thesometimesaint Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 Not really. Does it really matter, in economic sense of the words, whether I give my excess to my church to distribute as they see fit, or if I give it to my secular community?
Mystery Meat Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 Not really. Does it really matter, in economic sense of the words, whether I give my excess to my church to distribute as they see fit, or if I give it to my secular community? Yes. In one system it is likely not being given, it is being forcibly taken. I will let you guess which one.
Mystery Meat Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 (edited) Maybe, but that was not what Brigham Young and the early church thought. but consecration is socialism + God, a religious utopia. Historian Ronald W. Walker presents Brigham Young's own characteristically outspoken words about his ideas of Zion; a labor-driven, agrarian, cooperative theocracy. You continue to repeat the same arguments you have previously made and have still failed to show that Brigham Young favored the Federal Government, or any government outside of the Church, creating a system whereby it would distribute wealth among the masses. Repetition doesn't make your case stronger, it just makes your position look weak and you stubborn for not being able to concede. Theocracy is not the same as a democratic republic. Edited July 17, 2015 by Mystery Meat 1
Mystery Meat Posted July 17, 2015 Posted July 17, 2015 Maybe, but that was not what Brigham Young and the early church thought. In fact, consider this an official CFR. You need to provide support for your continued assertion that Brigham Young would support policies that allowed the federal government to engage in wealth redistribution. What you have provided is deficient as it does not support this. I am looking for a statement that leaves no doubt that Brigham Young would support the Government levying taxes to force his vision of utopia. If you can't do so, I am sure you will be so kind as to retract your claims. 1
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 (edited) You continue to repeat the same arguments you have previously made and have still failed to show that Brigham Young favored the Federal Government, or any government outside of the Church but it is irrelevant, why would he? Brigham Young was the governor of Utah, not the president of the USA. I don't think Brigham Young was very concerned about the economy of the USA. Brigham Young said, “If those that have, do not sell to those that have not, we will just take it & distribute among the Poors, and those that have & and will not divide willingly, will be thankful their heads are not wallowing in the Snow" - Great Basin Kingdom an economic history of the Latter-day saints He also said, "We have plenty here, no person is going to starve, or suffer, if there is an equal distribution of the necessaries of life which are in the country" JOD To be fair BY did not support equal wealth distribution Edited July 18, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
Storm Rider Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 These comments you are presenting makes you think it is the sum total of BY's political thought? Really?
thesometimesaint Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 No thanks. Obama is no Brigham Young. Our federal, state and local governments spend way too much time figuring out how to tax us more. Fuel tax, carbon credits, pay by the mile hiway tax, DMV fees, property taxes, sales taxes, room taxes, sin taxes, use taxes and on and on. Good man that he was I'm not too sure that the US system of government is conducive to a theocrat like Brigham Young was. The effective tax rate of the US is among the lowest in the world.
Mystery Meat Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 but it is irrelevant, why would he? Brigham Young was the governor of Utah, not the president of the USA. I don't think Brigham Young was very concerned about the economy of the USA. Brigham Young said, “If those that have, do not sell to those that have not, we will just take it & distribute among the Poors, and those that have & and will not divide willingly, will be thankful their heads are not wallowing in the Snow" - Great Basin Kingdom an economic history of the Latter-day saints He also said, "We have plenty here, no person is going to starve, or suffer, if there is an equal distribution of the necessaries of life which are in the country" JOD To be fair BY did not support equal wealth distribution You are obviously not going to respond to the CFR. That shows me that you are unwilling to have an actual conversation and that you are too stubborn to admit you are wrong and that you are intellectually dishonest. Have a nice day.
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 18, 2015 Posted July 18, 2015 You are obviously not going to respond to the CFR. That shows me that you are unwilling to have an actual conversation and that you are too stubborn to admit you are wrong and that you are intellectually dishonest. Have a nice day. How am I being dishonest? I didn't bother to search for your CFR because it is irrelevant, and I made no such claim anyways. What you are doing is called mental gymnastics
The Nehor Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Capitalism certainly does give a lot of people the opportunity to attempt to thread needles with camels.
longview Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Not really. Does it really matter, in economic sense of the words, whether I give my excess to my church to distribute as they see fit, or if I give it to my secular community?It matters a HUGE deal. I am very confident that the Church has made (and will continue to make) powerful use of all contributions (both time and money and care). BUT we know for a fact that the government immediately consumes a high percentage of the taxes for the salaries of bureaucrats and end up wasting much of the remainder to waste, fraud, and misallocation. The truly needy are best served and helped by LDS welfare approach. BUT they are horribly misdirected by the bureaucracies. However, non-governmental, non-religious charitable/service organizations do vary widely in their percentage and effectiveness. Discretion is greatly advised. 2
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 It matters a HUGE deal. I am very confident that the Church has made (and will continue to make) powerful use of all contributions (both time and money and care). BUT we know for a fact that the government immediately consumes a high percentage of the taxes for the salaries of bureaucrats and end up wasting much of the remainder to waste, fraud, and misallocation. The truly needy are best served and helped by LDS welfare approach. BUT they are horribly misdirected by the bureaucracies. Let's be clear, Brigham Young and the early church had a socialist-like theocracy, I don't think Brigham Young was worried about the USA politics that didn't affect the church. So please get the politics out. failed to show that Brigham Young favored the Federal Government, or any government outside of the Church Why? I never said he did, you are the one making political points. Did he? I don't know and I don't care.
thesometimesaint Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 It matters a HUGE deal. I am very confident that the Church has made (and will continue to make) powerful use of all contributions (both time and money and care). BUT we know for a fact that the government immediately consumes a high percentage of the taxes for the salaries of bureaucrats and end up wasting much of the remainder to waste, fraud, and misallocation. The truly needy are best served and helped by LDS welfare approach. BUT they are horribly misdirected by the bureaucracies. However, non-governmental, non-religious charitable/service organizations do vary widely in their percentage and effectiveness. Discretion is greatly advised. The Church has a large bureaucracy to and none of them work for free.
longview Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Capitalism certainly does give a lot of people the opportunity to attempt to thread needles with camels.I am seeing a few posts in threads this morning casting aspersions on capitalism, even by those I would consider to be conservatives. Capitalism is value neutral in terms of morality. It is a reality in every part of the world, in every level of society, in any degree of socialism, throughout all history (mortal only). Even the USSR and Red China had to allow it to operate in their underground black markets (in spite of their Utopian 5 year plans) to make up for critical shortages. What is evil or counter-productive is the result of decisions and behaviors of all kinds of people that tilt the outcome of the free markets. Capitalism ranges in scale anywhere from two people making a quick on-the-spot deal, all the way up to giant enterprises taking years of planning and large investment of resources. It is simply a way for individuals or groups to pool their resources to obtain something of greater value (economic) thru leveraging and profits (also morally neutral). Capitalism is NOT responsible for people wanting to take advantage of ill-informed or unwise individuals or groups. The "purpose" may be good or evil but the mechanism is neither. Capitalism exists because of shortages. Economic exchanges occur because not everyone can manufacture all their needs. Is there capitalism in Heaven? NO because there are no shortages there. Just intelligences helping each other acquire more attributes and advance in knowledge. God is providing stewardship of personal relationships, NOT dictating acquisition of material goods. 1
longview Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 The Church has a large bureaucracy to and none of them work for free. Depends on what you mean by large in the context of the Church. Of course there are people who are asked to devote a big chunk of their time and efforts in carrying out their jobs. Of course they should be compensated. There needs to be regular employment for certain tasks and priorities to be most effectively carried out. But their salaries are modest compared to most enterprises. I won't go into the salaries and benefits of government bureaucrats. BUT consider the Post Office and AMTRAX. And contrast them with competition provided by FedEX and other similar corporations.
thesometimesaint Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Depends on what you mean by large in the context of the Church. Of course there are people who are asked to devote a big chunk of their time and efforts in carrying out their jobs. Of course they should be compensated. There needs to be regular employment for certain tasks and priorities to be most effectively carried out. But their salaries are modest compared to most enterprises. I won't go into the salaries and benefits of government bureaucrats. BUT consider the Post Office and AMTRAX. And contrast them with competition provided by FedEX and other similar corporations. So people working should work for less? The big advantage of working for the government is the retirement. Considering many private companies are defined contribution as opposed to defined benefits as the governmental workers are explains all the difference plus some. After working for 30 years for the government you can retire with a fairly secure source of income. My sister lost over half her retirement money in 2008 because of the crash in the 401K market. She's 61 and there is no way for her to recoup that lose. The USPS is a quasi-governmental agency which pays for itself with stamp sale income. It was Congress that passed a law forcing them to fund their retirement to include any future employees for 75 years immediately. NO private company is required to do that. One of the most energy efficient means of transportation of people and goods are the trains. But you and the Congress think we spend too much on car and train safety.SEE http://www.masstransitmag.com/news/14040012/gop-bill-would-undermine-auto-and-rail-safety-regulations
Recommended Posts