The Economy Of Heaven

[Calm]

Unfortunately, the route that many took was to privatise prisons which has a whole other set of problems.

I agree that turning prisons into a profit making business was very unfortunate even if business tends to do things much more efficiently than governments. I think it should have been some areas could have been turned over while the basic structure is still governmental, but with combined resources of state and federal to make resource usage more efficient with less redundancy.

Sorry for the derail, am waiting for some meds to kick in and need some major distraction to endure until then. Maybe I'll go see what's on Hulu so as to avoid taking up space here.

By the way, perhaps TSS remembers as I think the link was from him, there was a model prison based on the family being attempted up in Sweden or Finland IIRC where prisoners interacted with families of guards and such in order to provide them with an environment that would mirror what they would experience when they got out. It appeared to be very effective last time I looked at it, but it was also a very small prison, less than one hundred inmates and was high in cost (though if it cuts down on relapses and violence which it appeared to be doing, it might be cost effective in the long run). We could combine subjects here by postulating the creation of UO towns around the core of small prisons set up on the same theory as this one, where the inhabitants of the town receive benefits for interacting with the prisoners to help with the establishment of the community...thus meeting the needs of both.

Edited July 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[cinepro]

I was taught---whether accurately or not---that it was the youth who had been brought up in the community in relative comfort as opposed to having had to struggle to establish them in the Utah version that brought about the downfall of the communities, specifically their desire to have fashionable clothing (my memory says it was the new jeans at least for the guys, but this could have been from a joke of the teacher) or at least storebought goods from back east.

Can anyone confirm or contradict this? It seems a rather simplistic version, but it wouldn't surprise me to find the children not having the same commitment as the parents since they wouldn't have known the reality of what living outside the Order meant in terms of security, etc.

Here's how one guy tells the story of the "Orderville Pants Rebellion":

Leonard Arrington's book, Great Basin Kingdom, ⁽²⁾ tells a story about Orderville, Utah, where in the 1870s the Saints lived the law of consecration. It was not easy to live in Orderville. The town was founded in an atmosphere of poverty. By contrast, not far away, at Silver Reef, the coming of the railroad permitted the development of the silver mines. People in surrounding towns suddenly were able to buy imported clothing and other commodities. The Orderville Saints came to be viewed as "old fashioned." Their floppy straw hats and gray jeans became objects of ridicule. Orderville teenagers began to envy their peers in neighboring towns.

One of those teenagers was the father of my wife's great aunt. He was growing quickly, as teenagers do, and his pants became too short. But there were no holes in them, and so his application for a new pair was denied. However, there was a large crop of lambs that spring. When the lambs' tails were docked, he sheared the wool off the tails. When he took a load of wool to Nephi, he quietly traded the lamb's tail wool for a brand new pair of store-bought gentile pants. When he returned, he wore the new pants to the next dance. "His entrance caused a sensation." ⁽³⁾ According to the story, one young woman rushed up to him and kissed him. The president of the Order asked for an explanation, and the young man told the truth. The president said, "According to your own story these pants belong to the Order. You are requested to appear before the Board of Management tomorrow evening at half-past eight, and to bring the store pants with you." ⁽⁴⁾

At the meeting, the Board commended the young man for his enterprise, but reminded him that all pants must be made from the same cloth. But to prove its good will, the Board agreed to unseam the store pants and use them as a pattern for all pants made in the future. They told the young man that he would receive the first pair.

The tailoring department was soon overwhelmed with orders for the new pants. It was noticed that the boys' old pants were getting thin, and even holes developed, on the seat of the pants. This was a puzzle. The boys were frequently on their knees when praying or weeding the garden, but they didn't spend much time sitting down. Why were these holes developing? Then the elders saw groups of boys going to the shed where the grindstone was located. They investigated. The boys were wearing out the seat of their pants on the grindstone. The elders protested and then gave in. They sent a load of wool to Washington Mills to trade for cloth, and the tailor shop became a busy place. Thus ended the great pants rebellion of Orderville.

The Law of Consecration will never work. It's just too flawed of an idea that goes against everything we know about human psychology. The only way it will ever "work" is if we change human nature (i.e. if people stop acting like people). We can theorize a future time like the Millennium where Christ will return and suddenly that will be the case, but barring a supernatural occurance of that type, it just isn't going to happen.

Edited July 10, 2013 by cinepro

[Stone holm]

Here's how one guy tells the story of the "Orderville Pants Rebellion":

The Law of Consecration will never work. It's just too flawed of an idea that goes against everything we know about human psychology. The only way it will ever "work" is if we change human nature (i.e. if people stop acting like people). We can theorize a future time like the Millennium where Christ will return and suddenly that will be the case, but barring a supernatural occurance of that type, it just isn't going to happen.

Some failed possibly for that reason, but some merely had to be abandoned because of the anti-poligamy laws, the Feds were going around confiscating property, the Church was under seige.

[Calm]

Here's how one guy tells the story of the "Orderville Pants Rebellion":

Leonard Arrington's book, Great Basin Kingdom

Thank you, this is at least one place where I would have come across it, but since it's probably been over 25 years or so since I read it, I would never have figured it out.

[Sleeper Cell]

That's why I said generally. I don't know how to equate human life to money. But we do it anyway. Do we write a unlimited check to those that lose a loved one? That would bankrupt us all pretty quickly, but to not do anything to help alleviate the financial lose seems cruel.

To do justice is to make whole. If I steal a persons cow I can be made to return the cow, or its monetary equivalent, plus any penalty the law requires. Where is the justice in killing a human being, even if they killed someone else? Will killing that person return the loved one? I'm not saying that some punishment shouldn't be required. I'm just not too sure killing is an appropriate punishment for killing. Sounds to me more like vengeance.

Again, do you think it is "just" for mass murderers to get, for all practical purposes, the same sentence as someone who has never killed anyone?

Re: your example of justice for someone stealing a cow. I have an idea. If a person is convicted of stealing, sentence him to "work release" and deduct money from his meager paycheck until he repays the monetary equivalent of what he stole.

I believe this is where we came in.

[Sleeper Cell]

Here's how one guy tells the story of the "Orderville Pants Rebellion":

One of those teenagers was the father of my wife's great aunt. He was growing quickly, as teenagers do, and his pants became too short. But there were no holes in them, and so his application for a new pair was denied. However, there was a large crop of lambs that spring. When the lambs' tails were docked, he sheared the wool off the tails. When he took a load of wool to Nephi, he quietly traded the lamb's tail wool for a brand new pair of store-bought gentile pants. When he returned, he wore the new pants to the next dance. "His entrance caused a sensation." (3) According to the story, one young woman rushed up to him and kissed him. The president of the Order asked for an explanation, and the young man told the truth. The president said, "According to your own story these pants belong to the Order. You are requested to appear before the Board of Management tomorrow evening at half-past eight, and to bring the store pants with you." (4)

At the meeting, the Board commended the young man for his enterprise, but reminded him that all pants must be made from the same cloth. But to prove its good will, the Board agreed to unseam the store pants and use them as a pattern for all pants made in the future. They told the young man that he would receive the first pair.

The tailoring department was soon overwhelmed with orders for the new pants. It was noticed that the boys' old pants were getting thin, and even holes developed, on the seat of the pants. This was a puzzle. The boys were frequently on their knees when praying or weeding the garden, but they didn't spend much time sitting down. Why were these holes developing? Then the elders saw groups of boys going to the shed where the grindstone was located. They investigated. The boys were wearing out the seat of their pants on the grindstone. The elders protested and then gave in. They sent a load of wool to Washington Mills to trade for cloth, and the tailor shop became a busy place. Thus ended the great pants rebellion of Orderville.

Sort of a combination of Solomon and Mark Twain.

Few leaders know when to be firm and when to back off and laugh at themselves. It appears that they were trying to walk the fine line of maintaining discipline and the integrity of the Order, while trying to find some way to reward ingenuity and enterprise.

I am surprised that nobody has ever collected into one volume the various humorous stories of 19^th century LDS teenage rebellion and the creative responses of their leaders.. There are a series of stories about teenager Heber J Grant finding ways to circumvent the rules by conning Brigham Young (and BY knowing he was being conned, yet letting him get away with it). BY presumably had the last laugh when, years later, H. J. Grant had to deal with the antics of J. Golden Kimball. Then, there is the story of teenager J. F. Smith kicking his teacher’s donkey and shortly afterwards being sent on a mission at age 15. Good stuff.

Perhaps a new lesson manual: “Presidents of the Church: The Teenage Years.”

.

[Calm]

Perhaps a new lesson manual: “Presidents of the Church: The Teenage Years.”

.

I vote that you write it. It would be an overnight bestseller.

[Tacenda]

http://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2013/07/11/18th-of-an-inch/ This blog was put up by someone in the "A Thoughtful Faith Support Group" on FB. I thought it to be compelling. Do you think the Lord wants so much money put into building temples, or malls for that matter? I lived next door to a man that worked for the church in the department that builds temples. My husband asked one time, how much is usually spent on a temple. My old neighbor said something to the effect of "the skies the limit on temples, or there is no cap for a temple". Those weren't his exact words but you get the picture. At the time I thought that was cool, and that's as it should be. But now, when I think about it Would the Lord agree, or would he want that money spent on the hungry? Especially a church, something to think about. I understand that temples are for the dead. And maybe this life isn't as important. But as put forth by Palerider in the "Unchanging Ordinances Or Was Moses Baptized By Immersion" thread, post #54, I see that we may just have a problem after we die if we didn't save that hungry person. Just maybe those choices to build big malls or temples will be our doom. Maybe it'll be us on the side of the road starving and dying while the world looks on. Here is the quote from that thread, I think it applies here, and I know I'll get wrath for saying something about how the church spends the money, but I hope I'm free to wonder in this church. Here is Palerider's quoted scripture about the beggar Lazarus in Luke 16: 19-31..................................................

19“Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day.20“And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores,21and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores.22“Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried.23“In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom.24“And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.’25“But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony.26‘And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.’27“And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house—28for I have five brothers—in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’29“But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’30“But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’31“But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”

[Calm]

Unless you want to completely disregard the instructions given in the OT for building the tabernacle and temple as revelation, you must consider what a demand that would have placed on a people that lived a much more demanding and less prosperous life than we do....and yet the Lord instructed them to build and cover the temple in the finest materials possible with the finest workmanship available.

Something to consider as a parallel in this day and age where we have so much more...

[volgadon]

http://themormonwork...8th-of-an-inch/ This blog was put up by someone in the "A Thoughtful Faith Support Group" on FB. I thought it to be compelling. Do you think the Lord wants so much money put into building temples, or malls for that matter? I lived next door to a man that worked for the church in the department that builds temples. My husband asked one time, how much is usually spent on a temple. My old neighbor said something to the effect of "the skies the limit on temples, or there is no cap for a temple". Those weren't his exact words but you get the picture. At the time I thought that was cool, and that's as it should be. But now, when I think about it Would the Lord agree, or would he want that money spent on the hungry? Especially a church, something to think about. I understand that temples are for the dead. And maybe this life isn't as important. But as put forth by Palerider in the "Unchanging Ordinances Or Was Moses Baptized By Immersion" thread, post #54, I see that we may just have a problem after we die if we didn't save that hungry person. Just maybe those choices to build big malls or temples will be our doom. Maybe it'll be us on the side of the road starving and dying while the world looks on. Here is the quote from that thread, I think it applies here, and I know I'll get wrath for saying something about how the church spends the money, but I hope I'm free to wonder in this church. Here is Palerider's quoted scripture about the beggar Lazarus in Luke 16: 19-31..................................................

You are free to wonder, but while you wonder, consider these. Exodus 36. 1 Kings 5. Matthew 26.

[Tacenda]

You are free to wonder, but while you wonder, consider these. Exodus 36. 1 Kings 5. Matthew 26.

Are the same ordinances being done as the temple mentioned in the scriptures you provided, in our temples today? Does that matter? Maybe not, though I do remember hearing, not so much now, that one day we will be doing temple work in our churches because there is so much work to be done. If a church is good enough then do we still need to pour so much money into the temples? I can see how they are a good representation to the world and do see the significance that it's our Lord's house, but thinking that the ancient temple was for the sacrificial offerings before Christ came and when he tore the curtain down it was finished and no more needed.

[Calm]

I do remember hearing, not so much now, that one day we will be doing temple work in our churches because there is so much work to be done.

I find that unlikely due to the calculations done that demonstrate that not even all of the Millennium will be needed to get all the work done if the work is done 24/7 as we have been taught and there are temples dotting the land as we are taught (a couple of hundred are sufficient to get the work done for all humanity that has ever existed in less than half the Millennium given full sessions around the clock using the averages based on the size of the temples today.

Considering how they weren't allowed to do full proxy work in the Endowment House, I find it unlikely that the rules will be changed when the need isn't there when they weren't when the need was there.

Edited July 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

A certain amount of money of the killer should be set aside to provide for the spouse if needed to receive training to get a self supporting job as well as child support for his or her children based on a set level not of what they are accustomed to, but actual need (IOW everyone gets up to the same amount even if this means the family has to move into much, much cheaper living area). The rest of his possessions should be liquidated and the money given to the family of the victim up to a certain amount, the rest goes into a victims fund for those who are victims of individuals who don't possess much, if anything of value.

Murderers should then be placed in a very limited in comfort prison where they can choose to either rot in jail (individual ones to cut down on violence) or work where (starting out) 3/4 of their pay goes to the victim's family or the fund and 1/4 can go to increase of comfort (and they get paid at least min. wage which would mean more to them since they wouldn't have to worry about the necessities of life, all their salary that they get can go to luxuries). They would have to get at least some money to be motivated to work, otherwise I would say take it all. They can increase the rate of the amount that get of their wages based on their behavior, 'perfect' prisoners getting up to a half of their wages, prisoners causing disturbances getting cut in pay as well as any savings being pulled and having to start from scratch.

There are a lot of bugs in that system.

[Calm]

There are a lot of bugs in that system.

Of course there are. I am not an expert in Prison Reform. But somehow I doubt that there are more than in the current system. Edited July 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

I agree that turning prisons into a profit making business was very unfortunate even if business tends to do things much more efficiently than governments. I think it should have been some areas could have been turned over while the basic structure is still governmental, but with combined resources of state and federal to make resource usage more efficient with less redundancy.

Sorry for the derail, am waiting for some meds to kick in and need some major distraction to endure until then. Maybe I'll go see what's on Hulu so as to avoid taking up space here.

By the way, perhaps TSS remembers as I think the link was from him, there was a model prison based on the family being attempted up in Sweden or Finland IIRC where prisoners interacted with families of guards and such in order to provide them with an environment that would mirror what they would experience when they got out. It appeared to be very effective last time I looked at it, but it was also a very small prison, less than one hundred inmates and was high in cost (though if it cuts down on relapses and violence which it appeared to be doing, it might be cost effective in the long run). We could combine subjects here by postulating the creation of UO towns around the core of small prisons set up on the same theory as this one, where the inhabitants of the town receive benefits for interacting with the prisoners to help with the establishment of the community...thus meeting the needs of both.

I'm not sure that that system is directly transferable to the US. But we certainly could incorporate parts of it.

[volgadon]

Are the same ordinances being done as the temple mentioned in the scriptures you provided, in our temples today? Does that matter? Maybe not, though I do remember hearing, not so much now, that one day we will be doing temple work in our churches because there is so much work to be done. If a church is good enough then do we still need to pour so much money into the temples? I can see how they are a good representation to the world and do see the significance that it's our Lord's house, but thinking that the ancient temple was for the sacrificial offerings before Christ came and when he tore the curtain down it was finished and no more needed.

The curtain torn is a different issue entirely. For one, the rent is more characteristic of mourning, and for another, I suggest reading Orthodox Christian perspectives on veils. A far different perspective emerges.

One can look at the temples as used for animal sacrifice (though in my opinion that is asking entirely the wrong question), and see that if such a commandment was issued to temples with lesser ordinances, then all the more so do they hold true for temples of the higher ordinances!

[thesometimesaint]

Of course there are. I am not an expert in Prison Reform. But somehow I doubt that there are more than in the current system.

I'm no expert either. What we've become is expert at punishing people. The sad part is that while punishment may extinguish bad behaviors, it can never by themselves, replace them with good behaviors. So the bad behaviors soon return or gets worse. We need to rethink the whole crime and punishment model. JS recommended turning all the prisons into schools. That's a good place to start.

[ERayR]

Yep, that is the answer always given. Tell me why it is evil for the majority of the people to vote to make sure everyone is taken care of, but it is good to support a proposition which prevents people from entering into a marriage that God does not condone?

Is Theft by the majority any better than theft by individuals.

[thesometimesaint]

Again, do you think it is "just" for mass murderers to get, for all practical purposes, the same sentence as someone who has never killed anyone?

Re: your example of justice for someone stealing a cow. I have an idea. If a person is convicted of stealing, sentence him to "work release" and deduct money from his meager paycheck until he repays the monetary equivalent of what he stole.

I believe this is where we came in.

Just? Yes that is just. If we were perfect in judgement and saw the end from the beginning. Maybe we could execute the murders feeling justified. But we're not and we don't. So I error on the side of mercy. Not for their sakes, but for mine.

We have laws against peonage for that very reason.

http://video.pbs.org/video/2176766758/

[Stone holm]

Is Theft by the majority any better than theft by individuals.

I don't consider taxation theft and neither did The Lord.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't consider taxation theft and neither did The Lord.

Just as importantly so does the US Constitution, and the Church.

[cinepro]

The most interesting thing for about the Law of Consecration is that we've reached a point in LDS culture where we feel like we're comfortably excused from it, like polygamy.

But each LDS could live according to the principles of Consecration today if we chose.

Living the Law of Consecration doesn’t mean a reduction in “self reliance” or somehow opting out of sound 21st century personal management principles. It doesn’t have to involve liquidating your 401(k) or not saving for the future. It simply involves giving your surplus, your true surplus, to the Church so the less fortunate can be helped. Any LDS who wants to live this higher law needs only take stock of their needs compared to their wants, and once their needs are met, they give the rest to the Church as a fast offering.

For example, if I am shopping for a house for my family of 6, I may determine that I need a house with 4 bedrooms. A palatial 4 bedroom goes for $900k in my area, and a modest but absolutely respectable and livable 4 bedroom goes for $450k. For purposes of this example, suppose I have saved $900k the purchase of a house. If I am committed to living my life under the principle of consecration, I evaluate my needs, subdue my intense yearning for a McMansion in the foothills and buy the $450k house, and give $450k to the Church.

Suppose my car has broken down, and I need to buy a new one. Again, I am fortunate enough to have saved $40k for a new car. I need a nice sport utility for the bumpy roads around my house, and would like a BMW X5. But I could get by with a decent used Ford Explorer for $20k. So I buy the Explorer and give $20k to the Church. That’s the surplus; it was more than I needed.

On a slightly smaller scale, and one that applies to just about every LDS in a developed country, there are countless choices we make where we choose to spend just a little more than we need to on clothing, food, entertainment, gadgets, and everything else. The principles of consecration would suggest that we should use these oppurtunities to recognize our surpluses and make contributions to the poor and needy among us. Even if it means passing up on a pair of $140 jeans or a $6,000 TV.

The most common argument against such ideas is that people always have jobs and situations where they need a $2,000 suit for court, or a $50k car lasts so much longer than a $25k car that it makes financial sense in the end. While some of these arguments might have some merit (there is certainly a point where buying “cheap” clothes or electronics is counterproductive), it’s usually just a weak justification for our materialistic desires. The point of consecration being that we need to overcome them.

I’ll also take a second to point out that the scriptures seem to spend more time complaining about the cost of peoples’ clothes compared to their modesty (and if the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica, it’s possible the first thing Jesus saw when he showed up was a crowd of bare-breasted women, yet he didn’t mention it). But I digress.

Frankly, given the choice I’m not sure which 19th century doctrine/policy (“doctrincy”) modern capitalist, “self sufficient” LDS would be more reluctant to practice: polygamy or Consecration. That would be an interesting question to ask your Gospel Doctrine class. I wonder if the answers would be divided along gender lines…

[thesometimesaint]

Just depends on if we own the stuff or the stuff owns us.

[Ahab]

I am intrigued by the comments of several Europeans on this board who seem to think American LDS have a fixation on capitalism as being nigh unto doctrine. I realise it is almost impossible to discuss Mormon economic views without getting a thread locked, but feel this a sufficiently important topic to take it up again. Capitalism as practiced in America seems to require a certain amount of greed, ambition and competition to function. I find it difficult to locate doctrine that treats any of these as truly important virtues. Although one commentator has suggested that competition may extend to heavenly spheres there seems to be little support for the concept. When you bring up the United Order in Church any praise for the system is quickly followed by condemnation of socialism based on the idea that even democratic socialism violates agency. So. Is economics simply irrelevant from an eternal perspective or not?

Economics is all about using some kind of system to regulate the exchange of goods and services, and while most in this world think money is somehow necessary, as if we can't exchange our goods and services without it, in heaven we will see that we can indeed function well enough without it. We will do things for others based on the principle of charity, using our own talents and abilities and all that God has given us and may yet give us for the building up of Zion, or in other words, for the building up of those who are pure in heart and also concerned with the welfare of others rather than only or primarily being concerned about themselves and how much "gain" they can get to enrich their own individual lives. Even now we can see the principle at work in the lives of many of us on this Earth, so it's not as if we must wait to start living that way. To the extent that we can, we can help others as well as ourselves, and without any medium of exchange other than our own efforts to do some kind of good work during each and every day of our lives.

You wait and see, brothers and sistes and you will see that God doesn't have a wallet or a money clip, and he doesn't use any credit cards either. He does what he does for others based on the principle of charity in his own heart, and he shares that spirit with everyone else who desires to follow him and his example. Money works best when we get rid of it, and the sooner we get rid of all that we have, among everybody, the better off we will be in this world.

[Stone holm]

Economics is all about using some kind of system to regulate the exchange of goods and services, and while most in this world think money is somehow necessary, as if we can't exchange our goods and services without it, in heaven we will see that we can indeed function well enough without it. We will do things for others based on the principle of charity, using our own talents and abilities and all that God has given us and may yet give us for the building up of Zion, or in other words, for the building up of those who are pure in heart and also concerned with the welfare of others rather than only or primarily being concerned about themselves and how much "gain" they can get to enrich their own individual lives. Even now we can see the principle at work in the lives of many of us on this Earth, so it's not as if we must wait to start living that way. To the extent that we can, we can help others as well as ourselves, and without any medium of exchange other than our own efforts to do some kind of good work during each and every day of our lives.

You wait and see, brothers and sistes and you will see that God doesn't have a wallet or a money clip, and he doesn't use any credit cards either. He does what he does for others based on the principle of charity in his own heart, and he shares that spirit with everyone else who desires to follow him and his example. Money works best when we get rid of it, and the sooner we get rid of all that we have, among everybody, the better off we will be in this world.

Brigham Young taught a similar doctrine where he indicated that surplus money should be invested in improving the earth in the form of houses, fences, beautification, etc. The idea was local reinvestment to keep the money churning in the economy. I don't have a problem with capitalism per se. I do have a problem with a socio-economic system which fails to maintain balance and fails to constantly take the money from the top level (surplus) and reinject it at the bottom in the form of infrastructure, education, etc. In that respect the Whigs got it right. If the money just sloshes back and forth at the top it isn't doing much good and it tends to misallocate resources -- if resources are to be efficiently allocated by the market, then there has to be a fairly democratic access to the market. In other words, you need a healthy consuming lower and middle class because they vote for the allocation of resources by spending money. The vote need not be a one man one vote system like we have in politics, but it can't be grossly distorted like it is now.