a-train

Its probably already been said, but the JST of 1 Cor. 14:34 changes "speak" to "rule" and Hebrews 7:3 says: "For this Melchizedek was ordained a priest after the order of the Son of God, which order was without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life. And all those who are ordained unto this priesthood are made like unto the Son of God, abiding a priest continually." Beyond this, I'm not sure I understand this thread. -a-train

Inasmuch as politics is the manner whereby normative economics are implemented, there can be no distinction. This is the same for religion and politics. When establishments of religion are respected by the state, their formulation and upkeep are a function of the state. This is the reason why church and state are best kept apart. If they are not, religious freedom must be impaired. The same is true for any economic entity. It must be understood that economics is not simply the production, distribution, and consumption of "secular" material wealth among a society of men. Making a commitment to have family home evening is no less an economic decision than buying a house. Many of us would even go so far as to say that such a commitment is more important and should require more thought than buying a house. Economics deals with ALL value judgments. Reading the Book of Mormon rather than watching TV is an economic decision. Classical Liberalism is embodied in the notion of individual freedom. Inasmuch as the individual is prevented from making his/her own choices, we depart from liberalism. Compulsary state socialism is an absolute departure from liberalism. It simply holds that the state should make decisions for the individual rather than the individual making decisions for him/herself. Compulsary state socialism therefore cannot be confined to "secular material wealth". Compulsary state socialism is not a form of government, but an ideal. Capitalism also is not a form of government, but an ideal. A monarch could take up the ideal of either. But inasmuch as a government, regardless of its form, take up compulsary state socialism, individual freedom is supplanted by definition. To the capitalist, the purpose of government is to maximize individual freedom. The true capitalist has no desire to use government to guarantee his/her own well being material or otherwise. Government's only purpose is to protect individual freedom. The capitalist understands that all well being can only come from liberty. The state socialist believes the purpose of government is to provide the well being of the people at the cost of individual freedom. What they do not see is that well being is a subjective valuation which each individual defines. Therefore, government is powerless to provide the well being of all. It is thus limited to provide only the well being of those who most control government while destroying the well being of all others. -a-train

Freedom is a unit. It matters not whether it is our economic freedom, our freedom of speech, our freedom of religion, or any other division of freedom that is in peril, all freedom is good and all captivity is evil. Any bondage wherein man is brought is an injury to his freedom.The case wherein an usurper of power is not concerned with harming one's religious freedom doesn't justify or make inconsequential his injury of their freedom in an area outside of religious freedom. Further, people suffering economically through economic subjection are hampered also in their religious freedom if it is the sort that prompts them to spend their resources in that endeavor. This is only one example of how all individual freedom is compounded in a single unit. Additionally, if government makes the decision which "civil liberties" are the "far greater" ones, rather than allowing the individual to make this distinction if he even chooses to do so, then the right of conscience is already under attack. A free society allows the individual to make these definitions for himself, but not for others. -a-train

I don't recall the Church verifying my citizenship when I went on a mission. -a-train

I am John Galt. Socialism is a work of fiction.-a-train

John Galt is the man that the socialists hate the most. But at the very same time they hate him, their entire system depends on him for everything. Thus, he is the god of socialism and his other name "the Mystery Worker" suits him.-a-train

That is precisely what we are doing. The movement back toward classical liberalism is only just beginning.-a-train

I hear people often argue about whether or not capitalism "works", or whether or not socialism "works". The funny thing is, the arguers never define "works". Without first defining the goal, it will be impossible to determine whether or not given actions are working to accomplish it.Real capitalism protects each individual's own freedom. That is its purpose. Capitalism is not a means to an end, it is an end in itself. Socialism is merely a means to the hopeful end of utopianism. It comes equipped with the promise of a universal prosperity. Yet it must injure some and sacrifice some in order to accomplish it's goal. The ends justify the means within the ethics of socialism. The moral compass of socialism is altruism which says that all acts which are intended to benefit one's self are evil and all those intended to benefit others are good. Under this moral code, one can rob and kill and do all manner of evil so long as the beneficiaries of these abominations are someone other than the doer of the deed. The moral ethic of capitalism is fulfilled in the protection of the natural human rights of the individual. While socialists with their altruistic ethic define material prosperity as good and the lack thereof as evil, capitalists define liberty as good and captivity as evil. Capitalists believe material prosperity is only a possible by-product of liberty, not liberty itself. The value of capitalism is not materialism, but human freedom. The only value of socialism is materialism. The utopian goals of socialism are purely materialistic by definition. The United States has never been purely capitalist. When I hear people say that the Hamiltonian American system "worked", I ask them what did it do? If a socialist republic doesn't "work" what does that mean? What is it that it doesn't accomplish? What is most ironic is that socialists cannot see that the very system of socialism undermines their efforts to achieve any utopian end. The most socialist countries have always been dependent on capitalist nations to determine exchange rates, which held by the regime to levels in those capitalist countries lead only to inefficiencies in the use of resources which completely destroyed all utopian goals. This is the reason for the retreat from socialism in the most socialist countries. -a-train

What is often unsaid is the fact that the pledge of allegiance was written in the latter part of the 19th century by a socialist.-a-train

You didn't answer the question. What this all comes down to is whether or not the individual is allowed his/her freedom. Freedom is not in food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare. They have all that in prison. Freedom is in choice.State socialism by definition takes the means of production out of the ownership and control of individuals and puts it into the hands of a state. It matters not what form of government runs that state. Just because a socialist state is democratic rather than monarchical does not change the fact that the freedom of the individual is supplanted by the mandates of the collective. In order for state compulsary socialism to exist the freedom to own and control property, the freedom to choose how to use that property, must be taken from the individual. If it is not taken, it is not state compulsary socialism. Money is property. If your government doesn't prosecute those who steal money, then perhaps I could say that money is not legally considered property in your state. However, I am quite sure that money is legally considered property in your state and is protected as such by government up to the point where government itself robs the citizens. State compulsary socialism is immoral, it is theft. Worse than that, because it negates free markets, it takes away the function of price. Because of this, supply and demand information is virtually impossible to perceive. This is why the most socialist economies have always lagged so terribly behind the freest economies. The inefficiences created by the impairment of the price system cause shortages and surpluses because of the lack of good information about supply and demand. This is why Russians fought for toilet paper in the streets. Such inefficiencies have not been confined to governments like the Soviet Union, but they exist right here in the United States where price controls have been implemented by do-gooder bureaucrats who have not taken even the most basic economics course. State compulsary socialism is immoral and does not raise the standard of living. It is phony, it is fake. The main proponents of it through history have never been the poor, but rather the rich intellectuals who falsely believe in solutions through state negation of human individual rights. It is only the modern equivalent of the false hopes of dictators and tyrants of old who vainly saw themselves as benevolent. -a-train

That is very convienient for you, but what about your neighbor who would like to spend his means on something other than your program? You would deport him? Perhaps we'll make you subsidize Walmart and if you object you will be deported, nevermind where you were born or your citizenship. Sound good?-a-train

Yes, socialists care so much, they are willing to give me all sorts of food, health care, clothing, shelter, everything they think I need except for the one thing I want: FREEDOM. They are not interested in what I want. Socialism is simply the delusions of grandeur that allow the self-proclaimed intellectual to embellish and revel in his/her stubborn belief that he/she knows what is good for the individual better than the individual him/herself. They think: "Just give me control I'll end poverty!" "Just give me the power and I'll make sure everyone has healthcare!"-a-train

The old "socialism isn't totalitarian" bit is simply a straw man argument. It seeks to deflect problematic arguments from socialism to totalitarianism. The reality is that state compulsary disposals of property obtained in a free market through mutually agreeable transactions is a violation of individual property rights plain and simple. Call it socialism, totalitarianism, communism, welfarism, tax, you name it, it is still a violation of human individual rights. Also: Fire departments are not funded by compulsary direct income taxes, they are funded by property taxes. A person living with his parents rent-free and saving to buy a home does not pay taxes that fund the fire-department. When he voluntarily buys a home, then he pays taxes to fund the fire department. This could be improved on (a different discussion), but it is not comparible to social security, medicare, and medicaid whereby people are compelled under threat of fines and/or imprisonment to fund these programs on the basis of their wages earned. Further, single payer health care funding through a compulsary direct income tax on wages earned DOES take the means of production of medical services out of private ownership and the control of that means out of the hands of individuals and places it under government ownership and control. That is state socialism by definition. It matters not whether the system is controlled democratically or otherwise, the individual is enslaved by the collective and is denied any right to withhold his means from the system and/or to use that means to obtain goods and services in a free market on his own terms. Socialism is a Ferrari with no engine and a group of slaves pushing it down the street. The salesmen keep pointing to the paint and the leather but want to deny the existance of the slaves pushing the vehicle that actually has no real capability to perform. Even Marx admitted that socialism cannot exist without capitalism. -a-train

Last I heard, D&C 134:2 hadn't been repudiated:We believe 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, and the protection of life. It is impossible to negate property rights and meanwhile protect liberty. Put 'liberty' into the search field of the scriptures on lds.org and there are a great number of references on the subject. Joseph Smith himself repudiated state socialism. He received lectures on the subject from a socialist teacher who came to Nauvoo. He wrote of it in HC 6:33 saying: "I said I did not believe the doctrine". Church leadership since then has always unequivocally defended individual natural rights. The burden of proof rests on those wanting to implement state socialism. What in the Standard Works gives any justification for abridging one's individual liberties? -a-train

And if competition is stifled by protectionist interventionism, then the system is NOT capitalist.-a-train

To Pale's new image: Got a gun in my holster Got a horse between my knees And I'm goin' to Arizona Pardon me, boys, if you please -Randy Newman

Are you saying that you would advocate a reform of the state welfare system that would make all contributions to it go in on a strictly voluntary basis?-a-train

If indeed the "super-rich CEO overlords" control business and wages, then the system is not capitalist. If the system you are describing uses force to make a man work on terms he is not agreeable to, it is not capitalism.Capitalism is explicitly defined as a system wherein the means of production are privately owned and controlled. If you are not in control of your means of production (your land, labor, capital, or natural resources), then you are not in a capitalist system. It matters not whether the culprit of compulsion is government or street thugs, where property rights are abridged capitalism is supplanted also. Government's proper role is to defend individual natural rights, including property rights. Where property rights are upheld, there is capitalism. -a-train

I am a lifelong Mormon and I for one stand firmly with the statements of Ezra Taft Benson, Marion G. Romney, David O. McKay, Brigham Young, and all the others who spoke out against government programs that destroy liberty and rob people. Yes, we are probably now in the minority, but that is changing. There are many around us waking up every day. Many pay lip-service to the seperation of church and state, indeed it is a good thing. What I believe in also is the seperation of economics and state. Laissez-faire capitalism not only is the most moral system, but it will also produce the most wealthy society possible. The problem with democratic state compulsary socialism: it is based on a theory that just because a majority believes it is OK to rob a minority, the robbery is justified. It is therefore not only immoral, but it also decreases the overall wealth in society by taking wealth from productive economic entities to subsidize wealth destruction. -a-train

Freaky...

Perhaps you have a different definition of capitalism than I have. Or perhaps your definition of success is different. If anyone is forced economically (deprived of their property) by government in a given system, that system is not fully a capitalist system. If government forcibly takes from any individual his means, or the control of his means, it is not a capitalist system.Capitalism is not a system whereby a limited amount of wealth is produced and transfered to a selected group from a selected group by government. Under capitalism, each individual is protected in his right to property and his right to produce. Thus, the level of production is not controlled by government. Further, the distribution of produced goods is done solely on the basis of mutual consent. Thus, government does not control distribution either. That is the success of capitalism, nothing more and nothing less. -a-train

Emphatically NO. As I already said, if people want to create and contribute to a welfare program, I celebrate them and will joyfully engage in the welfare program I choose (as I already do). What you must understand is that I don't believe government should force anyone EITHER WAY. How are the poor provided for in a free society? Those who wish to help are NOT prevented from doing so. Even if that is all true, is that the basis for justifying government policy? Does it not matter who we have to rob? Perhaps it is all good if the amount we steal is just a small amount (whatever that is)? What about negative externalities in the economy, is that included in "costing them a minimum"? Right now our government has to BORROW billions just to run the welfare state. Is it really that affordable if we have to plunge into debt and ruin our currency to pay for it? Compare that with the voluntary LDS welfare system.What is better for a man, raising him to self-sufficiency or putting him on perpetual welfare? Should I not be allowed to donate to a program with an emphasis on self-sufficiency rather than a perpetual welfare state? Further, it is demonstrable that state compulsary welfarism HARMS the so-called benefactors more than it helps. Just look at the basic history of the Welfare State. Has the number of people on welfare decreased or increased under state welfarism? Do the children raised on welfare typically become wealthy business owners, or do they typically live their entire life on welfare and teach their children the same? Again, compare that with the voluntary LDS welfare system. These comparisons have been made by the First Presidency in General Conference. See the following example: LDS.org - Liahona Article - The Celestial Nature of Self-Reliance While this is off-topic, suppose every penny of federal funding for public education were suddenly stripped. Imagine thousands of schools closing. What would districts do? Would that be the end of education in America? Of course not. Education existed long before federal funding. Schools would actually compete to get students (and their parents' money). School costs would drop dramatically. You would not have to choose which child to send, but which school to send each of them. Is that how fuedalism was ended, the welfare state? While I understand your fears, they are nevertheless without reason. Fuedalism was not upheld through the lack of welfarism. Government upheld feudalism. In such a society, an individual is not valued on their own merit in a free marketplace, but rather their birthright (or lack thereof) is upheld by law without regard to their individual ability or lack of.Feudalism was ended by allowing freedom. The economists and governors who put it away advocated freedom and free markets. The serfs who rose from slavery to wealth and freedom didn't do so through a welfare state. A free society is what I am advocating. Feudalism is not a freedom and neither is welfare statism. And so just because the "vast majority" "agrees" the minorities should be robbed?-a-train

We can only hope and pray.-a-train

<----------Moving back to Texas this year! Is your last name really Blair? I have Blair ancestors from central Texas. Navarro County (Corsicana) was largely created with their assistance. -a-train

Staying out of debt, having a food storage, paying tithes and offerings, having a savings: these things would all dramatically reduce environmental damage. There are two mindsets that drive purchases. One is a consumer mindset, the other is a producer mindset. The consumer mindset is wasteful, the producer mindset is very conservational. Everything the Church does and teaches is the producer mindset. What is the producer mindset? Look to the parable of the talents. The good steward uses what he/she has to produce more, not to live off of. The consumer mindset looks only to accumulate, to bury talents. The producer mindset looks to use resources for the purpose of production. The Church operates as a producer, not a consumer. -a-train