austro-libertarian

(Emphasis mine.)This is what I am trying to get at: the greater or lesser of evil . . . is still evil.

I have noticed many voters use the rationale of "Well, we're only voting for X because they are the lesser of two evils." This means the voter is choosing evil. Or some people may say that, even though bailing out the banks, car industry, [insert ANY industry] is wrong, the consequences without a bailout would be worse. And yet it is still an "evil" choice. Someone is choosing evil. And we read in Moroni 7:12 the following: So my question to this rationale (and utilitarianism) is: Why choose evil? Aren't we supposed to choose good, despite the consequences? I have heard that Satan likes to lead souls down an evil path and then present them with two difficult choices. The point is the person is still on Satan's path despite the choices--whether the evil is relatively less, it is still evil. (For those interested, here is a great article on this topic by Lew Rockwell.)

From this week's lesson (in our ward anyway): Moroni 6

With that "logic," I don't know why they are so selfish and short-sighted. Why stop at $5 trillion, if that will bring a "rally-back." Let's really spark the economy--Zimbabwe style--and up the amount to unlimited. Those little green pieces of paper will bring true wealth--too bad you can't eat them or build (durable) houses out of them. $5 trillion is $16,666 in taxes for every man, woman, and child in the US. Since that's probably not likely to be where the money comes from (unfortunately as that might start a 2nd revolution), the printing presses will most likely need some extra toner.

Without commenting on the friends bit . . . I want to say that is one of the best things I've read in a while! Never forget it!

No kidding! What does it even mean to be Democrat or Republican anymore? They seem hard to distinguish. It's either big government for welfare or warfare, and now both parties want both.

I would say that Obama will be the President of the United States of America. But to say he is your or our President implies more ownership, and you may not (want to) claim him as your President. I know some will disagree with this however. But technically he is the President of the country and "our" for some is too much association with someone they did not vote for. Saying that you should move out of the country if you do not want to call him your President (and assuming that is what you have to do to live in the country) makes the assumption that the US justly (or rightly) owns arbitrary geographical boundaries; or better yet, that it owns you (also implied through imminent domain and taxation). Call it a technicality or semantics, but it makes a world of difference. Perhaps the analogy of the Satan being the prince of this world (John 14:30) is apposite: He is not our prince. Or, a less proper analogy would be Jesus Christ as the just and rightful Lord over this earth, although some do not claim Him as their Lord. He is, however, the Lord.

Thanks for the reply. A couple of follow-up questions then: Would you say that everything everyone "needs to know" should be mandatory? How do you decide what everyone "needs to know"? Is knowing "key Constitutional history" something everyone "needs to know" outside of the US, or just American citizens, i.e., should it be mandatory in other countries? (I am still curious and not trying to be contentious, just trying to understand the argument.) Thanks!

I am saying the following: A. No evil choices are "necessary." B. All governments of men (as I understand you are saying) are evil. C. Therefore, no government of men is necessary.

Reading them, and the scriptures. Perhaps we are agreeing that government (of men) is evil. Is that what you are saying--govt is evil? That I follow; what I don't follow is how it is necessary.

Could you please explain how "what man DID" makes government a necessary evil?

I appreciate your use of the scriptures, but I do not see how they back up your conclusion. The Lord allowed the Israelites to have a king after they were warned of the evils of having a king. He let them ultimately use their agency, i.e., they were free to choose, knowing what the Lord had warned. We learn that the Lord allows us to choose, even though we will make wrong choices. This does not mean the Lord endorses wrong choices, or is responsible for them. If we read in D&C 134 that governments were instituted of God, then how can we say that God institutes necessary evils into the world? If God is the paragon of all that is good, noble, and perfect, how could He institute (as opposed to allow, due to agency) necessary evils? Indeed, He would cease to be God.

I thought this quote I just read would be relevant: You gotta love adding protections to "Free Trade"--does that make sense to anyone? I stand by my critique of government debasing language and of speaking in Orwellian terms.

I agree--there are no necessary evils. One of Satan's greatest deceptions is to lead individuals down an evil path and present a fork in the road--between two "evil" decisions; the decision then becomes which is less evil. We choose between things that are good and evil, even if some are relatively good (good, better, best) and some are relatively evil. But there are no necessary evils we must choose. It is always a choice between good and evil, even if the degrees are relative. However, the broad brush of "government is instituted of God for man's good" is all too open to critique. The scripture technically says "Governments were . . . " and not is/are. And surely the nature of the government matters; the following verses make that clear--as to what type of government it must be to be a government instituted of God. I do not know of any government in the world that meets those requirements.

Does anyone think education, as in years 1-12, should be optional, i.e., not mandatory? Just curious.

I figured I would get that response. There was no data available for blacks in regards to literacy. Here is the only question on literacy from that census: The nature of the questions refer to "slaves" (meaning black slaves) and "free blacks" and "whites." For example, "How many idiotic or insane slaves and free blacks," was one of the questions for blacks. The question for whites was "How many idiotic or insane whites." Assuming you are referring to blacks, unfortunately the government at the time did not allow blacks to enter public schools--it was up to their "masters." It was even illegal in many states to teach blacks to read and write! Here was the penalty: The government very reluctantly and very slowly allowed blacks to attend school, albeit under segregation laws and without similar funding compared to whites. Governments have done much harm to blacks in many areas of life, including public schooling.

Of course you do not know that literacy statistics would drop. Schools were private for a long time and literacy levels were quite high (97% among whites in the 1840s). In regards to affordability, if literally "half the families in the country" couldn't afford school, schools would then have to lower their prices to attract customers. Half the families in the country is a lot of potential customers. It would be based on consumer demand and supply, as opposed to govt force.

I am not paranoid! I didn't mean for it to come across that way... But I do stand by my statement. Your premise that the DOA had a warrant and is therefore justified in entering assumes that the DOA and its warrants are somehow good or just. I do not see it that way; I do not think there should be a DOA. I do not think govt should have anything to do with licenses on such things. These DOA folks entered a person's property (assuming the SWAT team thing in the OP is valid only makes this case that much worse) and confiscated "hundreds of pounds of processed beef and large amounts of lamb, turkey and other perishable products in addition to office files, a computer, two cell phones and other electronic devices" all because they were "believed to be unlicensed." This sounds like a joke to me. And this was after they wrote declaring they wanted nothing to do with licenses. If anything, govt under Bush has proved warrants can be obtained faster than you can say "take away our liberty."

The problem is the whole idea of public schools. The govt shouldn't be involved in education. If schools were privatized (as in 100% privatized, no govt core curriculum) you wouldn't have these issues. Schools could specialize in all kinds of areas and you could choose where your kid attends (you wouldn't have to move)--or not attends for that matter. But since the public school is a "one size fits all" approach, it just becomes egalitarianism and someone inevitably gets offended. It is a political power grab at this point. That is the fundamental issue. We see what government involvement in marriage (another area where it has no business) has done recently in California.

You raise an important question, and that is one of the many problems with an increase in govt power--you never know who's next.

I think this talk and the scriptural references in it are excellent. It is from Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, a living Apostle of the LDS church. The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent Here is an excerpt:

a-train is right. Globalization of trade is nothing more than free trade on a larger scale, i.e., across somewhat arbitrary geographical lines. It makes sense for individuals to trade, communities to trade, states and counties to trade, why not countries? *Free trade has nothing to do with free trade agreements or any government involvement. NAFTA etc. is NOT free trade.

Governments do have a monopoly on the use of force, i.e., taxation of its citizens, a military, and a territorial monopoly geographically. I have no idea what you are saying above. Good point you raise. Governments tax so as to try and avoid (price) inflation. Governments print money b/c they can only get so much in taxes. If the US had to tax every man, woman, and child $10,000 a year just to pay for the Iraq war, there might be another revolution. If the US taxed its citizens for the bank bailouts, I doubt it would go through. So governments inflate the money supply, which acts as a tax anyway. I understand that companies run the government--that's corporatism, not capitalism. That is why I think governments are so dangerous. They, acting as the ultimate monopoly, grant monopoly privileges to companies, which would not happen in an otherwise free market.

To put this in perspective . . . 1. Governments have a monopoly on money, and can print it at their whim. 2. Government have a monopoly on taxation. 3. Governments have a monopoly on the use of force, e.g., armies, militaries, etc. 4. Governments have a monopoly on the use of judicial services, i.e., the legal system. You are saying that we need governments with the above characteristics to prevent us from a potential monopoly? Private companies, no matter how large, must earn their revenues by voluntary purchases from their consumers. Governments use force. I don't follow how governments, which actually do have enough money (unlimited) and armies, should be the ones to protect us. Who protects us from the current monopolies (governments)?

You mean the love of money being the root of all evil. A world of difference!! 1 Timothy 6:10