austro-libertarian

V for Vendetta came out in 2005. (It is rated R in the US; Mature 15 in the UK.) "V" is somewhat glorified in the movie and it is quite different from the Fawkes story (but I don't want to spoil it for you). I would say that, when possible, civil disobedience is the best practice.

It is true that the banking system is evil. But this is because of the Central Bank (Federal Reserve in the US) and its power to create money out of thin air. It is only because of this power that the US can go to war so easily. A $3,000,000,000,000 a year Iraq war would not be supported if every US citizen had to pay the $10,000 annual price tag to fund it. There would be another revolution and Bush would be laughed out of office. But the Federal Reserve controls the money supply and can turn on the printing press, or just had some '000s electronically. (Think Bank Bailout.) This is why these statements of Thomas Jefferson were so prescient: You can look to any Ron Paul quote to hear similar warnings.

My experience in the UK and working with the ward and the welfare committee shows me that is not true. The Lord's plan doesn't change according to country. Our stake president's job in the UK was working for the welfare department of the Church. Just to keep in mind, this is not a UK vs USA thing (I live in Australia btw), liberal vs conservative, poor vs wealthy, or any other modern-day collective grouping which Satan uses to cause contention. The Lord doesn't deal with aggregates or classes; he is no respecter of persons. It is the individual who matters.

I maintain that The Government is a poor man's worst enemy. If the moral and Gospel arguments aren't enough (who knew?) against Government Welfare we can look at the economic arguments (a la a-train) to show just two of the many ways the poor become poorer by The Government. Minimum Wage: The minimum wage does not guarantee work. In fact, all it does is make it illegal to work at a wage lower than what The Government Planners arbitrarily create. While higher wages are better than lower wages, lower wages are better than no wages. Therefore people with lower skills cannot find work at a higher wage. The Federal Reserve: The Federal Reserve is what primarily caused the housing crisis (and not greed). If the government can print money out of thin air, what happens to the value of everyone's money? Obviously, it goes down. And most likely prices will rise. And when the government prints money not everyone receives it equally. Who does that money go to? The most politically connected, those with the most money (think Bank Bailout here). The poor people get the money last, after prices have risen. They are the worst off by this Counterfeiting Machine. It should be abolished. Greenspan and Bernanke should apologize in shame and resign. The Federal Reserve also makes it very easy for the US to go to war. If Govt had to tax people to fund the $3 trillion a year Iraq war (about $10,000 a year for every US citizen), the people would vote no on that one--or a revolution would occur. And maybe it will eventually.

. . . which of course the Church has done. Here is the Lord's Welfare Plan: These blessings do not come from the Government Plan. If this isn't plain enough, I'm not sure what else to say . . . If you really want to learn what the Church teaches about the Lord's welfare plan, here you go! When the Welfare Plan was established, here is what Pres. Grant had to say: And President Hinckley: I hope this helps.

If you could choose where to live as a poor person on this earth, the US is your best option. The US has the richest poor people in the world--and they are getting richer, not poorer. It is false that the poor get poorer. Here are some statistics which show a more realistic picture, as opposed to rhetoric or media sensationalism: Forty-six percent of all poor households own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning. Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person. The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.) Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars. Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television. Over half own two or more color televisions. Seventy-eight percent of America's poor own a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception. Seventy-three percent of America's poor own microwave ovens; more than half have a stereo; and one-third have an automatic dishwasher.

The "poor getting poorer" is a hoax; it's a myth. I have tried two arguments to advocate free agency and do things of our own free will and choice (who knew this would be so difficult among LDS folk?) to solve ANY "problems" (not just "helping the poor"). So far people seem not to dispute these arguments directly but respond with something to the effect of, "but there will be poor people." The two arguments are (1) taking from others no matter what the reason is theft and (2) socialism (taking from others their "surplus") is Satan's counterfeit for the United Order (or just living the gospel; not taking, but giving). If we go back to the original two plans which were put forth by Satan and Jesus Christ, which one does the "but there will be poor people" response most resonate with? Satan said all would be redeemed--not a single soul would be lost--and Christ said men should be able to choose. Satan sought to destroy the agency of man and was "cast down."

In an attempt to return to the intent of this thread--the United Order and distribution of wealth (i.e., Socialism)--I hope the following helps. This is from an excellent talk by Elder Marion G. Romney in 1996 at BYU. He was asked to talk about "Socialism and the United Order." Anyone that is serious about this issue should read this talk. The importance of this topic is fundamental. What we are dealing with is Satan's counterfeit, Socialism, to the Lord's program, the United Order. To the extent that the world moves toward Socialism is the extent to which Heavenly Father's children move toward Satan's plan and away from the Lord's plan. Darkness increases, light and knowledge decrease; and we must work harder to fight Socialism. This is spiritual warfare and we all should be anxiously engaged. That so many church members do not understand this is disheartening. Below is a brief summary of the talk (I apologize for the length but it's that good). Socialism All forms of socialism advocate 3 things: (1) That private ownership of the vital means of production be abolished and that all such property "pass under some form of co-ordinated public control." (2) That the power of the state be used to achieve their aims. (3) "That with a change in the control of industry will go a change in the motives which operate in the industrial system . . ." United Order In contrast, the United Order's program for eliminating inequalities is based on the idea that the Lord (not Govt) owns all things; men hold earthly Possessions as stewards accountable to God (not Govt). "I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, . . . and all things therein are mine. And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine. But it must needs be done in mine own way." (D&C 104:14-16.) The United Order consists of (1) consecration and (2) stewardship. It preserves the right to private ownership and management of property. As Elder Romney says, "At his own option he could alienate it or keep and operate it and pass it on to his heirs." Similarities between Socialism and the United Order Both (1) deal with production and distribution of goods; (2) aim to promote the well-being of men by eliminating their economic inequalities; (3) envision the elimination of the selfish motives in our private capitalistic industrial system. Differences between Socialism and the United Order (1) United Order: The cornerstone of the United Order is belief in God and acceptance of Him as Lord of the earth and the author of the United Order. Socialism: wholly materialistic, is founded in the wisdom of men, and not of God. Although all socialists may not be atheists, none of them in theory or practice seek the Lord to establish His righteousness. (2) United Order: The United Order is implemented by the voluntary free-will actions of men, evidenced by a consecration of all their property to the Church of God. Socialism: Socialism is implemented by external force, the power of the state. (3) United Order: As to property, in harmony with Church belief, as set forth in the D&C, "that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property" (D&C 134:2), the United Order is operated upon the principle of private ownership and individual management. Socialism: Socialism is operated on the principle of collective or governmental ownership and management. Thus in both implementation and ownership and management of property, the United Order preserves to men their God-given agency, while socialism deprives them of it. (4) United Order: The United Order is non-political. Socialism: Socialism is political, both in theory and in practice. It is thus exposed to, and fiddled by, the corruption which plagues and finally destroys all political governments which undertake to abridge man's agency. (5) United Order: A righteous people is a prerequisite to the United Order. Socialism: Socialism argues that it as a system will eliminate the evils of the profit motive. Socialism as the Wave of the Future Elder Romney: "Notwithstanding my abhorrence of it, I am persuaded that socialism is the wave of the present and of the foreseeable future. It has already taken over or is contending for control in most nations. "At the end of the year [1965] parties affiliated with the [socialist] International were in control of the governments of Great Britain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Israel, and the Malagasy Republic. They had representatives in coalition cabinets in Austria, Belgium, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, and Switzerland; constituted the chief opposition in France, India, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand and West Germany; and were significant political forces in numerous other countries. Many parties dominant in governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America announced that their aim was a socialist society." The United States Converting to Social Welfare State For those in the US Elder Romney says the following: "We here in the United States, in converting our government into a social welfare state, have ourselves adopted much of socialism. "Specifically, we have to an alarming degree adopted the use of the power of the state in the control and distribution of the fruits of industry. "We are on notice, according to the words of the President, that we are going much farther, for he is quoted as saying: We're going to take all the money we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it from the "haves" and give it to the "have nots." (Congressional Record, 1964, p. 6142-White House Speech, March 24, 1964.) "That is the spirit of socialism: 'We're going to take.' It isn't the spirit of 'We're going to give.' "We have also gone a long way on the road to public ownership and management of the vital means of production. In both of these areas the free agency of Americans has been greatly abridged. Some argue that we have voluntarily surrendered this power to government. Be this as it may, the fact remains that the loss of freedom with the consent of the enslaved, or even at their request, is nonetheless slavery." (That is an amazingly true statement!! I've been trying to say that in multiple posts.) (end of my summary) ----------------------------- As I have stated before: It is "nonetheless slavery," as Elder Romney says. For those who do not think this is a big deal, remember: Socialism is Satan's counterfeit to the United Order. Govt is not in the Lord's plan to eliminate poverty or inequalities (nor can it do it). Remember, the Lord takes the slums out of people and they take themselves out of the slums.

I stand by my previous post regarding this issue: This is the equivalent of saying that slaves who use their master's toilet or eat their food shouldn't feel bad about being slaves. In fact, you are saying they should feel guilty for not being slaves if they benefit in any way from their master. Perhaps you think slavery is sensationalizing the issue. Slavery can be defined as: "A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force" (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language). In most countries there exist tax-payers and tax-consumers. Tax-consumers are essentially parasites, those living off of the money stolen from tax-payers. Tax-payers are the "principal work force," those engaging in productive activities. Tax-payers spend a large portion of their time each year to earn money which is stolen by tax-consumers (govt). Assuming an annual income tax rate of 33%, a tax-payer would have to work 4 months a year as a slave. This is justified because the slave gets to flush a toilet? Perhaps you could respond to my slave/master analogy?

JBS, Hmm.... I think I understand what you are saying. I am saying it is a logically inconsistent position. You are essentially saying taxation is not theft when it is for a reason you deem a "proper function of government." I am saying taking money from one person by force is theft, no matter the reason and no matter how little the amount. It is always taking from someone against their will. If it were truly voluntary, it would not be a tax. If I took money from you (against your will) and said I am going to use it to directly benefit you, it is still force. Otherwise it would be called a trade, and force would not be necessary. IMO, you concede too much to the socialists. They are saying a proper function of government is to "help the poor" or "redistribute the wealth." You are just saying that is not the proper function and justifying what you think is proper. However, you are now arguing over the ends. Neither position justifies the means--taxation is still theft. Hope this helps explain the inconsistency in your position.

Could you imagine if O2 was the only mobile provider in the UK and forced you to pay for their "service," no matter how good/bad? You have no other choice if you want to make a phone call. It's similar with the police. There is no real alternative. This is the equivalent of saying that slaves who use their master's toilet or eat their food shouldn't feel bad about being slaves. In fact, you are saying they should feel guilty for not being slaves if they benefit in any way from their master. Perhaps you think slavery is sensationalizing the issue. Slavery can be defined as: "A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force" (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language). In most countries there exist tax-payers and tax-consumers. Tax-consumers are essentially parasites, those living off of the money stolen from tax-payers. Tax-payers are the "principal work force," those engaging in productive activities. Tax-payers spend a large portion of their time each year to earn money which is stolen by tax-consumers (govt). Assuming an annual income tax rate of 33%, a tax-payer would have to work 4 months a year as a slave. You are telling me slaves who don't want to be slaves would be committing theft because they benefit from those who steal their money? This is nonsense on stilts, and seriously deceptive. We see the example from King Benjamin (emphasis mine):

Charley, I am not sure if you are replying to my post or not . . . but I figured I'd respond anyway. Your post validates my description of your utilitarian view, i.e., the ends justify the means. You are saying that thanks to all of the tax money stolen from people (means) you are able to obey the Prophet and stay home (ends). Do you not see how that would be Satan's justification of his plan? We would all be saved--so what if we didn't choose it? All of the good things you have mentioned about living in the UK don't necessarily come because of taxation. And you seem to be assuming that it is because of the British govt that all of the things you listed have happened. The reality is you don't know what it would be like without the government involvement; perhaps loads better. I spent the last two years living in England, going to Uni there and also teaching at a Uni level (thus I paid taxes). I have three kids (one born there), and the NHS was okay in our experience, and my daughter was in a good lower school. But I don't assume that these things are good because of taxes. They would most likely be better if they were privatized. Your final comment of not paying taxes/prison is spot on: Anyone that thinks taxation is voluntary should try not paying and see what happens. In other words, you are forced to pay taxes, essentially at the point of a gun.

JBC, I agree with you on most of your posts. I only single out this one to show how, while you are correct in saying that "the issue is theft," taxation IS theft, and thus you are wrong in saying taxes are "just." By your own admission, "pretense is of no consequence." In other words, you need to go a bit farther in getting rid of theft. To say that people should be forced to pay taxes for a common defense/military does not change that it is still theft. You have repeated that it doesn't matter whether it's the government or an individual--it is still theft. You cannot even assume everyone benefits from such a "service" (in economics jargon, we are talking about externalities and spillover benefits, typically associated with defense, roads, street lights, etc.). In the case of defense, perhaps someone is a pacifist and does not believe in defense. They are also forced to pay for something they do not only not benefit from, but stand in direct opposition to. It is also a bit strange to set up a monopoly govt agency (military/defense) which uses force (taxes) to "protect you." Isn't it supposed to stop people from using force against you? Yet that is how it obtains its "revenue." You have nailed it with this paragraph.

Right. This is an excellent video on this topic: Ideas Worth Spreading: Hans Rosling from TED 2006

I do think it is great if you can pay for thousands of screw-ups. I assume you are implying, however, that this be funded by taxes, meaning others are forced to give up their money. The issue, as has been repeated by many others, is not if people are better off (the ends) because of some action (the means). The issue is whether the ends justify the means. Yours is a utilitarian philosophy. And you are not able to make that choice for other people by force (at least not righteously). Remember (assuming you are LDS), that was Satan's plan: Not one would be lost--but not one would have the choice either. Jesus Christ allowed us to have moral agency, despite any negative consequences. Perhaps an example may help. Let's say you have the goal of taking money from me to put it towards what you deem a good cause (e.g., putting people "on the dole" as you say). So, instead of persuading me, say, as a charity might do, you put a gun to my head, and just say, "give me your money." Well, that would obviously be theft. I hope we can agree on that. Again, this is regardless of how noble you think the end you are seeking is. Now let's say you show up with three of your friends (who share your cause) to my flat and, instead of pulling out the gun, you say, "let's be fair and take a vote." So you and 3 of your friends vote yes, while I vote no--of course I'm out-voted 4 to 1. Is it then just? (The answer: NO!) Well, what we've just done is shown that just because a process is democratic doesn't make it just. It is still theft, still force.

Congratulations!! God will bless you and your family for your decision. I joined when I was 18 and it has been a wonderful journey.