exist is with the consent of Government. (Think Government schools.)

[DH]

This quote caused me hours of lost sleep. Were this merely some academic exercise in the study of ancient texts, I

[Bill Hamblin]

It seems to me there are many different ways to live the Lord's command to "Love your neighbor as yourself." Probably an infinite number. Creating wealth and thereby giving someone a job is one. Philanthropic giving to the poor is another. These are not contradictory or incompatible. They are complimentary. When we see any human political system or theory as intrinsic (or inimical) to the Gospel, we necessarily distort the Gospel in the process. The Gospel must transcend human political theories, which will all pass away one day when God's kingdom comes. The Lord's command to "Love your neighbor as yourself" can be lived in a capitalist society, a communist society, or a concentration camp. It is not a political or economic system that permits for forbids you from living the Great Commandment. It is our own greed and clinging to the natural man.

[volgadon]

It seems to me there are many different ways to live the Lord's command to "Love your neighbor as yourself." Probably an infinite number. Creating wealth and thereby giving someone a job is one. Philanthropic giving to the poor is another. These are not contradictory or incompatible. They are complimentary. When we see any human political system or theory as intrinsic (or inimical) to the Gospel, we necessarily distort the Gospel in the process. The Gospel must transcend human political theories, which will all pass away one day when God's kingdom comes. The Lord's command to "Love your neighbor as yourself" can be lived in a capitalist society, a communist society, or a concentration camp. It is not a political or economic system that permits for forbids you from living the Great Commandment. It is our own greed and clinging to the natural man.

Beautiful.

[David Bokovoy]

DB can correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect he was not suggesting that the state impose anything like the United Order on the people, merely that the state lend a helping hand to the poor. True brotherhood and equality cannot be forced, but I have no problem at all with the community taking the more limited role of providing a safety net to help people in need.

Setting the question of the state aside, God has already commanded us to help the poor and work to establish Zion, and all of us who are endowed are under covenant to do that. You can wait for some future revelation if you want, but if we don't act on what we've already been given, I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you, waiting for a new revelation.

Thank you. This fully captures my view and response to "Gurn," a poster who not only writes so much like Will ("people of that ilk should not be allowed here"), but who manifests the same bad habit of misrepresenting my statements in order to knock down my "perspective," that I must admit, I've experienced a frightening case of what the French refer to as deja vu.

In stating that he does not trust the US government to put into policy principles connected with Zion, and that therefore people of my ilk are wrong to call upon them to do so, I suspect that "Gurn" simply hadn't thought his criticism through too deeply. I very much doubt he intentionally sought to directly contradict the position taken by the First Presidency.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 25 March 2011 - 10:00 AM, said:

Capitalism by experience has three key elements that cannot be set aside without capitalism also being set aside.

1-Private property, which usually depends on the existence of government power that is able to protect that property.

No, this is not a requirement. No one is questioning that it does help to have the power of the state in protecting the concept of freedom manifested as private property.

But property predated government, and capital is just a form of property that someone has saved (by deferring his own gratification in consuming it) and then used for assisting others in attaining their needs and wants. As long as the individual (or his family and friends) can protect his own property against those who would initiate violence against him and take that property, there is no need for government in a capitalist world. (Please note that I do not like the term "capitalism" for three or four reasons. I prefer "free market" because it does not evoke visions of the Monopoly

[Calm]

It seems to me there are many different ways to live the Lord's command to "Love your neighbor as yourself." Probably an infinite number. Creating wealth and thereby giving someone a job is one. Philanthropic giving to the poor is another. These are not contradictory or incompatible. They are complimentary. When we see any human political system or theory as intrinsic (or inimical) to the Gospel, we necessarily distort the Gospel in the process. The Gospel must transcend human political theories, which will all pass away one day when God's kingdom comes. The Lord's command to "Love your neighbor as yourself" can be lived in a capitalist society, a communist society, or a concentration camp. It is not a political or economic system that permits for forbids you from living the Great Commandment. It is our own greed and clinging to the natural man.

Very nice.

[David Bokovoy]

It seems to me there are many different ways to live the Lord's command to "Love your neighbor as yourself." Probably an infinite number. Creating wealth and thereby giving someone a job is one. Philanthropic giving to the poor is another. These are not contradictory or incompatible. They are complimentary. When we see any human political system or theory as intrinsic (or inimical) to the Gospel, we necessarily distort the Gospel in the process. The Gospel must transcend human political theories, which will all pass away one day when God's kingdom comes. The Lord's command to "Love your neighbor as yourself" can be lived in a capitalist society, a communist society, or a concentration camp. It is not a political or economic system that permits for forbids you from living the Great Commandment. It is our own greed and clinging to the natural man.

I agree, 100 percent! No, 1000 percent, if such a thing exists. Which speaking personally, is why I am registered as an Independent and will continue to vote my conscious for specific circumstances, despite the apparent dissonance. You're talking to an MA resident who moved from supporting Mitt, to voting for Obama and then voted for Republican Senator Scott Brown!!

But when it comes to politicians, no matter their party, I've come to believe that the Who had it right: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!"

[Calm]

But when it comes to politicians, no matter their party, I've come to believe that the Who had it right: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!"

Sad, but true.

[WalkerW]

...to voting for Obama

You've sealed your fate. Good luck in hell.