Success

[Stone holm]

But these were not start up operations.

In essence, all that was inherited wealth. We poor suckers in the city didn't have parents who had hundreds of acres- we wanted cheaper and more efficient food production, and there were a lot more of us than there were the farmers

No that was not true about the wealth or acreage. Odd that now you are more likely to find small businesses in the city, they have been wiped out in the country and smaller cities. It is much more difficult to successfully launch a small business today. In order to do so many have had to do so via credit cards which is risky business and have had to go without health insurance for their families. Doing so would not be considered consistent with Mormon prudence by some.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well it was aimed at me and I agree, capitalism is an amoral system.

So tell me what system is better? Socialsim, Communism, a dictartorship? Have you not ready your history books? I agree with Milton Friedman, that the free market and capitalsim is currently the best system that we have tried and it allows people more freedom to make choices. After that is the point fo this life. Is to live and make choices.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Exactly. Capitalism is not a zero sum game because it mobilizes capital, labor, and land that were previously not being productive. A new business will hire unemployed or under-employed laborers. And it will use capital and land that had been sitting dormant. The result is "new stuff" that wouldn't otherwise have been there. Nothing had to be destroyed in order to do it. And the beauty is that the consumer wins by having more options and lower prices.

Oh the horror. More choices more productivity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sjIrK84Eai4

I really enjoyed this video. This particular person tried to tell the narrative of how bad capitalsim is because Ford made a desicion not to spend 13 dollars on some part that "could" have saved lives. Any way it seems pertinent to this thread.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I see the current flaw as the widespread use of the corporation. For some reason we decided it was a good idea to create a vessel for individual profit without individual responsibility and that lack of responsibility is dangerous.

Actually what we created was a government that bailed out is doners and got in the way of the natural flow of things and the responisbility that you claim is lacking. If you really want to blame certain corporations you can just look to your government for the reason there are problems.

[The Nehor]

Actually what we created was a government that bailed out is doners and got in the way of the natural flow of things and the responisbility that you claim is lacking. If you really want to blame certain corporations you can just look to your government for the reason there are problems.

I blame that too but I think corporations in general are the biggest problem. A company run by an individual or small group of people owned by them gives the leaders a strong incentive to keep the company strong so they have something to pass on to heirs and can keep their income stream open. A CEO who is going to be in place for 3-5 years can rape the company for immediate profit, please the board, make the money, and bolt and divest themself of their holdings and leave the job before the edifice collapses and walk away wealthier. The system encourages irresponsibility.

I also worry that our entire system seems to be based on interest. The Jews and the early Christians (back to pre-apostasy days) and the Muslims considered it to be an evil. I suspect they were right. It creates a system in which the possession of wealth is extended indefinitely without actual labor or creating anything of value on the part of the wealthy.

[Stone holm]

So tell me what system is better? Socialsim, Communism, a dictartorship? Have you not ready your history books? I agree with Milton Friedman, that the free market and capitalsim is currently the best system that we have tried and it allows people more freedom to make choices. After that is the point fo this life. Is to live and make choices.

I don't believe any of the alternatives in their true form are better. The word "Socialism" has been used in so many different ways that it is hard to say. Personally I believe that a modified form of capitalism is the best method. However, in order for capitalism or rather the "invisible hand" which causes capitalism to do its magic has to truly be an invisible hand. That means that you have to have a rather widespread level of wealth in the society. Since capitalism, especially with the widespread use of corporations, tends to concentrate wealth, you have to have a mechanism whereby the excessive concentration is alleviated. IMNSHO , that is best done via taxation with the revenues being invested in infrastructure, education, research, environmental clean-up, and healthcare (not in outright welfare). I selected those four categories because they tend to be primarily domestic since the point is to keep the wealth circulating that is what produces prosperity -- welfare needs to be rather tightly restricted because it does not produce as much and reduces dignity. Basically, you have two voting systems in the United States one is with a ballot and the other is with a dollar. Both require that the general public have a rather widespread ability to vote -- the first is essential for a democracy, and the second is essential for the "invisible hand" to remain invisible. When wealth becomes over concentrated then the hand becomes visible since it is the hand of a relatively small elite and becomes subject to their biases and not the general good. The larger the corporation the more need for restrictions because it becomes less and less accountable to community opinion. So if you consider "socialism" to include systems which tax the wealthy and reinvest -- well then yes socialism. But socialism normally is associated with governmental ownership of industry -- I do not favor that kind of socialism as it tends to become corrupt and inefficient.

[Ahab]

I don't believe any of the alternatives in their true form are better. The word "Socialism" has been used in so many different ways that it is hard to say. Personally I believe that a modified form of capitalism is the best method. However, in order for capitalism or rather the "invisible hand" which causes capitalism to do its magic has to truly be an invisible hand. That means that you have to have a rather widespread level of wealth in the society. Since capitalism, especially with the widespread use of corporations, tends to concentrate wealth, you have to have a mechanism whereby the excessive concentration is alleviated. IMNSHO , that is best done via taxation with the revenues being invested in infrastructure, education, research, environmental clean-up, and healthcare (not in outright welfare). I selected those four categories because they tend to be primarily domestic since the point is to keep the wealth circulating that is what produces prosperity -- welfare needs to be rather tightly restricted because it does not produce as much and reduces dignity. Basically, you have two voting systems in the United States one is with a ballot and the other is with a dollar. Both require that the general public have a rather widespread ability to vote -- the first is essential for a democracy, and the second is essential for the "invisible hand" to remain invisible. When wealth becomes over concentrated then the hand becomes visible since it is the hand of a relatively small elite and becomes subject to their biases and not the general good. The larger the corporation the more need for restrictions because it becomes less and less accountable to community opinion. So if you consider "socialism" to include systems which tax the wealthy and reinvest -- well then yes socialism. But socialism normally is associated with governmental ownership of industry -- I do not favor that kind of socialism as it tends to become corrupt and inefficient.

I think you're onto something there, but still not quite what our Father in heaven has in mind for the best way for all of us to share and exchange all the goods and services we have on this planet with each other. The impetus needs to come from charity in our hearts for everyone in all of society, and when anyone gets greedy or overly selfish that causes a problem for someone else, even if the problem can be easily fixed by someone who knows how to fix it.

Say you're living in the best neighborhood you can imagine, with everyone around you having everything they need to live comfortably and enjoy all the good things in life that are currently available on this planet. What about the people in other neighborhoods, though? Does everybody else on the planet have as much as the people in your neighborhood? Not likely, in this world, but we could easily fix that, even if only by sharing all that we have with others so that they can also enjoy what we have. Joint ownership of property, in other words. And then over time we could replicate all the items we have either by making them or teaching other people how to make them. It would take some time to get to that point, but we could all get there a lot faster if all of us worked on it by doing whatever we could to make it happen. And there is no need to wait until we get some money to do any of that, because it doens't take any money to make things. All it takes is people using their time, talents, and abilities to do some kind of actual work to get things done on this planet.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't believe any of the alternatives in their true form are better. The word "Socialism" has been used in so many different ways that it is hard to say. Personally I believe that a modified form of capitalism is the best method.

Do you mean the kind were the government gets involded? IF so I cannot see how in the world that makes it better. If not please explain.

However, in order for capitalism or rather the "invisible hand" which causes capitalism to do its magic has to truly be an invisible hand. That means that you have to have a rather widespread level of wealth in the society.

Let me ask you a question. What creates wealth? Does Government spending create wealth?

Since capitalism, especially with the widespread use of corporations, tends to concentrate wealth, you have to have a mechanism whereby the excessive concentration is alleviated.

I am not sure that wealth concentration is bad. But if we look at the past and consider history, what system has allowed more people to move between the class system more than capitalism and the free market? Has it been Kingships with Lords? Has it been the nationalizing of certain businesses of certain regimes of the past?

IMNSHO , that is best done via taxation with the revenues being invested in infrastructure, education, research, environmental clean-up, and healthcare (not in outright welfare).

So how does spending money increase wealth esp Governmental spending? This seems to be what you are advocating. I argue that only production and an increase there of does that help eliminate poverty and bring people’s standard of living.

I selected those four categories because they tend to be primarily domestic since the point is to keep the wealth circulating that is what produces prosperity --

Again it is a myth to think that spending money produces wealth. Try it some times. Go spend all of your money and tell me how wealthy you are at the end of the day.

welfare needs to be rather tightly restricted because it does not produce as much and reduces dignity.

Welfare? Welfare does not produce it only spends. And I would say that welfare has done more to harm people than it does to help it.

Basically, you have two voting systems in the United States one is with a ballot and the other is with a dollar. Both require that the general public have a rather widespread ability to vote -- the first is essential for a democracy, and the second is essential for the "invisible hand" to remain invisible. When wealth becomes over concentrated then the hand becomes visible since it is the hand of a relatively small elite and becomes subject to their biases and not the general good.

I would argue the thing you are really arguing against is crony capitalism. They type that our beloved president loves to practice. And we can also look to the unions. Having wealth is not a bad thing. But when government steps in and tells an employer that he must pay some one a certain wage or that he must have a certain permit or a certain type of works what really is happening is that a limit is being put on that employer and it makes it harder for him to succeed. Most of the issues today are because the corporations know that because politicians are corrupt that they can dump a bunch of money in to a politician and have them get elected then they get kick backs in the forms of certain laws being past that ultimately limit the free market and competition. It also allows them to make bad decisions and get bail out. Hello GM.

The larger the corporation the more need for restrictions because it becomes less and less accountable to community opinion. So if you consider "socialism" to include systems which tax the wealthy and reinvest -- well then yes socialism. But socialism normally is associated with governmental ownership of industry -- I do not favor that kind of socialism as it tends to become corrupt and inefficient.

No, again the issue is government. Why turn to the government for help when this country was set up with courts to protect individuals? People have this mentality like the dude in the video about the Ford Pinto. They think that we should petition the government to regulate Ford. Why? What will that do but take freedom way. And you are right that socialism is associated with governmental ownership. But Socialism is anything like Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security. Socialism at its roots is, take from the have’s and give to the have not’s.

Here is another video that drives home some of my points at the end here. [media=]

Watch the first 7 mins or so but specifically at the 3 min mark. OR watch the whole thing. The question of how much Government should be involved to prevent monopolies.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Stone holm]

Do you mean the kind were the government gets involded? IF so I cannot see how in the world that makes it better. If not please explain.

Let me ask you a question. What creates wealth? Does Government spending create wealth?

I am not sure that wealth concentration is bad. But if we look at the past and consider history, what system has allowed more people to move between the class system more than capitalism and the free market? Has it been Kingships with Lords? Has it been the nationalizing of certain businesses of certain regimes of the past?

So how does spending money increase wealth esp Governmental spending? This seems to be what you are advocating. I argue that only production and an increase there of does that help eliminate poverty and bring people’s standard of living.

Again it is a myth to think that spending money produces wealth. Try it some times. Go spend all of your money and tell me how wealthy you are at the end of the day.

Welfare? Welfare does not produce it only spends. And I would say that welfare has done more to harm people than it does to help it.

I would argue the thing you are really arguing against is crony capitalism. They type that our beloved president loves to practice. And we can also look to the unions. Having wealth is not a bad thing. But when government steps in and tells an employer that he must pay some one a certain wage or that he must have a certain permit or a certain type of works what really is happening is that a limit is being put on that employer and it makes it harder for him to succeed. Most of the issues today are because the corporations know that because politicians are corrupt that they can dump a bunch of money in to a politician and have them get elected then they get kick backs in the forms of certain laws being past that ultimately limit the free market and competition. It also allows them to make bad decisions and get bail out. Hello GM.

No, again the issue is government. Why turn to the government for help when this country was set up with courts to protect individuals? People have this mentality like the dude in the video about the Ford Pinto. They think that we should petition the government to regulate Ford. Why? What will that do but take freedom way. And you are right that socialism is associated with governmental ownership. But Socialism is anything like Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security. Socialism at its roots is, take from the have’s and give to the have not’s.

Here is another video that drives home some of my points at the end here. [media=]

Watch the first 7 mins or so but specifically at the 3 min mark. OR watch the whole thing. The question of how much Government should be involved to prevent monopolies.

Actually, what history basically reveals is that when the disparity between the haves and have nots becomes too great either the haves have to suppress the have nots by force, or lacking that ability social disruption, sometimes violent occurs. The buffer which prevents this is a healthy, extensive, and vigorous middle-class or a frontier. America no longer has a frontier, and over the last 30 years through bipartisan activities the middle-class has been decimated.

There is an argument that real wealth can only be grown, mined or manufactured. There is some truth to that. The problem is that we currently have over capacity with respect to growing and manufacturing -- mining may be in another category. In such a situation, prosperity can only be maintained by increasing the number of times cash turns over before coming to rest. To increase that number of times you have to inject the money at or near the bottom domestically so that it can turn over several times before reaching the top. Otherwise, the cash may just spin at the top. In Vermont we have what are called "deeryards" -- deeryards are places where the snow does not become so thick on the ground that the deer struggle to move. They are typically Hemlock groves. In Hemlock groves the snow gets snagged in the thick maze of needles and branches at the top of the tree -- they do not branch all the way to the ground. The snow settles in the tops of the trees and evaporates directly back into the atmosphere without reaching the ground. As a result the deer can move around underneath the trees with relative ease. If we compare cash to the snow, if the cash just circulates in the upper reaches then it never reaches the average Joe and Jane on the ground underneath. That has been the problem with the so-called "trickle-down" economics the money doesn't trickle down.

There are several reasons for this. Partly it has to do with the advent of large corporations -- while we think of these as "publicly traded", the truth is that is just for SEC registration purposes the reality is that in large corporations huge blocks of the stock are held in a very few hands. Partly it has to do with our banking system -- the number of banks declines during every major recession because of shotgun weddings facilitated by either the Fed or the FDIC, and the ability to start a new bank is very restricted -- many of our community banks have disappeared. For a large bank it is more profitable to make large loans at least when it comes to commercial loans where there may not be a secondary market so that is what they do, they make large loans to large companies. As a result ma and pa have to resort to their credit cards to finance their new business. The fewer community banks, the fewer small locally owned businesses. If you do not have locally owned businesses then the situation is actually worse than the snow in the top of the trees because in such a case the money is actually sucked out of average Joe and Jane before it circulates to their peers.

Milton Friedman had a lot of interesting ideas and is a captivating lecturer, I have listened to him in person. But he got a lot of things wrong -- just like Alan Greenspan who belatedly confessed he was just plain wrong about deregulation and the markets.

Now how does this relate to us as Mormons. Well what puts moral constraints on corporations besides regulation is that if they are relatively small and locally owned, the community in which their owners live puts moral constraints upon them so long as they are not so economically far above the crowd that they do not have to associate with them. Community pressure can be applied to large corporations, but it is much more difficult to do so -- if you don't believe so, look at the massive effort being asserted to rein in Monsanto. It is even more difficult to apply community pressure to non-retail giants who deal in commodities. Mormons should be and most are believers in community collaboration -- they are not big into competing against one another. But we also value personal choice. So a modified form of capitalism makes sense.

[The Nehor]

Do you mean the kind were the government gets involded? IF so I cannot see how in the world that makes it better. If not please explain.

Wealth transfers have advantages.

Let me ask you a question. What creates wealth? Does Government spending create wealth?

Some does and some does not. I would argue that roads, infrastructure, and even military equipment are wealth.

I am not sure that wealth concentration is bad. But if we look at the past and consider history, what system has allowed more people to move between the class system more than capitalism and the free market? Has it been Kingships with Lords? Has it been the nationalizing of certain businesses of certain regimes of the past?

Let's not pretend that the past saw a huge wealth divide. Most of the nobility under feudalism were as strapped for cash as their serf (if not more so). Class mobility in capitalism has been exaggerated. Under the British Empire the social system still dictated your mobility.

In the United States we have cultivated as a national myth the idea that mobility is open to one and all. But is it? The statistics do not seem to agree. In fact many nations in more socialist Europe have higher socioeconomic mobility then the United States.

Why? Well, our obsession with education as a measure for success along with high costs for education ensure that the wealthy can get in while those less well off must make sacrifices to get an education. Due to local school funding those born wealthy go to better schools while those born less well-off end up in inferior schools. Assuming the less-well off person perseveres and rises above all that they are still dealing with cultural divides that make it difficult.

Take me. My father is a multi-millionaire. He is not amongst the uber-rich but he makes good money and is smart and frugal with it. I am not a dunce but would I be where I am without that background? I am amongst the top 20% of earners factoring in age and gender. I got a good education about money at home. I went to well-funded schools consistently winning awards for the quality of their education. My parents funded me in terms of tuition and books for all of my degree (though I covered rent and the like while in school). I had a financial fallback if everything fell apart. I got my first "adult" job through one of my father's friends. A hundred little things like language, communication, and bearing show because I was advantaged.

When I went in to interview for my latest job I was interviewing with a guy making six figures and we easily found common background in terms of upbringing and expensive hobbies and had an instant connection. We had many of the same interests and concerns and in a hundred simple ways unconsciously conveyed that we belonged to the same crowd. While my qualifications helped it is important not to underestimate the benefit of being the (to use a British expression) "right sort". The kind of person who deserved a high-paying job like that.

In contrast I went to another job interview at about the same time and found the job insufficiently compensated and not really worth my time. The guy doing the hiring recognized this and outright said that I was not the kind of guy who makes that much. He then set to work trying to create a better job fitting my "skillset" that would pay about 75% more.

I am not ashamed of who and what I am and I do not feel any guilt about it. I just think it is naive to pretend that everyone gets an equal chance.

I would add that the Church is fantastic in terms of assisting social mobility. A ward becomes almost a second family and suddenly you have connections outside your economic sphere along with training and encouragement.

Still, economic mobility is not equally open to all. To pretend it is is to be an ostrich with your buried in the sand. The numbers do not lie.

A final note. It was a dumb idea to allow credit checks for all jobs. This is one more way of kicking people while they are down. We have a "guilty until proven innocent" credit system where numbers held by a private agency can determine whether you can get a job. These agencies are not financially liable for being wrong either.

So how does spending money increase wealth esp Governmental spending? This seems to be what you are advocating. I argue that only production and an increase there of does that help eliminate poverty and bring people’s standard of living.

Again it is a myth to think that spending money produces wealth. Try it some times. Go spend all of your money and tell me how wealthy you are at the end of the day.

I think you are dealing with a chicken and egg situation. Government spending can and does cause production. The road being built near my place is government funded and I will be enriched by being able to travel more quickly and workers building it have paychecks because of it.

One person spending all their money may not make them wealthy but it can make others wealthy.

Welfare? Welfare does not produce it only spends. And I would say that welfare has done more to harm people than it does to help it.

I would disagree. The idea that welfare is easy to get on and live off of is a myth in virtually every state. Unless you envy the blind or the disabled who have very limited opportunities for employment (if they have any at all) or the single mother of three who gets a small amount of discounted milk and cheese I do not see the problem.

I would argue the thing you are really arguing against is crony capitalism. They type that our beloved president loves to practice. And we can also look to the unions. Having wealth is not a bad thing. But when government steps in and tells an employer that he must pay some one a certain wage or that he must have a certain permit or a certain type of works what really is happening is that a limit is being put on that employer and it makes it harder for him to succeed. Most of the issues today are because the corporations know that because politicians are corrupt that they can dump a bunch of money in to a politician and have them get elected then they get kick backs in the forms of certain laws being past that ultimately limit the free market and competition. It also allows them to make bad decisions and get bail out. Hello GM.

Government has an obligation to protect its citizens. If that means enforcing safety standards so be it. If that means making companies have permits to safely dispose of negative externalities. If it means protecting people from unfairly low wages because the workers cannot afford to leave through minimum wage laws so be it. The argument I always hear is that if we got rid of the minimum wage it would help everyone and wages would rise naturally. It is all but impossible to live off a 40/hour a week minimum wage job if you have any dependents at all (heaven help you if you live in an expensive area). Most minimum wage jobs are not full-time so you are looking at getting two of them at least to live. If you are fortunate enough to find two with standard hours so you can keep both you might be able to get by and work a 60-70 hour work week. If the minimum wage was gone......probably not.

The government mandates random testing of those involved in transportation. Is checking that pilots, bus drivers, and truck drivers are not drunk on the road excessive government intervention?

Then you would agree that corporations should not be counted as people and have the ability to fund political campaigns without limit? On this I can agree with you.

No, again the issue is government. Why turn to the government for help when this country was set up with courts to protect individuals? People have this mentality like the dude in the video about the Ford Pinto. They think that we should petition the government to regulate Ford. Why? What will that do but take freedom way. And you are right that socialism is associated with governmental ownership. But Socialism is anything like Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security. Socialism at its roots is, take from the have’s and give to the have not’s.

Wait, what???? You do realize that courts are government entities right? Not everyone has equal access to the courts. They do in theory but the guy who can afford a lawyer and to take time off work to win a case has a huge advantage over the guy living hand to mouth on near-minimum wage with no easy access to legal representation.

The courts are not helping our economic mobility either. We are believed to have the highest incarceration rate of any nation on earth. Although we cannot prove (due to lack of records) it seems we have the highest incarceration rate of any nation that ever existed. That includes Stalin with his gulags, nations that jail political prisoners, and China. The only nation that might surpass us is North Korea. We represent 5% of the world's population but have about a quarter of the world's prison population. 0.75% of our population is incarcerated. Add in the disgusting creation of private prisons and we see the market at its worst. We have economic forces in our country profiting from people being convicted of crimes. This, to me, is scary as hell.

Add to this that a prison sentence is a scarlet letter in our "open" hiring system that never drops off without an uncertain court battle and we have 18-19 year olds who make a stupid minor mistake paying for the rest of their lives through lack of opportunity.

Here is another video that drives home some of my points at the end here. [media=]

Watch the first 7 mins or so but specifically at the 3 min mark. OR watch the whole thing. The question of how much Government should be involved to prevent monopolies.

That video is based on ideal capitalism. Remove monopolies by allowing completely unobstructed markets? What happens when one entity controls all (or most of) the oil? Or all the land? Or all the mineral rights? Or is the only one building a specific product? The pat answer is a competing company starts up. But that doesn't work in practice. There are barriers to entry in many markets. A large enough company in multiple markets could destroy a competitor by pricing goods and services below production costs to starve their competitor and live off the rest of their profits until they get their monopoly back. We have anti-monopoly forces at work in the United States government that prevent this kind of stuff from happening. I for one am grateful for it.

Edited August 2, 2013 by The Nehor

[JarMan]

Mormons should be and most are believers in community collaboration -- they are not big into competing against one another. But we also value personal choice. So a modified form of capitalism makes sense.

You been to a church ball game lately? Of course Mormons are big into competing against one another.

What you call modified capitalism, I call socialism. And you well know that there never has been "unregulated capitalism." But giving more and more power to governments is antithetical to the LDS belief in agency. Government, at its core, is nothing but force. Force is justified if it is the type of force individuals can morally use. But we, as individuals, are not morally justified, for example, in stealing from others in order to feed our neighbors. Neither is the government morally justified in doing the same thing on our behalf.

The plan of salvation requires that we have moral agency. It allows for people to do evil. Perhaps we need to modify the plan of salvation, too, because it doesn't do enough to rein in the evil-doers of the world.

[The Nehor]

You been to a church ball game lately? Of course Mormons are big into competing against one another.

What you call modified capitalism, I call socialism. And you well know that there never has been "unregulated capitalism." But giving more and more power to governments is antithetical to the LDS belief in agency. Government, at its core, is nothing but force. Force is justified if it is the type of force individuals can morally use. But we, as individuals, are not morally justified, for example, in stealing from others in order to feed our neighbors. Neither is the government morally justified in doing the same thing on our behalf.

The plan of salvation requires that we have moral agency. It allows for people to do evil. Perhaps we need to modify the plan of salvation, too, because it doesn't do enough to rein in the evil-doers of the world.

I have to admit I get frustrated with the endless confusion between agency and freedom. For some reason some seem to insist that any curtailment of any freedom is a violation of agency. It is not and never has been. Agency is vital. It DOES NOT need to be protected.

Agency is eternal. Man cannot take it from each other. Satan cannot take it from man. A master cannot take it from a slave. A government cannot touch agency at all....ever. They never have and they never will. God may be able to but if He can will not.

Restrictions on the free market are not an infringement of agency anymore then a prohibition on murder or not parking in the fire lane are. The study of government is what freedoms (not agency) we want to give up in the interest of greater freedoms. I give up my right to kill without consequence because I do not wish to be killed or live in a society where people can be killed indiscriminately. I give up my right to park anywhere so that emergency services will work more efficiently for myself and those I care about. Absolute freedom of economic activity is never endorsed in scripture.

I know government can be a bully and it is important to curtail government to prevent it from becoming one. It is not the only bully. Government can and does protect people from other bullies physically and economically.

[JarMan]

I have to admit I get frustrated with the endless confusion between agency and freedom. For some reason some seem to insist that any curtailment of any freedom is a violation of agency. It is not and never has been. Agency is vital. It DOES NOT need to be protected.

Agency is eternal. Man cannot take it from each other. Satan cannot take it from man. A master cannot take it from a slave. A government cannot touch agency at all....ever. They never have and they never will. God may be able to but if He can will not.

Restrictions on the free market are not an infringement of agency anymore then a prohibition on murder or not parking in the fire lane are. The study of government is what freedoms (not agency) we want to give up in the interest of greater freedoms. I give up my right to kill without consequence because I do not wish to be killed or live in a society where people can be killed indiscriminately. I give up my right to park anywhere so that emergency services will work more efficiently for myself and those I care about. Absolute freedom of economic activity is never endorsed in scripture.

I know government can be a bully and it is important to curtail government to prevent it from becoming one. It is not the only bully. Government can and does protect people from other bullies physically and economically.

If somebody takes your money you lose the ability to spend it the way you want, whether for noble or questionable purposes. You can no longer make a moral choice such as to give that money to the poor or to squander it on illicit drugs. That is a loss of moral agency. Lucifer also wanted to take from us our moral agency, which he could have done to some extent by limiting our choices.

The government's job is to protect us against physical bullies. That is the same moral right each of us individually possesses. We don't individually have a moral right to control somebody else's economic behavior. Therefore the government cannot morally do it either.

[The Nehor]

If somebody takes your money you lose the ability to spend it the way you want, whether for noble or questionable purposes. You can no longer make a moral choice such as to give that money to the poor or to squander it on illicit drugs. That is a loss of moral agency. Lucifer also wanted to take from us our moral agency, which he could have done to some extent by limiting our choices.

No, it is not. It is a loss of freedom. Lucifer wanted to revoke our agency which means removing right to any choice at all. Restrictions of freedom do not remove choice. They simply change the consequences of some choices. Since God has in the past commanded people to take actions resulting in their economic destitution it seems God is on Lucifer's side.

The government's job is to protect us against physical bullies. That is the same moral right each of us individually possesses. We don't individually have a moral right to control somebody else's economic behavior. Therefore the government cannot morally do it either.

Society does have a right to restrict people's economic behavior if it has negative side effects or allows that person to oppress others. We can either do the restriction by law or wait until the people get fed up and take the law into their own hands. I prefer by law myself. God routinely institutes laws restricting our economic behavior. Governments (religious or not) have throughout history regulated economic behavior. What has changed that suddenly makes economic behavior an inviolate right that God commands must not be infringed in any way?

[Calm]

It is much more difficult to successfully launch a small business today. In order to do so many have had to do so via credit cards which is risky business and have had to go without health insurance for their families.

CFR

[Stone holm]

CFR

Look around you and think back.

[Stone holm]

If somebody takes your money you lose the ability to spend it the way you want, whether for noble or questionable purposes. You can no longer make a moral choice such as to give that money to the poor or to squander it on illicit drugs. That is a loss of moral agency. Lucifer also wanted to take from us our moral agency, which he could have done to some extent by limiting our choices.

The government's job is to protect us against physical bullies. That is the same moral right each of us individually possesses. We don't individually have a moral right to control somebody else's economic behavior. Therefore the government cannot morally do it either.

And thus the more you have to lose in terms of wealth and income have the greatest benefit from the government and should pay a higher percentage of the taxes.

[JarMan]

Restrictions of freedom do not remove choice. They simply change the consequences of some choices.

Restrictions of freedom DO remove choice. Suppose you are walking down the street with $100 in your pocket. You have an infinite number of choices how to spend that money. Some choices would be good, some bad, and some neutral. Now suppose a man with a gun corners you and tells you to hand over all your money or else die. Suddenly your choices have shrunk from an infinite number to essentially two. The ability to use that money to help someone in need is forever lost. So is the ability to squander it away. Where you once had a moral choice, you now have nothing.

[JarMan]

And thus the more you have to lose in terms of wealth and income have the greatest benefit from the government and should pay a higher percentage of the taxes.

If you are arguing for a flat tax then I agree with you. Because a flat tax does require that the wealthy contribute a proportionately higher amount of money.

[The Nehor]

Restrictions of freedom DO remove choice. Suppose you are walking down the street with $100 in your pocket. You have an infinite number of choices how to spend that money. Some choices would be good, some bad, and some neutral. Now suppose a man with a gun corners you and tells you to hand over all your money or else die. Suddenly your choices have shrunk from an infinite number to essentially two. The ability to use that money to help someone in need is forever lost. So is the ability to squander it away. Where you once had a moral choice, you now have nothing.

No, you still have agency. You do suffer a loss of freedom.

If you are arguing for a flat tax then I agree with you. Because a flat tax does require that the wealthy contribute a proportionately higher amount of money.

I have to disagree there. From the beginnings of capitalism it was virtually unanimously agreed that a progressive tax system is the most efficient method of keeping money moving through the system under the logical assumption that the wealthy benefit more from government spending.

[Ahab]

Restrictions of freedom DO remove choice. Suppose you are walking down the street with $100 in your pocket. You have an infinite number of choices how to spend that money. Some choices would be good, some bad, and some neutral. Now suppose a man with a gun corners you and tells you to hand over all your money or else die. Suddenly your choices have shrunk from an infinite number to essentially two. The ability to use that money to help someone in need is forever lost. So is the ability to squander it away. Where you once had a moral choice, you now have nothing.

You make a lot of assumptions, and the ones you are making aren't necessarily true. Just because someone corners you with a gun and says that to you doesn't mean what he says is going to come true. Suppose that you just take that gun away from that punk, or you just walk away with an assurance from God that he won't do you any harm to you. He could be a wimp you could easily take the gun away from, if you can get over your fear of death and the fact that he has a gun in his hand. Or he may not actually shoot you even though he has said that he will. No need to assume you only have 2 choices, even though he has tried to give you that impression. You still have many options and your freedom or agency will never be taken away even if he were to somehow succeed in killing you. Freedom and agency also apply to the immortal realm, and not just here among us mortals.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No, you still have agency. You do suffer a loss of freedom.

Bravo. You seem to be of the opinion that this is some how a good thing. That loss of freedom is great. It sounds as if even under Lucifiers plan you would also argue that you would still have agency? Agency and freedom might not be exactly the same thing but they are very closely related. And I am sorry but less freedom is not something I would ever advocate for. I would say that agency is the freedom of choice. When we speak of agency we are essentailly talking about choice and when one losses freedom the ability to make certain choice is gone. In Communist Russia when they told you a kid at age 5 what you were going to do for a living would you argue that that 5 year old really had a choice? That he still had his agency to chose? The government says "You are going to be a garbage man" The Nehor says "You still have agency". 5 year old kid says "Cool I'll be a police man". Reality .5 year old kid is then shot for refusing to go along with the plan. The Nehor syas" He still had his agency even though he had no freedom".

More reality is that 5 year old is dead and now has even less choice.

[Stone holm]

If you are arguing for a flat tax then I agree with you. Because a flat tax does require that the wealthy contribute a proportionately higher amount of money.

That is not necessarily true. The value of a stable society and the value of protecting wealth goes up dramatically as the amount of wealth increases not at a flat rate. In addition the likelihood of a non-domestic threat increases dramatically to the extent that there is accumulated wealth. In addition, the American with $100.00 to his name and holding a minimum wage job derives relatively minimal benefit from having a vast military establishment which is stationed overseas to protect American interests. He further derives minimal benefit from a whole host of things covered by government spending. The idea that the Lord has instituted tithing and therefore the tax system should be designed in accordance with the flat rate of tithing is also fallacious -- because even the Church says, those who can afford to pay more in the form of Fast offerings, humanitarian aid donations, contributions to the missionary fund, and even substantial donations from the wealthy which it now hires people to facilitate are all sought.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I have to disagree there. From the beginnings of capitalism it was virtually unanimously agreed that a progressive tax system is the most efficient method of keeping money moving through the system under the logical assumption that the wealthy benefit more from government spending.

Unanumously agreed? Really?? There are plenty of people that disagree with this even today. Why is there not a progressive tithing system in the church? Think about it for a second.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If you are arguing for a flat tax then I agree with you. Because a flat tax does require that the wealthy contribute a proportionately higher amount of money.

I personally could do with out an income tax. Lets just abolish that. I don't see any good coming from that.