Democracy, Voluntary, Common Consent, And Mormon Thinking

[Stone holm]

I keep running into the notion that taxation in a democracy is an involuntary taking of private property, and not analogous to tithing, nor to the paying over of surplus in a United Order community. There is some truth to this. I am also wondering about to what extent is a sustaining vote in Church analogous to voting in a democracy. Are we ever justified in withholding either tithing or taxes because we do not agree with a particular use of such funds, how about complaining? How about voting not to sustain? How much do we really own private property? Is it actually owned in reality or merely possessed at the sufferance of The Lord and because of the willingness of the majority of our fellow citizens to protect and defend our possession of it?

[Storm Rider]

God never said to pay tithing if you agree with the prophet or the bishop. If fact, God has never cared about one's personal feelings about his gospel or the way he does things. It is a function of pride and he considers that strictly a personal problem. That pride thing that comes before the fall is one of his long time ways of dealing with it. Every government exists by support, financial and otherwise, of the people. Even dictators need to support of the people or they quickly meet the firing end of weapons of all kinds. Taxes are the life blood of government and allow for the government to afford each citizen the fruits of working cooperatively whether that is a democracy or any other form of government.

[CV75]

I keep running into the notion that taxation in a democracy is an involuntary taking of private property, and not analogous to tithing, nor to the paying over of surplus in a United Order community. There is some truth to this. I am also wondering about to what extent is a sustaining vote in Church analogous to voting in a democracy. Are we ever justified in withholding either tithing or taxes because we do not agree with a particular use of such funds, how about complaining? How about voting not to sustain? How much do we really own private property? Is it actually owned in reality or merely possessed at the sufferance of The Lord and because of the willingness of the majority of our fellow citizens to protect and defend our possession of it?

A sustaining “vote” (it is actually an affirmation) comes after the appointment, so is not analogous to a democratic vote which makes the appointment. It does carry some power, however, on a spiritual level (which is most often preached about) and also on a practical level if in withholding the “vote” information comes forth that would remove the appointment.

In a democracy, we are justified (in the sense of civic virtue) in using the means available to change the laws, rules and regulations only when we keep them in the first place. The same holds true for the Church.

The philosophical consideration of what we really own in the way of “private property” will play out according to the light each of us possesses. I think most LDS would acknowledge that God owns everything, and that whatever material advantage He gives to us or allows us to take from this world is intended by Him to be used as a probationary stewardship. To accumulate and share or to protect and defend such possessions would be justified only to the extent that the Lord has told us that in so doing, we bless others.

He also gave us our agency, which, while not “private property,” is also only thing that is truly ours, and which is in our best interest to render back to God.

[Duncan]

problem is complaining to a Bishop would be a waste of time, he can't do anything about it, unless the situation is local. If you would complain to say the Presiding Bishopric or 1st Pres. then you might have something there

[Bikeemikey]

problem is complaining to a Bishop would be a waste of time, he can't do anything about it, unless the situation is local. If you would complain to say the Presiding Bishopric or 1st Pres. then you might have something there

Most issues are local... We just happen to feel strongly about the few that are not.

[thesometimesaint]

I keep running into the notion that taxation in a democracy is an involuntary taking of private property, and not analogous to tithing, nor to the paying over of surplus in a United Order community. There is some truth to this. I am also wondering about to what extent is a sustaining vote in Church analogous to voting in a democracy. Are we ever justified in withholding either tithing or taxes because we do not agree with a particular use of such funds, how about complaining? How about voting not to sustain? How much do we really own private property? Is it actually owned in reality or merely possessed at the sufferance of The Lord and because of the willingness of the majority of our fellow citizens to protect and defend our possession of it?

1. Is a false notion. In our democratic republic we vote for(or against) those individuals that we feel will(or won't) best represent our interests. Tithing is voluntary only to the extent that either we want or don't want the blessings from God.

2. It isn't a democracy it isn't majority rule. You don't have to sustain anyone you don't want to. Simply don't raise your hand. But if you have just cause to oppose you can voice that opposition too. You'll be asked to substantiate your cause. If found accurate that person won't be set apart for that position in the Church.

3. You aren't compelled by law to pay tithing. You either want the blessings from God or you don't. Taxes OTOH are compelled by law. The governments we belong to can punish us for violations of it laws.

4. In democracies we are encouraged to vote for those individuals whom we feel will best represent our interests. If that means eliminating a tax. We can do that through our representatives.

5. Tithing doesn't work that way.

6. Here in the US we have private property, and as long as we don't violate the laws are free to do with that private property as we wish. We can sell it, trade it, even give it away. What we can not do is use our private property to infringe on others private property.

7. The Lord can take me anytime he wants. The government must follow the laws if it wants to take my life, liberty, or property from me.

[Stone holm]

Very interesting comments. I sometimes get mistaken as being anti capitalist, I don't envision myself as that. I do have peculiar ideas about the "unseen hand" because I believe that the unseen hand in order to efficiently allocate resources cannot be allowed to become visible. It becomes visible when wealth becomes overly concentrated. As a result, since capitalism tends to concentrate wealth, there is a need to constantly tap the excess wealth at the top and invest in things for the general good.

[CV75]

I would add: to #6: "...What we can not do is use our private property [or lack thereof] to infringe on others private property."

[CV75]

As a result, since capitalism tends to concentrate wealth, there is a need to constantly tap the excess wealth at the top and invest in things for the general good.

And who will accomplsih that without the spirit of contention?

[thesometimesaint]

Those without private property have little ability to force those with great private property to do anything. A strong middle class is essential to a functioning democratic republic such as ours. It doesn't bode well for our country to support an ever widening disparity in income. [media=]

Edited July 7, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Sleeper Cell]

I keep running into the notion that taxation in a democracy is an involuntary taking of private property, and not analogous to tithing, nor to the paying over of surplus in a United Order community. There is some truth to this.

If you don’t pay your taxes, the govt. will take it anyway, plus penalties and interest and possibly throw you in jail. If you don’t pay your tithing, the church will not take your property. It will not assess penalties and interest on unpaid tithing, nor will it throw you in jail or even excommunicate you.

At worst, you will be listed in private church records as “not a full tithe payer” and denied certain additional privileges (privileges not granted to the general church membership) which, by their nature, are inconsistent with not being willing to pay a full tithe. And if you wish to regain “full tithe payer status,” the church generally does not even require you to make up any missed tithing. Try that with the IRS.

Yes, I know there may be some social and emotional costs in some instances, but that is (and has been) a subject for a separate thread.

Re: the UO, I am not quite sure what happened to someone who refused to pay over his surplus; presumably he could be expelled from the order, but would retain his property. I do not know if the UO had any civil or church recourse re, the surplus. If so, that would seem to be similar to any other private contract when one party fulfills his side of the bargain and the other refuses to fulfill his.

[CV75]

Those without private property have little ability to force those with great private property to do anything.

My comment had to do with D&C 56:17, "Wo unto you poor men, whose hearts are not broken, whose spirits are not contrite, and whose bellies are not satisfied, and whose hands are not stayed from laying hold upon other men’s goods, whose eyes are full of greediness, and who will not labor with your own hands!” We can easily see how these operate quite legitimately in our current democratic republic.

[Stone holm]

And who will accomplsih that without the spirit of contention?

In a democracy our elected representatives, in a dictatorship the dictator. There is always contention in a democracy. However, the spirit of contention always rises when there is too great of a divide between the haves and the have nots. If the divide becomes too great democracy usually disintegrates. I am not talking welfare here, I am talking public investment in schools, healthcare, roads, communication infrastructure, and within reason defence. I say within reason because too powerful of a military can become a threat to democracy. These in turn create a demand for domestic labor which in turn stimulates private economic activity. In addition the money spent after cycling through the economy tends to wind up back in the hands of those at the top. But because it increases spending power as it cycles, the visible hand of the wealthy once again becomes invisible and the larger number of consumers drive the unseen hand.

[CV75]

In a democracy our elected representatives, in a dictatorship the dictator. There is always contention in a democracy. However, the spirit of contention always rises when there is too great of a divide between the haves and the have nots. If the divide becomes too great democracy usually disintegrates.

I would say that the spirit of contention is of the devil, but instead of saying "the devil made me do it," in this case the attribution is, "the economy, stupid!."

I am not talking welfare here, I am talking public investment in schools, healthcare, roads, communication infrastructure, and within reason defence. I say within reason because too powerful of a military can become a threat to democracy. These in turn create a demand for domestic labor which in turn stimulates private economic activity. In addition the money spent after cycling through the economy tends to wind up back in the hands of those at the top. But because it increases spending power as it cycles, the visible hand of the wealthy once again becomes invisible and the larger number of consumers drive the unseen hand.

What do you think stands in the way of producers and consumers striking this perfect communal/private balance of the choices they make?

I thinkt hat if we are to try to purify and perfect the economies of men, we need to point back to God's system of economy where all things are produced, distributed and accumulated but nothing is consumed. While non-consumption is impossible in a fallen world, mortal producers and consumers are ultimately driven by our agency and the best outcome, given our limitations, depends on how well we receive and share the Light of Christ.

[Stone holm]

I would say that the spirit of contention is of the devil, but instead of saying "the devil made me do it," in this case the attribution is, "the economy, stupid!."

What do you think stands in the way of producers and consumers striking this perfect communal/private balance of the choices they make?

I thinkt hat if we are to try to purify and perfect the economies of men, we need to point back to God's system of economy where all things are produced, distributed and accumulated but nothing is consumed. While non-consumption is impossible in a fallen world, mortal producers and consumers are ultimately driven by our agency and the best outcome, given our limitations, depends on how well we receive and share the Light of Christ.

I think I already indicated. The principal evil or failing of capitalism is its tendency to concentrate wealth. In a country with no frontier, that means you have to recirculate from the top down to the bottom, not by the dole, but via public works especially those which are anchored economically to local economies and you seek to have human scale industry and banking systems. True, God system is a tribal theocratic communism, but that does not mean the secular system has to be a libertarian exact opposite. We get carried away with this Devil's counterfeit rhetoric.

[JarMan]

I think I already indicated. The principal evil or failing of capitalism is its tendency to concentrate wealth. In a country with no frontier, that means you have to recirculate from the top down to the bottom, not by the dole, but via public works especially those which are anchored economically to local economies and you seek to have human scale industry and banking systems. True, God system is a tribal theocratic communism, but that does not mean the secular system has to be a libertarian exact opposite. We get carried away with this Devil's counterfeit rhetoric.

Socialism concentrates wealth to a much higher degree than capitalism. It concentrates wealth with the government. This is particularly evil since the government possesses police powers. Capitalism allows individuals and corporations to accumulate wealth. Thus the wealth is spread far and wide and amongst various interests. And none of those interests have police powers. There is nothing inherently evil about private interests with wealth. There is much inherently evil about government accumulating wealth because of its power to compel others with guns and prisons.

[Rob Osborn]

Every government system can become corrupt because of the greedieness of its leaders. Satan works within every government to bring about corruption and bring about systems that breed sinfulness. Evil and conspiring men have always usef secret combibations, conspiracies, to unjustly take from the people for their own lustful wants. It can and does happen in every type of government including capitalism socialiam, etc.

[JarMan]

Every government system can become corrupt, which is why it is best to build checks and balances into the system and to limit its power. This doesn't mean that we should accept the abuses that occur, or heaven forbid, encourage more of the same.

[Stone holm]

Socialism concentrates wealth to a much higher degree than capitalism. It concentrates wealth with the government. This is particularly evil since the government possesses police powers. Capitalism allows individuals and corporations to accumulate wealth. Thus the wealth is spread far and wide and amongst various interests. And none of those interests have police powers. There is nothing inherently evil about private interests with wealth. There is much inherently evil about government accumulating wealth because of its power to compel others with guns and prisons.

No. The only types of government which accumulate wealth are monarchies and dictatorships. I believe most economists would agree that capitalism tends to concentrate wealth and large corporations tend to concentrate power. As to the myth of the American system spreading wealth far and wide you just have to look at our ranking as to the polarity and concentration of wealth as compared to the western democracies to refute that claim.

[Rob Osborn]

Almost every evil government on the earth in the last 100 years including Hitler and Stalin were dictatorship governments

[Stone holm]

Almost every evil government on the earth in the last 100 years including Hitler and Stalin were dictatorship governments

Agreed.

[JarMan]

No. The only types of government which accumulate wealth are monarchies and dictatorships. I believe most economists would agree that capitalism tends to concentrate wealth and large corporations tend to concentrate power. As to the myth of the American system spreading wealth far and wide you just have to look at our ranking as to the polarity and concentration of wealth as compared to the western democracies to refute that claim.

You are simply in denial if you don't think that socialist governments accumulate wealth. The US government (which has many socialistic aspects) is the wealthiest entity on earth. Furthermore, you have set up a false dichotomy because many socialistic or communistic governments are also dictatorships. Examples: Soviet Russia, cold war China, Cuba, Venezuela. There are many others.

And you keep saying that large corporations have all of this power. But they do not possess any police power. It is police powers which can be used to restrict our freedoms. And they are possessed solely by government. The powers that are possessed by the wealthy do not compel us in any way.

[JarMan]

Almost every evil government on the earth in the last 100 years including Hitler and Stalin were dictatorship governments

And most were also communist or socialist.

[thesometimesaint]

And most were also communist or socialist.

First, the National Socialists, aka Nazis, were "Socialists" in roughly the same way that the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" was run by Republicans. It was a marketing term that reflected more the fascists' real roots in the radical ferment around socialism, but there is little question (beyond Goldberg's fanboy cult) that fascism generically and Nazism specifically were right-wing phenomena.

The citations available on this subject are numerous, but probably the clearest explanation comes from Robert O. Paxton in The Anatomy of Fascism, who explains that fascism for all its rhetoric was in practice closely aligned with and allied with capitalists and conservatives -- some of whom, years down the road, came to regret the association, but the vast majority of whom approved enthusiastically up through the war years. (Think Krupp.) They were also decidedly -- violently, murderously -- anti-socialist.

[Stone holm]

And most were also communist or socialist.

You can have capitalist dictatorships, we, as Americans don't frequently refer to them as evil because we frequently were allied with them or set them up as puppet states. We found that dictators in the. Middle East and South America were easier to control than democracies which we occasionally overthrew.