Pope Francis Takes On Capitalism And Inequality

[Stone holm]

In council in heaven, the devil set forth a plan that would prevent the destructive effects of sin bylimiting a man's agency to commit sin, even if that man had an inclination to chose to do so. So it is today: Under Marxist doctrine, for instance, it is considered and evil for one man to possess morematerial possessions than another. So, this "evil" is prevented by the agents of the so calleddictatorship of the proletariat confiscating all money or capital beyond what's needed for the basicnecessities of a simple life.

Yeah that's an interesting example based on Stalinist Communism and Maoist Communism, now that we have discussed the extremes...

[BCSpace]

http://thisweekinmor...ue-watch-video/

 

This is an interesting article by a LDS.  Not sure how to take it.

 

The author diverges significantly from LDS doctrine, especially on the notion of equality.

 

 

Under Marxist doctrine, for instance, it is considered and evil for one man to possess more

material possessions than another. So, this "evil" is prevented by the agents of the so called

dictatorship of the proletariat confiscating all money or capital beyond what's needed for the basic

necessities of a simple life.

 

The summation of Marx's philosophy is found in his observance that the value of a product created by workers is exceeded by the final value of the product.  This difference he called 'surplus value' and we of course call it profit.  Marx believed therefore in the forced redistribution of this profit.  But he forgets that without surplus value, the product will not be created in the first place.  The incentive to do so is removed.

 

So likewise goes the plan of salvation as described in 2 Nephi 2.  We are enticed one way or the other, finding surplus value, real or imagined, in either direction we go.  The fact that we are exposed to such enticement shows that we have been given our agency.  Remove the enticement, just as Marxism does temporally, and agency is removed and so is the ability to improve and succeed.  Hence Marxism is a temporal example of that which fights against the plan of salvation.

[volgadon]

Superb thoughts. http://difficultrun.nathanielgivens.com/2013/11/27/good-news-pope-francis/

[BCSpace]

It would be awesome if the redistribution of wealth came from those making the money, trickle down economics if you will, but maybe someone could turn up the faucet.  As we can see from the wealth distribution video that capitalism isn't doing such a great job of that currently.  

 

 

'Trickle down' is a straw man argument, a philosophy that doesn't exist.  Free Market Capitalism has worked wonderfully because, like the Plan of Salvation, it is a neutral system and any evil the happens therein is not the result of the system but is man's responsibility alone.

 

But according to my brothers and sisters in the gospel capitalism is next to godliness and socialism is devilish.  And then I read the BOM and wonder if we are all reading the same book.

 

Same book.  What you don't read in the BoM is a mandate for government to step in and remove one's personal responsibility and agency.  You should check out the Church's official doctrine on the Law of Consecration in my siggy.

[BCSpace]

 Okay, so Pope Francis is at it again.  Fairly sure the Vatican is avidly searching for more erasers.  Exactly what did the Pope mean in his recent broadside against capitalism?

 

http://www.rawstory....licy-statement/

 

It's a 180 degree turn since last century when the Catholic Church was one of Marx's staunchest enemies.  And unfortunately, he's reduced what the Catholics and Mormons have in common.

[3DOP]

I have a preference that popes set their main focus on the next life. We know that as far as this life goes, "the poor you have with you always."  As for how this life should go, I don't see that the Lord sent any revealed dogma that refutes the idea that individuals should be free to buy and sell what they will with whom they will except it should involve the purchase or sale of something that is immoral apart from economic theories.  

 

I agree that capitalism is wrong. Capitalism introduces government into the market place. Someone else already mentioned that they prefer the term "free market". I INSIST upon the term free market. The free market doesn't look to government to establish policies that favor land, labor, or capital. Unfortunately, in the minds of most today, including political conservatives, and apparently the South American pope, capitalism is synonymous with free markets. That is completely false. Free marketeers don't look for favors from government as capitalists do.

 

I don't see that there is any revelation which says that government should favor any of the three forms of wealth. All wealth is found either in land, labor, or capital. This economic trinity represents morally acceptable, and precious commodities. The Catholic principles of justice are directed to love of neighbour and avoidance of the commandment against stealing. These principles, as I understand them, are compatible with freedom to trade capital, labor, and land without interference from governments. I don't guess that the South American pope would agree that the most effective thievery occurs when governmental policies are enacted to favor one form of wealth over others to the benefit of the few or the many. He seems to be an anti-capitalist. I am neither anti-capitalist nor capitalist. I INSIST upon the moral value of all three forms of wealth without preference. Like almost everybody in all seven continents, the pope seems to think that governments should intervene in the economy to favor or oppose one or the other forms of wealth. It is a classic modern folly.

 

With all due respect to His Holiness, I think his youth and his environment are speaking here, and not his successorship in the See of Peter.

 

3DOP

Edited November 28, 2013 by 3DOP

[teddyaware]

Yeah that's an interesting example based on Stalinist Communism and Maoist Communism, now that we have discussed the extremes...

In the US today, there are many politicians, and other influential people, who would just love to

implement my above extreme example. But they know it's impossible to accomplish the goal of full

collectivism all at once. So they implement their programs step by step in a process of patient

gradualism, just as Marx proposed. You know, the old thesis antithesis dynamic that is said to enable

activists to fundamentally transform governments and societies step by step without

their victims realizing what's happening right before their very eyes. Apostle Ezra

Taft Benson, while engaged in a conversation with Nikita Khruschev, reported that Mr.

Khrushchev told him:

"You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept Communism outright; but we'll keep feeding you

small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism. We

won't have to fight you; we'll so weaken your economy, until you fall like overripe fruit into our

hands."

In this regard, you do remember Nephi's warning, I'm sure:

21 And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.

22 And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none—and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his

awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance. (2 Nephi 28)

Edited November 28, 2013 by teddyaware

[mtomm]

'Trickle down' is a straw man argument, a philosophy that doesn't exist.  Free Market Capitalism has worked wonderfully because, like the Plan of Salvation, it is a neutral system and any evil the happens therein is not the result of the system but is man's responsibility .

In the meantime while we are waiting for imperfect people to catch the vision of perfect capitalism lets hope hungry folks get enough to eat. Or not. If they cannot figure it out they can just do without. Does that sum up the law of consecration?

If the free market currently leaves so few dollars for the rest of us to share we are going to have to go with Ahab's suggestion and figure how to make it in a cashless society.

[The Nehor]

In the US today, there are many politicians, and other influential people, who would just love to

implement my above extreme example. But they know it's impossible to accomplish the goal of full

collectivism all at once. So they implement their programs step by step in a process of patient

gradualism, just as Marx proposed. You know, the old thesis antithesis dynamic that is said to enable

activists to fundamentally transform governments and societies step by step without

their victims realizing what's happening right before their very eyes. Apostle Ezra

Taft Benson, while engaged in a conversation with Nikita Khruschev, reported that Mr.

Khrushchev told him:

"You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept Communism outright; but we'll keep feeding you

small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism. We

won't have to fight you; we'll so weaken your economy, until you fall like overripe fruit into our

hands."

In this regard, you do remember Nephi's warning, I'm sure:

21 And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.

22 And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none—and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his

awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance. (2 Nephi 28)

 

As the Republicans are further to the Right now then they were under Reagan and the Democrats are more moderate now then Leftist I think you are overcompensating and will fall off the horse on the other side.

 

I am pretty sure Nephi was talking about sin in carnal security, not that carnal security is wrong. If carnal security is inherently wrong then everyone needs to stop contributing to 401ks.

[The Nehor]

In council in heaven, the devil set forth a plan that would prevent the destructive effects of sin by

limiting a man's agency to commit sin, even if that man had an inclination to chose to do so. So it is today: Under Marxist doctrine, for instance, it is considered and evil for one man to possess more

material possessions than another. So, this "evil" is prevented by the agents of the so called

dictatorship of the proletariat confiscating all money or capital beyond what's needed for the basic

necessities of a simple life.

 

Indeed, and as we know the Lord's plan is clear that the purpose of life is to accumulate treasures on earth as that leads to treasures in heaven and the Lord will answer your prayers and your wealth shall not become corrupt and will be protected from thieves and that life beyond the simple life is what life is all about. Having food and raiment let us move on and seek out gold and silver. What man among you having ten sons and all serve him equally will not clothe them all in robes for that is their just reward and anyone who is dressed in rags is an abomination before the Lord.

[Robert F. Smith]

 Okay, so Pope Francis is at it again.  Fairly sure the Vatican is avidly searching for more erasers.  Exactly what did the Pope mean in his recent broadside against capitalism?

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/26/pope-francis-rips-capitalism-and-trickle-down-economics-to-shreds-in-new-policy-statement/

The Pope is a true Jesuit.  He has apparently thought the issues through very carefully, and has come down on the same side of the issue which Jesus did.  Mark Blyth, the best economist to come out of Scotland since Adam Smith, has correctly expressed it in his Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea (Oxford Univ Press, 2013).  Blyth explains it very well on Youtube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQuHSQXxsjM .

[Rob Osborn]

In council in heaven, the devil set forth a plan that would prevent the destructive effects of sin by

limiting a man's agency to commit sin, even if that man had an inclination to chose to do so. So it is today: Under Marxist doctrine, for instance, it is considered and evil for one man to possess more

material possessions than another. So, this "evil" is prevented by the agents of the so called

dictatorship of the proletariat confiscating all money or capital beyond what's needed for the basic

necessities of a simple life.

How are you sure the devil set forth a plan to limit mans agency to commit sin. that basically equates to "forced obedience" which is quite the stretch.

We do not have a lot of information on what happened at that council in heaven before mortality. All we are told is that Satan said certain things and demanded certain things. We do know he sought wickedness while still in heaven. We also know that he rebelled against Christ. We also know he was a liar and was the same type of being at the council as he now is.

With all this information we are told that he sought to destroy the agency of man of the which was one of several reasons for his being cast out of heaven. We tend to read a lot of things into scripture that are not there. One of those ideas is that somehow we suppose he was going to force righteousness upon us, or, remove the effects of sin, or, remove choice or any mixture of those parameters. But we must back up to his original intent. Satan said he would save all that none would be lost. From this we design up quite the scenario on how we suppose he would or could achieve this. We assume that he was honest and had every intention to do just that- save everyone. This is where I have stopped to ponder. If we know he was a liar as we are told in that very verse then it stands to reason from studying his characteristic traits and habits that he was lying then when he said that. We are only told what he said. Well, Satan was a liar, he had no intention of saving anyone. He still tells us that same lie generation after generation since time began. If we can thus make this correction it brings everything else into proper light.

So, if Satan had no intention of saving anyone then how is it that he sought to destroy our agency? Forced obedience? Forget it. Satan is wicked. The war in heaven was fought over the principles of morality- what is right and what is wrong. Satans intentions all along were to ensnare men into spiritual bondage and then rule over them in his own kingdom according to his own will. Satan wanted wickedness to rule- throw out the moral law and let men worship themselves and all their carnal desires. That has been his plan all along. Anything that will bring men into sin- bring it on!

Agency when properly understood is the ability to freely choose when one lives according to moral law. What this entails is that men are free as long as they do what is right- morally right by God's laws. When we choose to be disobedient to these moral laws then that gift of agency is surrendered, given up, or even destroyed. We do not have the right to be disobedient. We do have the choice to be disobedient but there are penalties as set forth by God for that disobedience if we so choose. Those penalties include the surrendering of our agency. There is a reason why the scriptures call this the chains of hell. The chains of hell have the power to captivate and remove the "right" to freely choose and act in Gods kingdom. Thus, a spirit prison has been made to keep these disobedient in a state where agency is no longer given to them. The devil then has power to exercise his own will over you. If the devil achieves this state of your soul he has thus destroyed your agency. As long as there is no repentance and forgiveness in and through Christ and his laws and ordinances then agency is forever eternally stripped or destroyed from that soul. This is how Satan seeks to destroy our agency, plain and simple. The antonym of "agency" is "captivity". We are told what happens when we choose to follow Satan. We are led into captivity according to Satans will and not our own will. Only in and through Christ is agency restored and maintained. Without a forgiveness of our sins our agency would be forever destroyed once we chose the carnal path of sin (of which all of us naturally choose). See, here is where the real war is being fought. Satan is seeking the destruction of our agency by bringing us into the prison house and not opening it ever again while Christ on the other hand is sent into the world to reclaim men from spiritual bondage and restore their agency upon the conditions of righteousness.

This is why I raise a red flag to these government philosphies being the devils plans. The devil works within every type of government to destroy and corrupt Gods true moral laws. It doesn't matter if it is Communism, democracy, socialism, etc. We know all too well from BoM history that Satan always uses secret combinations, greed, murder, etc to set up and destroy government and from their entire nations.

[Rob Osborn]

'Trickle down' is a straw man argument, a philosophy that doesn't exist.  Free Market Capitalism has worked wonderfully because, like the Plan of Salvation, it is a neutral system and any evil the happens therein is not the result of the system but is man's responsibility alone.

 

 

Same book.  What you don't read in the BoM is a mandate for government to step in and remove one's personal responsibility and agency.  You should check out the Church's official doctrine on the Law of Consecration in my siggy.

I wasnt aware of that in the BoM. Can you show me where? All I see are patterns over and over where evil conspiring men creep into government, whatever types they were, committ secret combinations, murder, and destroy moral law and stone the prophets and drive away the righteous.

[Rob Osborn]

In the US today, there are many politicians, and other influential people, who would just love to

implement my above extreme example. But they know it's impossible to accomplish the goal of full

collectivism all at once. So they implement their programs step by step in a process of patient

gradualism, just as Marx proposed. You know, the old thesis antithesis dynamic that is said to enable

activists to fundamentally transform governments and societies step by step without

their victims realizing what's happening right before their very eyes. Apostle Ezra

Taft Benson, while engaged in a conversation with Nikita Khruschev, reported that Mr.

Khrushchev told him:

"You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept Communism outright; but we'll keep feeding you

small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism. We

won't have to fight you; we'll so weaken your economy, until you fall like overripe fruit into our

hands."

In this regard, you do remember Nephi's warning, I'm sure:

21 And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.

22 And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none—and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his

awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance. (2 Nephi 28)

The warning has to do with basic sin not some conspiracy government social program. Men may have some strange ideas about running government but even in cases such as Obama wanting a socialized healthcare, this is not some evil plot of Satan. Theres a hundred ways to skin a cat. The President truly desires a system that will bring affordable healthcare to Americans. I may not agree with how he does this but I do commend his heart for what it is he truly desires. It will fail in some areas, be modified in others, and eventually through our democratic system will end up being an overall good thing. We may have to learn some valuable lessons along the way but then again, heck, Im not in charge, heh heh.

The BoM talks about knowing people and their systems they devise by their fruits. As far as I can tell, I dont see really any difference in a single hard working mom buying her groceries with food stamps versus receiving that same food through a food order from the church. The end fruits is that its a benefit and hep need for that person to aleviate suffering. You cant say the one is the devil and the other is Christs.

[Stone holm]

It seems to me that from what I have started reading on subsidiarity that what the Pope may be focusing on is that our capitalist system has in fact become increasingly centralized and that is causing problems. I suspect that is where modern libertarian thinking goes off the rails when it focuses strictly upon government. If the centralization of the economy is allowed to go on a pace, while you cutting back and clipping the wings of government, what happens is the big banks and big corporations take over. So it would seem that you would need to have the government not to take over such industries, but to break them up and rein them in. For example take the food industry ... We know we have a problem and our aim should be to break up the industry in favor of small farms and local or even home production ... But instead we have bipartisan support for further centralization and industrialization.

[thesometimesaint]

Solution for all:  Stop using money and do things for others just because you want to help them in the true spirit of charity.

 

We might want to wait until we can no longer die though because it may take a while to do what we can to help others.

 

How could we stop using money? A barter system proved very impractical. I have plenty of charity, but unless I can get my goods/services to you then all that charity is of little value.

 

Dying is a major drawback at least in this life.

[thesometimesaint]

It seems to me that from what I have started reading on subsidiarity that what the Pope may be focusing on is that our capitalist system has in fact become increasingly centralized and that is causing problems. I suspect that is where modern libertarian thinking goes off the rails when it focuses strictly upon government. If the centralization of the economy is allowed to go on a pace, while you cutting back and clipping the wings of government, what happens is the big banks and big corporations take over. So it would seem that you would need to have the government not to take over such industries, but to break them up and rein them in. For example take the food industry ... We know we have a problem and our aim should be to break up the industry in favor of small farms and local or even home production ... But instead we have bipartisan support for further centralization and industrialization.

 

Economics of scale. With 313 million people in the US, most living in cities. There is no feasible way to feed all of us with small local farms, and home production.

[Stone holm]

Economics of scale. With 313 million people in the US, most living in cities. There is no feasible way to feed all of us with small local farms, and home production.

Don't agree.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Okay, so Pope Francis is at it again.  Fairly sure the Vatican is avidly searching for more erasers.  Exactly what did the Pope mean in his recent broadside against capitalism?

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/26/pope-francis-rips-capitalism-and-trickle-down-economics-to-shreds-in-new-policy-statement/

I never understand attacks against capitalism...it makes possible the funding of charities and lifting people out of poverty. The more we abandon it the more the works of charities suffer and the more who go hungry and naked, and the less the work of Christ goes forward by our Church and other Churches. The wealth of America, funded by capitalist adds the world.

[Stone holm]

I never understand attacks against capitalism...it makes possible the funding of charities and lifting people out of poverty. The more we abandon it the more the works of charities suffer and the more who go hungry and naked, and the less the work of Christ goes forward by our Church and other Churches. The wealth of America, funded by capitalist adds the world.

Yes, interesting, and when it has the opportunity it will use quasi slave labor in a Communist police state in lieu of free workers in a democracy. Capitalism, rather free markets are very good allocators of resources provided wealth does not become over concentrated and value or cost is assigned to the commons. Unfortunately, when unrestrained it tends to over concentrate wealth at which time the "unseen hand" becomes visible and the efficient allocation of resources ceases and is overwhelmed by "investments" which do not distribute value or cause productivity, and if a cost is not assigned to consumption cost of the commons it can become highly destructive. In order for the unseen hand to do its magic, the government has to intervene to prevent the over concentration of wealth and to assign a cost to the consumption of the commons. The failure of some to understand that the concept of subsidiarity must be applied not only to government, but also to corporate organizations which become too large has been a fateful mistake both for human prosperity in general, but also the planet.

 

OK,everybody.  Enough politics.

[Robert F. Smith]

I have a preference that popes set their main focus on the next life. We know that as far as this life goes, "the poor you have with you always."  As for how this life should go, I don't see that the Lord sent any revealed dogma that refutes the idea that individuals should be free to buy and sell what they will with whom they will except it should involve the purchase or sale of something that is immoral apart from economic theories.  

 

I agree that capitalism is wrong. Capitalism introduces government into the market place. Someone else already mentioned that they prefer the term "free market". I INSIST upon the term free market. The free market doesn't look to government to establish policies that favor land, labor, or capital. Unfortunately, in the minds of most today, including political conservatives, and apparently the South American pope, capitalism is synonymous with free markets. That is completely false. Free marketeers don't look for favors from government as capitalists do.

 

I don't see that there is any revelation which says that government should favor any of the three forms of wealth. All wealth is found either in land, labor, or capital. This economic trinity represents morally acceptable, and precious commodities. The Catholic principles of justice are directed to love of neighbour and avoidance of the commandment against stealing. These principles, as I understand them, are compatible with freedom to trade capital, labor, and land without interference from governments. I don't guess that the South American pope would agree that the most effective thievery occurs when governmental policies are enacted to favor one form of wealth over others to the benefit of the few or the many. He seems to be an anti-capitalist. I am neither anti-capitalist nor capitalist. I INSIST upon the moral value of all three forms of wealth without preference. Like almost everybody in all seven continents, the pope seems to think that governments should intervene in the economy to favor or oppose one or the other forms of wealth. It is a classic modern folly.

 

With all due respect to His Holiness, I think his youth and his environment are speaking here, and not his successorship in the See of Peter.

 

3DOP

Still and all, Rory, this Jesuit and somewhat Franciscan Pope might very well be dreaming of the early Christian Body of Christ having "all things common" (Acts 2:44, 4:32), which as the best Roman Catholic translation (New Jerusalem Bible) explains:

Acts 2:44-45,

And all who shared the faith owned everything in common; they sold their goods and possessions and distributed the proceeds among themselves according to what each one needed.

Acts 4:32,33,

The whole group of believers was united, heart and soul; no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, as everything they owned was held in common.

*    *    *    *

None of their members was ever in want, as all those who owned land or houses would sell them, and bring the money from the sale of them, to present it to the apostles; it was then distributed to any who might be in need.

 

This is very similar to requirements of the Essene fellowship at Qumran, and is also similar to the arrangements made among the Hutterite Brethren as well as among members of the old style Israeli kibbutz.  Such a notion is also to be found in the Book of Mormon (III Ne 26:19, IV Ne 3,25), and was an idea dear to the hearts of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, and was even put into practice as the LDS United Order.

 

What is this constant hankering for equality before the Lord and full fellowship for the Saints of God?  Can this only be found in monasteries?  Or is it meant for whole Body of Christ (Corpus Christi)?

[3DOP]

Robert, hi.

 

I am pleased that you replied to me. It gives me a better chance to avoid misunderstanding here. What you suggest is a fine vision of communal life. Can this only be found in monasteries? Yes, I can not think of successful communities that have prospered for generations outside of the religious life (religious brothers and sisters bound by vows). Acts 2 describes an aspect of monastery life. Holy poverty (renunciation of private property) is, like chastity, and obedience (to a religious superior), according to the Catholic faith, a counsel, not a command. The evangelical counsels as they are called, are not ordinarily compatible with every state of life. Obviously married people are not called to chastity, and rarely to poverty or obedience. Even diocesan priests are excused from vows of poverty. While it seems probable that married people lived communally in Acts 2, this should not be undertaken imprudently. The head of the family is answerable for feeding and nurturing his own family. If a situation can be found where this may be best attained communally, then yes, married people qualify to renounce private property.

 

It is a high ideal which if freely accepted, is worthy of attaining. I had the impression, perhaps mistaken, that the Holy Father was thinking that governments could successfully promote or even impose Acts 2. I could not be so persuaded. Governments could cooperate in granting favors to renunciation of private property, but any legislation which does so, would seem to be at the expense of those who would think such an endeavor to be imprudent for their circumstances.

 

Regards,

 

Rory

[Stone holm]

Robert, hi.

 

I am pleased that you replied to me. It gives me a better chance to avoid misunderstanding here. What you suggest is a fine vision of communal life. Can this only be found in monasteries? Yes, I can not think of successful communities that have prospered for generations outside of the religious life (religious brothers and sisters bound by vows). Acts 2 describes an aspect of monastery life. Holy poverty (renunciation of private property) is, like chastity, and obedience (to a religious superior), according to the Catholic faith, a counsel, not a command. The evangelical counsels as they are called, are not ordinarily compatible with every state of life. Obviously married people are not called to chastity, and rarely to poverty or obedience. Even diocesan priests are excused from vows of poverty. While it seems probable that married people lived communally in Acts 2, this should not be undertaken imprudently. The head of the family is answerable for feeding and nurturing his own family. If a situation can be found where this may be best attained communally, then yes, married people qualify to renounce private property.

 

It is a high ideal which if freely accepted, is worthy of attaining. I had the impression, perhaps mistaken, that the Holy Father was thinking that governments could successfully promote or even impose Acts 2. I could not be so persuaded. Governments could cooperate in granting favors to renunciation of private property, but any legislation which does so, would seem to be at the expense of those who would think such an endeavor to be imprudent for their circumstances.

 

Regards,

 

Rory

Am thinking the Israeli Kibbutz and The Farm down in Kentucky and several small ones in VT and scattered around the country are not Catholic.

[Alan]

Joining this subject late.

I believe Pope Francis is right on the money (pardon the expression) with this.

Capitalism is wicked to it's very core and always has been. It's an invention of the Adversary and easily his most spectacular success, witnessed by the fact that so many LDS, even LDS leaders, are among it's devotees.

Socialism is better in my view, but only marginally. The two are really "opposames"..... ie. different sides of the same counterfeit coin.

[thesometimesaint]

Interestingly.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AngLKF02OUE