At the Intersection of Theology and Ideology

[clarkgoble]

6 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

SEE Iron Law of labor  The iron law of wages is a proposed law of economics that asserts that real wages always tend, in the long run, toward the minimum wage necessary to sustain the life of the worker.

Yeah, I don't believe in that for a wide range of reasons, not the least of which being supply vs. demand for labor. Now if you're talking about labor where workers aren't really adding any value then you're of course correct. The controversy is what jobs require such skills (with new skills coming into play). For established skills where there's a lot of competition of course that'll drive the value down as will automation. While I think driver automation is overstated and likely farther off than the media portrays, I do think that'll be a big shakeup that will significantly drive down wages in many industries. (First off by automation in the direct industry and then secondarily in the lower skilled markets where former drivers will be pushed)

Part of the problem is trying to get people to have the proper skills. And by that I don't necessarily mean cognitive intensive skills like mathematics or even mechanical aptitude. Basic things like punctuality, self-motivation, discipline and the like. Surprisingly skills many workers in the US lack. But that means that those with those skills will become more attractive.

The question is what happens to the rest since I think those will face minimal wages and it's not clear how society will adjust.

[Five Solas]

Here's a question for those following the thread:  Is there any LDS equivalent to the party platform documents linked in the OP, where the LDS Church states what it's about, what its agenda is, etc.?  A single *contemporary* document intended to communicate & persuade readers why it deserves consideration and support.

Here's an example from my church: http://media.downtowncornerstone.org/print/DCC Prospectus_2016_Final.pdf

Thoughts on the existence of any LDS equivalent?

--Erik

[CV75]

53 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Here's a question for those following the thread:  Is there any LDS equivalent to the party platform documents linked in the OP, where the LDS Church states what it's about, what its agenda is, etc.?  A single *contemporary* document intended to communicate & persuade readers why it deserves consideration and support.

Here's an example from my church: http://media.downtowncornerstone.org/print/DCC Prospectus_2016_Final.pdf

Thoughts on the existence of any LDS equivalent?

--Erik

I think her title says it all: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[Storm Rider]

On 6/24/2017 at 7:09 PM, Five Solas said:

Some of you are going to dislike this poll because your political inclinations aren’t represented in the choice above.   Some of you won’t like it because you’re uncomfortable with political discussion on the forum.  And a few of you won't like it because you live outside of the US and the American two-party system feels remote, if not irrelevant. 

I get all that – so I ask your forbearance and participation.

Each of the two main political parties in the US espouses values and priorities.  And I submit these are worth time and consideration. 

If you read the 2016 Republican Platform, you see phrases like “American exceptionalism,” “limited government,” “peace” through “strength” and concern for the “national debt.”

In the Democratic Platform, you’ll see a concern for “economic fairness,” “income and wealth inequality” and a focus on social justice, including “equal pay for women” and “LGBT rights.”

There’s more, of course, I’m just picking some of the highlights from the preamble of each. 

I’ll go first.  I’m a committed Christian, active in my local Church.  I tend to vote Democratic and support Democratic candidates (e.g., I contributed to Hillary’s election campaign last year—although perhaps not the best money I ever spent).  And the short explanation is I see the usefulness of collective action and the benefits therein (e.g., Seattle/King County’s publicly funded “Medic One” service has resulted in the best survival rate in the country in the event of cardiac arrest). 

But more than just the utility of collective action and public funding, to me the values of the Democratic Party are best aligned to answer an ancient question—“Am I my brother’s keeper?”       

Where do you stand, and why?

--Erik

Political threads have never ended well. We will give it a try  for as long as everyone is friendly.

As a disciple of Jesus Christ I tend to think that political entities are the least capable of leading when it comes to being our brother's keeper.  However, I do think that governments can do great good and should - I think a universal health care program is desirable. As I write that I still cringe because governments quickly turn service organizations into places like the DMV - how does a place like that actually continue to exist?  Yet, it does and will continue to perform at such an aggravating level.  

I prefer small government; military strength through a draft where all must serve for two years; I like free education through the university level without the encumbrances that unions so often create; I like unions that focus on creating great "artists" regardless of the trade or type of work; I like a graduated tax program without permanent loopholes and/or loopholes that only benefit the rich; I like a balanced budgets and accept temporary deficits; I despise identity politics.  I like a business model where the company's primary focus is their employees and their shareholders second; I prefer that the CEO's salary is a simple multiple of the lowest paid employee and any "bonuses" are shared by those who work the hardest and not by those who have been given shares, options, etc. 

The point for me is that government cannot create a great society - individuals do.  Individuals at every level choose to live equitably with each other - that is the program that will succeed.

 

[halconero]

3 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

As a disciple of Jesus Christ I tend to think that political entities are the least capable of leading when it comes to being our brother's keeper.  However, I do think that governments can do great good and should - I think a universal health care program is desirable. As I write that I still cringe because governments quickly turn service organizations into places like the DMV - how does a place like that actually continue to exist?  Yet, it does and will continue to perform at such an aggravating level.  

I prefer small government; military strength through a draft where all must serve for two years; I like free education through the university level without the encumbrances that unions so often create; I like unions that focus on creating great "artists" regardless of the trade or type of work; I like a graduated tax program without permanent loopholes and/or loopholes that only benefit the rich; I like a balanced budgets and accept temporary deficits; I despise identity politics.  I like a business model where the company's primary focus is their employees and their shareholders second; I prefer that the CEO's salary is a simple multiple of the lowest paid employee and any "bonuses" are shared by those who work the hardest and not by those who have been given shares, options, etc. 

The point for me is that government cannot create a great society - individuals do.  Individuals at every level choose to live equitably with each other - that is the program that will succeed.

 

It's an interesting paradigm, as different viewpoints read the same Gospel differently. I'm not even talking about Mormonism vs. Evangelical Christianity.

For example, in Canada we used to have a strong Christian Left up until the 70's. It's still there in a way, with Elizabeth May of the Greens, the now deceased Jack Layton of the NDP along with its current leader, Tom Mulcair. The founder of our democratic socialist party as well as universal medicare in Canada was a Baptist Minister.

The view of many in this spectrum was that the Kingdom of God was just that: a political entity, and that their duty was to transform government into that Kingdom. They took the Lord's Prayer to mean that his will be done on earth through the establishment of that Kingdom and all of its principles of charity.

Tommy Douglas' response to you would be "as a disciple of Jesus Christ I tend to think that political entities can be the most capable of leading when it comes to being our brother's keeper."

I'm not saying he's right and you're wrong. Not at all. Just pondering out loud.

I don't really have a dog in this fight. Canadian Conservatism is weird as it's current incarnation is a monstrosity of a British Toryism mixed with American Republicanism. In fact, I'll have to dig up the article, but I just read a fantastic one on the difference between the Canadian and American political mentalities. The gist being that Americans tend to think of liberties and freedoms as being independent and resistive to government, whereas Canadians tend to think of liberties and freedoms being issued from government. It's why you have our old Conservative PM saying something like "healthcare is the sacred trust of the nation."

[thesometimesaint]

Governments are just the expression of the will of the people. If all men were angels no government would be necessary. If all men were devils no government would be possible.

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, halconero said:

It's an interesting paradigm, as different viewpoints read the same Gospel differently. I'm not even talking about Mormonism vs. Evangelical Christianity.

For example, in Canada we used to have a strong Christian Left up until the 70's. It's still there in a way, with Elizabeth May of the Greens, the now deceased Jack Layton of the NDP along with its current leader, Tom Mulcair. The founder of our democratic socialist party as well as universal medicare in Canada was a Baptist Minister.

The view of many in this spectrum was that the Kingdom of God was just that: a political entity, and that their duty was to transform government into that Kingdom. They took the Lord's Prayer to mean that his will be done on earth through the establishment of that Kingdom and all of its principles of charity.

Tommy Douglas' response to you would be "as a disciple of Jesus Christ I tend to think that political entities can be the most capable of leading when it comes to being our brother's keeper."

I'm not saying he's right and you're wrong. Not at all. Just pondering out loud.

I don't really have a dog in this fight. Canadian Conservatism is weird as it's current incarnation is a monstrosity of a British Toryism mixed with American Republicanism. In fact, I'll have to dig up the article, but I just read a fantastic one on the difference between the Canadian and American political mentalities. The gist being that Americans tend to think of liberties and freedoms as being independent and resistive to government, whereas Canadians tend to think of liberties and freedoms being issued from government. It's why you have our old Conservative PM saying something like "healthcare is the sacred trust of the nation."

Great comment; thank you for bring it up.  Fundamentally I agree with the concept, but that agreement begins and ends with the Kingdom of God. Secular humans, without directly representing God, are incapable of implementing such an objective. When humans are given just a little bit of power then immediately they will begin to exercise unrighteous dominion and bad things result.  

Wish it weren't so, but the only thing I see is the creation of a facade of "look how good our intentions are" which does not equate to really building that utopia they are only talking about.

[thesometimesaint]

19 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Great comment; thank you for bring it up.  Fundamentally I agree with the concept, but that agreement begins and ends with the Kingdom of God. Secular humans, without directly representing God, are incapable of implementing such an objective. When humans are given just a little bit of power then immediately they will begin to exercise unrighteous dominion and bad things result.  

Wish it weren't so, but the only thing I see is the creation of a facade of "look how good our intentions are" which does not equate to really building that utopia they are only talking about.

That doesn't mean we should stop trying to make our government better.

[clarkgoble]

22 hours ago, halconero said:

I don't really have a dog in this fight. Canadian Conservatism is weird as it's current incarnation is a monstrosity of a British Toryism mixed with American Republicanism. In fact, I'll have to dig up the article, but I just read a fantastic one on the difference between the Canadian and American political mentalities. The gist being that Americans tend to think of liberties and freedoms as being independent and resistive to government, whereas Canadians tend to think of liberties and freedoms being issued from government. It's why you have our old Conservative PM saying something like "healthcare is the sacred trust of the nation."

It gets weirder as western conservatism still does have an odd mixture of American libertarianism and social conservatism. There's always been a tension between eastern conservatism and western conservatism (ignoring BC). But I do think that captures well that fundamentally outside of western conservatism and populism there's always been an acceptance of government in a way neither the left nor right embrace in the states. Things that'd never fly in the states are taken for granted in Canada - in particular the place of elites to judge what's good for the country. As i said there is populist movement. (Arguably that's how we got national healthcare - from western populism) Yet it takes a somewhat different from than in the US - except perhaps the early progressive movement before the 60's.