United Order and distribution of wealth

[a-train]

Thanks a-train,

I understand the context under which the leaders were talking about communism and socialism (the Cold War) and their statements make sense.

I'm just relieved to see that it doesn't say that taxation to help the have-nots is Satanic in its own right. I have lived in Europe and it is a Europrean style DEMOCRACY I advocate.

I understand many don't feel the same way. I grew up incredibly poor in a rural part of the midwest and if it wasn't for gov't sponsored programs such as Head Start and WIC I wouldn't have had any sort of leg up or probably not even my vaccinations. And I was a child so there was no way I could provide for these things myself with my own work ethic and will. I feel Heavenly Father blessed me with these gov't programs to help me on my way and now (again thanks to gov't Pell Grants) I am nearly a college graduate.

We have to understand that these statements from our Church leaders did not result from the Cold War. There was something else going on. Latter day saints in the United States (and throughout the world) were accepting socialism in droves because they thought things like: "Wow! The government is going to actually put in place the United Order! This is great!" (Of course, they didn't think exactly that, but I hope that illustrates the point.)

This actually started before the first World War. At first, Church leadership made no attempts to speak against it. From 1900 to 1923, over a hundred Utah socialists were elected to offices throughout Utah and the movement supported the Socialist Party throughout the U.S. It is reported that at one point almost half of Utah socialists were LDS.

Upon the Russian revolution, LDS folks thought the same thing as many around the world and David O.McKay even said in the April 1917 General Conference: "It looks as if Russia will have a government 'by the people, of the people, and for the people." But this came before the following July Days and that fateful October.

The strong and harsh rejection of socialist ideas by Church leadership, and the warnings against them came before the dramatic atrocities of World War II. The reasoning was and is not simply a rejection of extremism. It was believed and said to be fundamentally in opposition to the U.S. Constitution.

European democracy is also just as diametrically opposed to the Constitutional Republic of the United States which upholds natural human rights. True democracy allows the majority to disregard the individual rights of any minority.

President Ezra Taft Benson spoke out against even the smallest amount government welfare including food stamps. Taxation to supposedly help the "have-nots" is Satanic and is theft. You will find not one shred of advocacy of it in the scriptures nor from the Brethren. The Church is ready and able to help any member in trouble.

Study this deeply and well. There are people using "socialism" to usurp tremendous power in the world. We are wanted to believe that we are being taken care of, but we are being enslaved. President Benson spoke openly about it.

The United States functioned for decades without such programs and rose to a height of unparalleled prosperity. It is the richest of the rich that are trying to force socialism upon us. It is a prison without walls. It is slavery.

-a-train

[a-train]

American constitution was based on European thought-The Magna Carta, Roussaeu, British common law, etc.

While Roussaeu was influencial, the dramatic difference between him and the Framers with the Constitution is natural rights. Roussaeu rejected all notions of natural rights. That is the philosophical difference that means all the world between tyranny and freedom. That is the difference between socialism and constitutional republicanism. That is the notion that seems to be dying today. Many don't want natural rights anymore, we don't want liberty, we want material wealth. Lured by that, we go into captivity because we gave up on liberty. And ultimately material wealth is lost too.

-a-train

Edited November 7, 2008 by a-train

[Moksha]

You have no inalienable right to the property of others or the fruits of their labors. Neither do a group of people (government / nation). Nobody does alone, nobody does as a group.

Dunno, always liked that old Woody Guthrie song about how "This land is my land, this land is your land, from the redwood forests to the gulf stream waters. This land is made for you and me".

[jadams_4040]

There will always be abuses by wrongdoers. but this should never ever preclude the wonderfull efforts of the righteous to help our brothers and sisters whom really do need and really do honestly benefit from our giving.

Holy scripture more than makes it very clear that we are to help one another.:)

[checkerboy]

Dunno, always liked that old Woody Guthrie song about how "This land is my land, this land is your land, from the redwood forests to the gulf stream waters. This land is made for you and me".

I wonder what you would do if you walked into your back yard and found people living there in tents singing this song in defense of why they were there.

[checkerboy]

Therein lies the problem, Halfway - Basically, the disagreement between people on A-Train's side(Such as JohnBirchSociety and Bytor) and people on -our- side of the fence is whether or not the government should step in to regulate excesses of wealth and how they should.

Oh I am saddened that you didn't include me. I was working so hard to make it onto A-trains team!!

[fiona84]

President Ezra Taft Benson spoke out against even the smallest amount government welfare including food stamps. Taxation to supposedly help the "have-nots" is Satanic and is theft. You will find not one shred of advocacy of it in the scriptures nor from the Brethren. The Church is ready and able to help any member in trouble.

Study this deeply and well.

-a-train

How disheartening. While I appreciated learning those bits of church history from you, I find it sad that Pres. Benson dissaproved of food stamps. This was probably said by him when I was a little toddler living off of food bought for me with food stamps. And my parents aren't church members so I didn't have the church help feed me,either. I'm thankful for those gov't programs. Even if feeding a poor little child with gov't welfare is satanic and theft.

Oh, and you told me to study this deeply and well....I am about 5 months away from my BA in Political Science so I've studied political systems quite thoroughly and I stand by my opinion that the 'socialist' style democracy practiced in Europe is akin to how I feel the Savior would have us be.

I think there is a big difference between traditional socialism, communism, and just having a good welfare system.

[Moksha]

I wonder what you would do if you walked into your back yard and found people living there in tents singing this song in defense of why they were there.

You know, I was just thinking last week about the tent cities of the Great Depression era and wondering if they will make a reappearance during our current economic woes.

The campers would be plenty cold this time of year. I would get out my old 100 foot extension cord so they could have some electricity, as well as my space heater. I probably would call my Bishop and see what help or comfort the Ward could provide as well. I think the Ward would respond to this since they are always doing acts of kindness and service.

I decided long ago that all Americans should have a roof over their head, no matter how meager, as part of my values. There will be poor always, pathetically struggling unless we care enough as a society to do something about it.

I would sing with them.

[a-train]

How disheartening. While I appreciated learning those bits of church history from you, I find it sad that Pres. Benson dissaproved of food stamps.

Don't let this fool you. This is not to say that Church leaders or liberty minded Americans don't want to feed toddlers. In fact, it is the tremendous desire to do so that brings me to the position I advocate. Without an income tax or social security we could already raise the standard of living for millions of Americans. Non-profit charities (which require little or no hoops to jump through for the needy) would be better funded and better able to serve than the inept bureaucracies of government ever could hope to be. I want to help the most people in the most efficient way possible, we need to get government out of the way.

Where do you go to school?

Did you read Democracy in America?

And I didn't mean study politics deeply and well, (although you should as a Political Science major) I meant the teachings of the prophets on the matter.

-a-train

Edited November 7, 2008 by a-train

[a-train]

You know, I was just thinking last week about the tent cities of the Great Depression era and wondering if they will make a reappearance during our current economic woes.

There are a lot of places to stay this time around. There are a lot of shelters in my area, none are government operated.

-a-train

[austro-libertarian]

Personally I'd rather pay for thousands of screwups if it meant one in need got what they needed. People on the dole mean that those who want the jobs get a better chance.

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.

Edited November 8, 2008 by austro-libertarian

[austro-libertarian]

Do you have stats to show that it is actually widening? My understanding is that it is shrinking, that more people are actually rising into the middle class.

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

[Elgama]

Thing is I live in a place where people give to charity in both huge amounts of time and money and the area of the UK I live in the welfare state works extremely well there is no coincidence its considered by the UN to be one of the best places in the world to live and not just for the richest. But we do pay high council tax, on top of our income tax and National Insurance (NHS, Pension and Benefits)

When I was ill and unable to work, I was given the great house we now live in with cheap rent. I have found myself homeless twice and have been properly cared for

Our Healthcare is supplied by the NHS and gets moaned about but is excellent, very clean hospital and short waiting lists and the means to travel for other treatment if needed - all free at point of entry. My husband pays for it with his national insurance.

Our public transport is fantastic for a rural area and roads are in great condition

Whilst not the cleanest the beaches aren't bad because people voluntarily give up their weekends to help clean themup

We have schools with small class sizes and reasonable level of education no matter where you come from (one of my closest friends at school came from a poor background but was school Dux or top pupil), we even now have a university which is starting to do quite well and specialise in Archaeology, History, Enviroment and Nuclear Decomissioning. Our museums are some of the best small museums in the world. And we have some great small libraries as well as a new bright main one. We are currently hoping for a cultural centre etc

Our parks are clean and beautiful

Our social work department is good in parts

If you need care you can get it

We have no police no go areas and the crime rate is very low especially violent crime

We have noone permently living on the streets of our biggest town in the area

Thanks to all this I get to stay at home with my kids like the Prophet has asked us to do. And I find my tax money worth every penny because I can see where its going, yes there is waste but the benefit is unreal - the poverty reported in my area does not mean hungry and roofless. I have lived in the poorest areas in town amongst the scroungers etc

For family reasons we are hoping to move to Kansas but I keep wondering why I would swap what I have - for me my taxes are worth every penny and I appreciate sense of security.

If you don't want to pay your taxes don't you can choose to go to prison instead.

-Charley

Edited November 7, 2008 by Elgama

[austro-libertarian]

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.

Good try at diversion.

The issue IS NOT taxation. Taxation (where tax is collected and used for the proper and just function of the government, for instance a military for the common defense) is appropriate. By the ideals of the Social Contract if you benefit from such general welfare / protection and are able bodied / mentally sound, then you pay such taxes as are just.

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."

The issue is THEFT. When, by force, whether individual (robbery) or government (plunder), the private property / wealth of one is taken and disbursed directly to another individual, that is ALWAYS theft. Pretense is of no consequence.

You have nailed it with this paragraph.

[Elgama]

if you have ever flushed a toilet, used a road, the police, obtained a driving licence etc not to pay your taxes is theft because you are taking what you have not paid for. Even visitors to a country pay airport taxes and are liable for custom charges, sales tax etc

-Charley

[austro-libertarian]

Thing is I live in a place where people give to charity in both huge amounts of time and money and the area of the UK I live in the welfare state works extremely well there is no coincidence its considered by the UN to be one of the best places in the world to live and not just for the richest. But we do pay high council tax, on top of our income tax and National Insurance (NHS, Pension and Benefits)

When I was ill and unable to work, I was given the great house we now live in with cheap rent. I have found myself homeless twice and have been properly cared for

Our Healthcare is supplied by the NHS and gets moaned about but is excellent, very clean hospital and short waiting lists and the means to travel for other treatment if needed - all free at point of entry. My husband pays for it with his national insurance.

Our public transport is fantastic for a rural area and roads are in great condition

Whilst not the cleanest the beaches aren't bad because people voluntarily give up their weekends to help clean themup

We have schools with small class sizes and reasonable level of education no matter where you come from (one of my closest friends at school came from a poor background but was school Dux or top pupil), we even now have a university which is starting to do quite well and specialise in Archaeology, History, Enviroment and Nuclear Decomissioning. Our museums are some of the best small museums in the world. And we have some great small libraries as well as a new bright main one. We are currently hoping for a cultural centre etc

Our parks are clean and beautiful

Our social work department is good in parts

If you need care you can get it

We have no police no go areas and the crime rate is very low especially violent crime

We have noone permently living on the streets of our biggest town in the area

Thanks to all this I get to stay at home with my kids like the Prophet has asked us to do. And I find my tax money worth every penny because I can see where its going, yes there is waste but the benefit is unreal - the poverty reported in my area does not mean hungry and roofless. I have lived in the poorest areas in town amongst the scroungers etc

For family reasons we are hoping to move to Kansas but I keep wondering why I would swap what I have - for me my taxes are worth every penny and I appreciate sense of security.

If you don't want to pay your taxes don't you can choose to go to prison instead.

-Charley

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.

[austro-libertarian]

if you have ever flushed a toilet, used a road, the police, obtained a driving licence etc not to pay your taxes is theft because you are taking what you have not paid for. Even visitors to a country pay airport taxes and are liable for custom charges, sales tax etc

-Charley

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):

13 Neither have I suffered that ye should be confined in dungeons, nor that ye should make slaves one of another, nor that ye should murder, or plunder, or steal, or commit adultery; nor even have I suffered that ye should commit any manner of wickedness, and have taught you that ye should keep the commandments of the Lord, in all things which he hath commanded you—

14 And even I, myself, have labored with mine own hands that I might serve you, and that ye should not be laden with taxes, and that there should nothing come upon you which was grievous to be borne—and of all these things which I have spoken, ye yourselves are witnesses this day.

[Elgama]

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?

Thing is personally I choose to pay my taxes and its not theft as I take full advantage of the things supplied.

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 grew up with a generation that did remember what it was like I don't know one that would go back. My parents and grandparents are considerably older than most of my generation. There are plenty of people alive today that remember pre welfare state,,,, I know that because of the introduction of it my family has gone from being very poor for hundreds of years to mostly comfortable. There had been welfare reforms before but a major drive came during the Boer War because it was discovered that 25% of males who should have been eligible to fight were not due to malnutrition.

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 goodiidcause of taxes. They would most likely be better if they were privatized.

I have likewise spent time in the US and have to say the healthcare and schooling system I witnessed or took advantage of at much greater expense was not a patch on what I receive in the area of the UK I live in.

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.

You can like many people have done not pay its your choice freedom or prison like most choices we have in life it comes with consequences attached. We get the option to pay our tithing but then we do not get to go to the temple and quite frankly if having worked at a uni here, probably used the toilet, drove on roads, your daughter went to a state school and used the NHS not to pay your taxes would equally be theft - imo they should maybe have the rule don't pay your taxes don't use ANY public services. And when we go to war you need to attend yourself in person, and receive no salary. And I am saying that from point of view of person that for more than half her life did not use the NHS as my parents had private healthcare and my daughter is at private school. I also don't drive

-Charley

[Elgama]

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.

I don't need to imagine I am old enough to remember one gas company, one phone company, one rail company, government buses, one electric company, one water company etc And have to say those companies still by far provide the better service, the trains became even more unreliable, unsafe and prohibitively expensive since they were privatisedetc.... I live in a rural area I now need to pay extra to get things delivered I never did before. I have to pay my TV licence fee in order to have TV - I deeply love and appreciate the BBC don't always watch it but would hate to see it go.

Life has certainly not improved any by having these privatised - in fact right now the very poorest cannot receive as much help with rising energy costs as they could have done with a nationlised energy companies

-Charley

[JohnBirchSociety]

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.

Thanks so much for your response.

The devil is in the details of what I've said.

There is a proper function of government where taxation IS justified and appropriate. I've consistently said and demonstrated that this is not theft.

The theft occurs when property / wealth is taken by force of government to be directly given to another person, or to be used in activities that are not a part of the proper function of government.

I appreciate your response, but you missed the nuance of what I've been saying.

Socialism is not a proper function of government and is therefore theft.

[JohnBirchSociety]

if you have ever flushed a toilet, used a road, the police, obtained a driving licence etc not to pay your taxes is theft because you are taking what you have not paid for. Even visitors to a country pay airport taxes and are liable for custom charges, sales tax etc

-Charley

You are correct. There is a proper function of government. When we abuse the "general welfare" of proper government, as you indicated, we are stealing.

[JohnBirchSociety]

How disheartening. While I appreciated learning those bits of church history from you, I find it sad that Pres. Benson dissaproved of food stamps. This was probably said by him when I was a little toddler living off of food bought for me with food stamps. And my parents aren't church members so I didn't have the church help feed me,either. I'm thankful for those gov't programs. Even if feeding a poor little child with gov't welfare is satanic and theft.

Oh, and you told me to study this deeply and well....I am about 5 months away from my BA in Political Science so I've studied political systems quite thoroughly and I stand by my opinion that the 'socialist' style democracy practiced in Europe is akin to how I feel the Savior would have us be.

I think there is a big difference between traditional socialism, communism, and just having a good welfare system.

This is so unfortunate.

Socialism is theft. It is wrong in all its' forms.

Our church leaders have never at any time condoned any form of Socialism.

Does that not trouble you?

[austro-libertarian]

Thanks so much for your response.

The devil is in the details of what I've said.

There is a proper function of government where taxation IS justified and appropriate. I've consistently said and demonstrated that this is not theft.

The theft occurs when property / wealth is taken by force of government to be directly given to another person, or to be used in activities that are not a part of the proper function of government.

I appreciate your response, but you missed the nuance of what I've been saying.

Socialism is not a proper function of government and is therefore theft.

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.

[austro-libertarian]

if you have ever flushed a toilet, used a road, the police, obtained a driving licence etc not to pay your taxes is theft because you are taking what you have not paid for. Even visitors to a country pay airport taxes and are liable for custom charges, sales tax etc

You are correct. There is a proper function of government. When we abuse the "general welfare" of proper government, as you indicated, we are stealing.

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?

[fiona84]

This is so unfortunate.

Socialism is theft. It is wrong in all its' forms.

Our church leaders have never at any time condoned any form of Socialism.

Does that not trouble you?

I'm not saying we should all become marxists. I'm not advocating socialism in that sense. The topic was how I admire the European social welfare system. I won't use the world socialism on here anymore because I don't mean it in the pure theoretical sense. I'm talking about the UK, France, Sweden etc that provide a safetly net, health care, and help to everyone. Yes, this is done by taxes.

I find it radical that anyone would think taxation is theft. I find it radical that someone would find social programs funded by the gov't to be theft.

You say our church leaders don't condone any form of socialism but Pres. Uchtdorf is GERMAN and they have one of the more generous welfare systems in Europe. But then again, i don't consider Germany socialist, I just advocate their system, as I've been saying.