The Jim Crow Fallacy

[Gray]

I don’t see this sort of thing as discrimination against individuals for whom or what they are, but exercising the right to conscientiously withhold tacit support of or participation in religiously offensive practices.

 

It's not a matter of "we don't serve your kind" but a matter of "you are crossing a religious line I do not observe."

 

Some people even today are still offended by interracial marriage. Should they be able to refuse service too?

[Gray]

Wishful thinking at best.

 

Socialism is always forced. That is how it works. The government takes.

 

UO is people give it of their one free will. That is a colossal difference.

 

No, socialism can be voluntary too. There have been many voluntary socialist movements in the history of the US. 

Edited July 8, 2015 by Gray

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

Socialism is not defined by whether or not people have a choice to take part in it. 

 

1. Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

 

BUt that still is not the UO. THere is not social ownership. And BTW in all the places that this "theory" has been tried it never works out like this. This definition in and of its self is a bit of wishful thinking.

 

How do you get socialism to work when some one doesn't want to give? And just for kicks can you name one such secular government where force is not required for there to be "social ownership".

 

All social ownership is is government owned.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No, socialism can be voluntary too. There have been many voluntary socialist movements in the history of the US. 

And they worked quite well huh?

Edited July 8, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[CV75]

But your earlier reason for decrying public accommodation laws as Satanic was that they forced people to behave righteously.

Please show me where you think I decried public accommodation laws as Satanic.

[Mystery Meat]

 

Socialism is not defined by whether or not people have a choice to take part in it. 

 

1. Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

 

 

I never said it was defined by choice (although I think that is a key component). Under the United Order there is still individual ownership of the means of production. That alone destroys the assertion that it is socialism. There is no "social ownership." Individuals maintain ownership of their property. The United Order is also not a political theory. So according to the definition you have posted here, it is not socialism.

[CV75]

Some people even today are still offended by interracial marriage. Should they be able to refuse service too?

Which religion are thinking of that counts interracial marriage as a mortal sin? You have to keep the comparisons apples and apples.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I never said it was defined by choice (although I think that is a key component). Under the United Order there is still individual ownership of the means of production. That alone destroys the assertion that it is socialism. There is no "social ownership." Individuals maintain ownership of their property. The United Order is also not a political theory. So according to the definition you have posted here, it is not socialism.

You hit the nail on the head here. This goes exactly to the point of why the UO is not socialism.

 

I would argue that social ownership is impossible.

[The Nehor]

And they worked quite well huh?

Actually some utopian societies with an economic system you would call socialism worked quite well for a while. Then they usually collapse when someone in charge figures out how to make more money from the whole thing, often second generation leaders. Although they were not gospel oriented it worked out the same when Utah UO societies butted heads with capitalism. Everyone thought they could do better under capitalism and the societies normalized with the rest of America.

It is amazing how the lived Law of Consecration seems to meld into the worldview of the listener. Die hard free market people imagine it is more of the same. Some see it as a socialist utopia. Some see it as a quasi-19th century commune. I think one of the main reasons we do not have it to live is we do not want it. We want our version realized instead of humbly asking God how he wants it run prepared to throw our own ideas away at his command. We want God as a partisan for our own ideal instead of seeking an inspired teacher. I am convinced that if the saints as a whole sought what God wants on this matter we would have it within a year or two. Instead we still weep for Zion.

[Gray]

Which religion are thinking of that counts interracial marriage as a mortal sin? You have to keep the comparisons apples and apples.

 

Does it matter? It's really the same issue. Some people want to discriminate based on identity issues of the couple. 

[Gray]

I never said it was defined by choice (although I think that is a key component). Under the United Order there is still individual ownership of the means of production. That alone destroys the assertion that it is socialism. There is no "social ownership." Individuals maintain ownership of their property. The United Order is also not a political theory. So according to the definition you have posted here, it is not socialism.

 

Private property was deeded to the collective United Order. Individuals retained "stewardship" 

[Bob Crockett]

No its not.

 

Strictly speaking, the United Order was social communitarianism, a phrase coined by Leonard Arrington.  It possesses many of the distinguishing features of lower case communism (Owenism).  A somewhat different way of describing it, although they really aren't quite the same, is that the United Order was Christian or New Testament communism, as 19th Century utopians described it.

 

There are a number of similarities between Communism and Socialism, on the one hand, and the United Order and/or the law of consecration and/or New Testament communism, on the other hand, and there are differences.

 

Communism/Socialism/law of consecration/New Testament communism:  No private ownership of property

United Order:  Some private ownership:  "Stewardship"

 

Communism/Socialism:  forcible confiscation of property

Law of consecration/New Testament communism/United Order:  Voluntary contribution, although for New Testament communism if you held property back and lied about it, you could be killed.

 

All:  You can't get your contribution back.

 

All:   Generally speaking, there are no capital markets or markets of any sort.  Distribution is dictated by a dictator.  

 

Of course, during the Red Scare some church authorities went out of their way to redefine economic terms to say that there were too many differences for them to be similar.  But, I don't see the big deal, as New Testament communism is spelled out in Acts, and obviously, religious groups as well as political groups would try and copy it.  

Edited July 8, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[CV75]

Does it matter? It's really the same issue. Some people want to discriminate based on identity issues of the couple. 

Absolutely. We have to have a real issue of a real religion with a real prohibition against interracial marriage resulting in real allegations of non-compliance with anti-discrimination laws to compare with real religions with real prohibitions against gay marriage resulting in allegations of "identity" (your term) discrimination...

 

But it seems you made it up as a distraction from the real issue!

 

Refusal to serve, not because of the personal identity of the individual spouses, but because of the tacit approval of and involvement with the morally bankrupt and illicit marriage (in the eyes of the religious business owner) by the business owner, is rightly protected by anti-discrimination laws.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Actually some utopian societies with an economic system you would call socialism worked quite well for a while. Then they usually collapse when someone in charge figures out how to make more money from the whole thing, often second generation leaders. Although they were not gospel oriented it worked out the same when Utah UO societies butted heads with capitalism. Everyone thought they could do better under capitalism and the societies normalized with the rest of America.

It is amazing how the lived Law of Consecration seems to meld into the worldview of the listener. Die hard free market people imagine it is more of the same. Some see it as a socialist utopia. Some see it as a quasi-19th century commune. I think one of the main reasons we do not have it to live is we do not want it. We want our version realized instead of humbly asking God how he wants it run prepared to throw our own ideas away at his command. We want God as a partisan for our own ideal instead of seeking an inspired teacher. I am convinced that if the saints as a whole sought what God wants on this matter we would have it within a year or two. Instead we still weep for Zion.

So you just made the case how well they worked out. Nice job.

[Daniel2]

Does it matter? It's really the same issue. Some people want to discriminate based on identity issues of the couple.

Absolutely. We have to have a real issue of a real religion with a real prohibition against interracial marriage resulting in real allegations of non-compliance with anti-discrimination laws to compare with real religions with real prohibitions against gay marriage resulting in allegations of "identity" (your term) discrimination...

But it seems you made it up as a distraction from the real issue!

Refusal to serve, not because of the personal identity of the individual spouses, but because of the tacit approval of and involvement with the morally bankrupt and illicit marriage (in the eyes of the religious business owner) by the business owner, is rightly protected by anti-discrimination laws.

Here's one from 2007--more than 40 years after the Civil Rights Act: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96577

And another from 2012:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/mississippi-church-rejects-black-wedding/story?id=16878536

Neither church lost its tax-exempt status or was otherwise legally punished by civil authorities, despite clear anti-discrimination laws regarding public accomodations and government entities being prohibited from discriminating based on race.

The same principles will apply to laws protecting churches regarding LGBT equality laws.

Btw... 5 pages in, and STILL no answers to my questions from page 1 (including your question-avoiding response, Kenngo).

Edited July 9, 2015 by Daniel2

[longview]

Strictly speaking, the United Order was social communitarianism, a phrase coined by Leonard Arrington.  It possesses many of the distinguishing features of lower case communism (Owenism).  A somewhat different way of describing it, although they really aren't quite the same, is that the United Order was Christian or New Testament communism, as 19th Century utopians described it.

 

There are a number of similarities between Communism and Socialism, on the one hand, and the United Order and/or the law of consecration and/or New Testament communism, on the other hand, and there are differences.

 

Communism/Socialism/law of consecration/New Testament communism:  No private ownership of property

United Order:  Some private ownership:  "Stewardship"

 

Communism/Socialism:  forcible confiscation of property

Law of consecration/New Testament communism/United Order:  Voluntary contribution, although for New Testament communism if you held property back and lied about it, you could be killed.

 

All:  You can't get your contribution back.

 

All:   Generally speaking, there are no capital markets or markets of any sort.  Distribution is dictated by a dictator.  

 

Of course, during the Red Scare some church authorities went out of their way to redefine economic terms to say that there were too many differences for them to be similar.  But, I don't see the big deal, as New Testament communism is spelled out in Acts, and obviously, religious groups as well as political groups would try and copy it.  

Very disjointed.   It is interesting that you have not responded directly to the points in Mystery Meat's post #58 page-3 that came out of D&C student manual.  Nehor was wrong:  God is NOT authoritarian, nor is He a dictator.  He actually presides with meekness.

 

Do you know why the Soviet Union imploded?  It has to do with the phrase:  "I will pretend to work for as long as you pretend to pay me".  It is the nature of the beast:  socialism brings out the slacker in most "workers" (pretend to work, hoping others will make production).  That is why you saw long lines in the Soviet Union but empty shelves (except for some moldy bread).  You should read the history of communal experiments at Jamestown and Plymouth Rock.  Because of the slacker factor, they almost starved to death.  Only by giving each person responsibility to grow their own food did production miraculously jump upward the following year!

[Kenngo1969]

...

Btw... 5 pages in, and STILL no answers to my questions from page 1 (including your question-avoiding response, Kennango).

I didn't avoid your questions.  I may not have answered them in the way you wanted, or taken the time to compose minute, point-by-point replies, but you can either live with my response, or not.  Personally, I don't like being accused of dealing with someone in bad faith when I've made a good-faith attempt at dialogue, and I tend to minimize my interactions with people who make such accusations.  I suppose I can simply add you to that list.

 

Have a nice evening.

[The Nehor]

So you just made the case how well they worked out. Nice job.

Yeah, they lasted longer then the United Order. Does that mean the United Order was flawed or was it the people in it?

If longevity of your organization is the measure of your success you would have to declare many prophets and Jesus Christ himself to be abject failures. Are you sure you want to use longevity as a determinant for the quality of a society?

[The Nehor]

Very disjointed.   It is interesting that you have not responded directly to the points in Mystery Meat's post #58 page-3 that came out of D&C student manual.  Nehor was wrong:  God is NOT authoritarian, nor is He a dictator.  He actually presides with meekness.

 

Meekness in the sense that he is teachable by the Father. If my read of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine and Covenants are even remotely right God expects obedience. I do not expect the temporal kingdom of God to be strict in the same sense as those seeking exaltation but I also do not picture it as an organization where Jesus will not rule as he believes wise and criticism met with the stern "seek not to counsel your God" bit.

 

 

Do you know why the Soviet Union imploded?  It has to do with the phrase:  "I will pretend to work for as long as you pretend to pay me".  It is the nature of the beast:  socialism brings out the slacker in most "workers" (pretend to work, hoping others will make production).  That is why you saw long lines in the Soviet Union but empty shelves (except for some moldy bread).  You should read the history of communal experiments at Jamestown and Plymouth Rock.  Because of the slacker factor, they almost starved to death.  Only by giving each person responsibility to grow their own food did production miraculously jump upward the following year!

 

And Somalia is the perfect demonstration of absolute free market capitalism unfettered by government. Fortunately I am not advocating for Stalinism or a capitalist system with a government so weak you can drown it in a bathtub.

 

Yet those were not the only communal experiments and some did not succumb to the problem you describe. The idea that people would become indolent slackers if they do not need to work in order to live is a myth propagated by employers. In Britain a few centuries back they went so far as to justify long work hours as good for the masses because it meant they did not have leisure time in which to get into trouble.

Edited July 9, 2015 by The Nehor

[Stargazer]

How many generations was the free market more or less given a chance in the South before the law stepped in?

And if that doesn't work as an example because of laws forcing discrimination, then please show me an example where free market effects without other help changed a highly racist area into a more or less accepting one to see how long it took.

 

The free market was NOT at work in the South before the law stepped in.  The free market was superseded by Jim Crow, which, dear Cal, were LAWS forbidding such things as race-mixing, back of the bus, separate (but unequal) washrooms and drinking fountains, and separate schools.  The laws had to be superseded by other laws getting rid of Jim Crow, of course, and in fact enforcing equality.  But free market principles would have won out in the end if they had been given the chance.  The plain fact of the matter is this, that a restaurant which refused to serve both black and white would lose out to a restaurant which served both equally.  Money is money, whether it comes from a black or a white, and GREEN would have done the job, too.  Eventually.  That's why I have to admit that civil rights laws were expedient to get rid of the old order faster.

 

You also forget that there were Jim Crow laws in many states in the North, as well.  For example, here in Washington state (when both Washington and Oregon were territories), we got a fair amount of free black immigration even before the Civil War because Oregon territory had a law forbidding blacks from settling there.  Which means that Washington won out on the deal.  One of our earliest pioneer families was the Bush family who settled in my area of the South Puget Sound Olympia area); they were mixed race group and contributed greatly towards building up the Capital of Washington (before Seattle took over economically).

[Bob Crockett]

Very disjointed.   It is interesting that you have not responded directly to the points in Mystery Meat's post #58 page-3 that came out of D&C student manual.  Nehor was wrong:  God is NOT authoritarian, nor is He a dictator.  He actually presides with meekness.

 

Do you know why the Soviet Union imploded?  It has to do with the phrase:  "I will pretend to work for as long as you pretend to pay me".  It is the nature of the beast:  socialism brings out the slacker in most "workers" (pretend to work, hoping others will make production).  That is why you saw long lines in the Soviet Union but empty shelves (except for some moldy bread).  You should read the history of communal experiments at Jamestown and Plymouth Rock.  Because of the slacker factor, they almost starved to death.  Only by giving each person responsibility to grow their own food did production miraculously jump upward the following year!

I wasn't defending governmental socialism or communism. I was merely pointing out that the United Order and the law of consecration are forms of Christian utopianism or communism. Under standard economic thinking, including Arrington's.

[Thinking]

Where is the line that divides the vendors who can decide to refuse service and those who can't?

 

While you're trying to define it, you might want to watch The Sneetches.

[Calm]

 

You also forget that there were Jim Crow laws in many states in the North, as well.  

No, I didn't forget.  I realized that was unlikely to satisfy the requirment so that is why I asked for an example...I don't think there is one out there personally.

[longview]

- - -

Yet those were not the only communal experiments and some did not succumb to the problem you describe. The idea that people would become indolent slackers if they do not need to work in order to live is a myth propagated by employers. - - -

Are you denying the lessons that were learned by the settlers in Jamestown and Plymouth Rock during the 17th century?

[longview]

I wasn't defending governmental socialism or communism. I was merely pointing out that the United Order and the law of consecration are forms of Christian utopianism or communism. Under standard economic thinking, including Arrington's.

I have read Arrington's book "American Moses".  Do you happen to have a reference to where he makes his definition of communal arrangements.  Thanks!  In the meantime I will try to find it.