Is Socialism OK with Mormons now?


WhatMeWorry
 Share

Recommended Posts

For me Communism and Capitalism are just different sides of teh same coin. In communism government overlords control business. In capitalism super-rich CEO overlords control businesses. The competing nature of capitalism eventually leads to a few sucessful business owner becoming increasingly rich. As they become increasingly rich they can buy more control over other businesses. As a result they become even more rich.

In capitalism I am paid what my boss thinks I'm worth. Either way it's just another "overlord" determining what my work is worth.

I don't recall Nephi declaring there be a tax. How did then the US government function and prosper during it's early years without an income tax? Taxes are the government's excuse to control its people.

Freedom is not democracy. Democracy is mob rule where 51% of the population decide what rights the other 49% of the population get. Democracy is just as evil as tyranny.

BTW, Tithing isn't a tax. Tithing is a way we show our obedience to Heavenly Father through sacrifice. God doesn't need my money, He needs my faith.

Hello there,

Thanks for the post. I appreciated your main points. Regarding taxes versus tithing, I like how you mentioned that tithing is voluntary--a choice to obey. Income taxes are much less, "voluntary".

Have a great day.

Regards,

Kawazu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 161
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What is "Official" LDS Doctrine?

Last I knew there was nothing in the Standard Works to indicate that capitalism has divine favor over socialism, nor do the standard works describe communism as the creation of Satan.

You need to read the BOM then!

It is quite reasonable to assign these interpretations as the opinion of a very politically biased man.

You have to remember Christ is at the head of this church, he calls the Prophet and the Prophet speaks on behalf. To remove that fact would make it confusion. Benson didn't have a split personality, he spoke of truths, truths that you and I don't know the half of, and let me tell you that I bet the Prophet of today is more aware of our government than you or I are! Socialism isn't the issue, it is the men behind it and what they want. Does Satan want to look after you? Is he in control of the government? Or is Christ? The answer is quite simple. Benson knew very well what he was talking about.....or he would have been removed from his position in an instant!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

trouble is greed tends to lead to those that climb the available ladder doing everything they can to pull it up behind them and stiffle true competition

-Charley

Exactly. Corporatism, (government partnered with businesses, especially in order to pass legislation that raises barriers to entry), is inimical to everything desirable about competition. Due to exclusive privileges granted by my local government, Comcast is my only available high-speed cable Internet carrier.

*grumble*.

Thank you for your thoughts, Elgama.

Cheers,

Kawazu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to remember Christ is at the head of this church, he calls the Prophet and the Prophet speaks on behalf. To remove that fact would make it confusion. Benson didn't have a split personality, he spoke of truths, truths that you and I don't know the half of, and let me tell you that I bet the Prophet of today is more aware of our government than you or I are! Socialism isn't the issue, it is the men behind it and what they want. Does Satan want to look after you? Is he in control of the government? Or is Christ? The answer is quite simple. Benson knew very well what he was talking about.....or he would have been removed from his position in an instant!

But i think it all comes down to each persons interpretation of Benson's speech, he said nothing about healthcare just 'transfer of wealth', nobody gains wealth by being treated for illness so it could easily be interpeted this way. Nor do I see it as 'forced charity' as it is a public service for all people not helping out a specific group. If Thomas Monson speaks out on the subject of socialised healthcare then I will take heed, until then I'm interpreting the speech as I interpret the standard works, as a personal message to me.

If Benson's speech was black and white on the subject, obviously I would take heed, but just as I have interpreted to suit my way of thinking, just as others have interpreted it to suit their way of thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not greed. That's protecting your Intellectual Property rights.

As an aside about Intellectual Property, a snippet from this article explains how IP can be utilized in an anticompetitive manner. From Slashdot, (regarding the Digital Millennium Copyright Act):

Slashdot | Google's Information On DMCA Takedown Abuse

"According to a PC World article, Google has submitted a brief to New Zealand about its proposed copyright law (section 92A). "In its submission, Google notes that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it has received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, were sent by business targeting competitors and over one third (37%) of notices were not valid copyright claims.""

The issue of intellectual property is probably a little off topic, though, so I beg your pardon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not forget that the socialism at the time of Benson bears almost no resemblance to the socialism we see today in Europe, which is so democratic it's a stretch to even call it socialism.

In general, every system has its weaknesses. Capitalism, for example, assumes that everybody's self interest is what is the best for all, but greed makes that all fall apart. Early in the 20th century we saw the results of this greed: billionaires at the head of Standard Oil and the like while workers lived in a system that can be aptly called wage slavery. Capitalism offers no solution for this, as its main assumption is that if you work hard you can get ahead. These people who were living in wage slavery were obviously working very hard, but were trapped in their situation because of the standards of the company. Pure lazziez-farie capitalism even goes as far as saying this is normal and nothing should be done about it. Socialism, on the other hand, has the same type of greed weakness, but from the worker's side. If what we find that works best for this country is the best parts of both systems, so be it. Different times require different approaches to new problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok let me back pedal a bit. I should have said "the current system that America claims is capitalism" instead of just saying capitalism.

But having said that for a capitalist system there but be something to prevent people from becoming the "over-lords."

And you werent appaled with the last 8 years? lets see where we are in 4 years and then remember where we came from. :)

I was and it's even worse now.

Edited by deseretgov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not forget that the socialism at the time of Benson bears almost no resemblance to the socialism we see today in Europe, which is so democratic it's a stretch to even call it socialism.

In general, every system has its weaknesses. Capitalism, for example, assumes that everybody's self interest is what is the best for all, but greed makes that all fall apart. Early in the 20th century we saw the results of this greed: billionaires at the head of Standard Oil and the like while workers lived in a system that can be aptly called wage slavery. Capitalism offers no solution for this, as its main assumption is that if you work hard you can get ahead. These people who were living in wage slavery were obviously working very hard, but were trapped in their situation because of the standards of the company. Pure lazziez-farie capitalism even goes as far as saying this is normal and nothing should be done about it. Socialism, on the other hand, has the same type of greed weakness, but from the worker's side. If what we find that works best for this country is the best parts of both systems, so be it. Different times require different approaches to new problems.

It seems to me that everybody here knows more about Socialism than the Prophet did. I tend to doubt that. This seems like the text book answer and OK fair enough. What Benson said then applies more today because I believe as THE PROPHET OF GOD he forewarned us of this happening....right? So when you meet him when we are looking at him in the judgement seat, then you can tell him that he had it a bit wrong.....not me!!! LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that everybody here knows more about Socialism than the Prophet did. I tend to doubt that. This seems like the text book answer and OK fair enough. What Benson said then applies more today because I believe as THE PROPHET OF GOD he forewarned us of this happening....right? So when you meet him when we are looking at him in the judgement seat, then you can tell him that he had it a bit wrong.....not me!!! LOL

political definitions change overtime and vary from culture to culture and country to country always have - I read Benson's comments as talking about stifling of freedom of action, which would be more totalitarianism than socialism in a UK or European sense. Or was he only talking to American's? since he was talking mostly about Eastern Europe I doubt that.... so what do I use as the term Liberal, Socialist, Left Wing, Right Wing, Conservative, Green etc do I use an American 2009 perspective to interpret it given as Benson died over 10 years ago, or do I use a British one for the period he was speaking or do I use the current British one?

Or perhaps I should ask my German and Italian LDS friends for their interpretation on the matter? As a Brit I have good media to build my opinions on is it biased and sometimes inaccurate sure but I was shocked by standard of reporting in the US know at least 2 false news reports about my country were broadcase whilst I was ther, And I have found it interesting how many American's don't know much about their history even recent history,

-Charley

Edited by Elgama
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Prophet Benson and all subsequent Prophets have made statements I believe about the importance of limited government with a backdrop that did not include a cold war. I think, in the latter day Prophet's perspective it is pretty clear that they view the very limited enumerated powers of the Constitution as an inspired thing...

You'll have to provide references that "all the subsequent prophets" have made such statements. There have been all of three subsequent prophets (in this context I infer you mean 'Presidents of the Church')--Hunter didn't live long enough to say much of anything besides "get a temple recommend;" Hinckley deliberately made a point of not commenting on government because of a) his media expertise, and b) his focus on the Church as a world wide Church; Monson has not said anything I'm aware of about government other than to approve the work done for Proposition 8 in California. Furthermore, the prophet, seer, and revelator James E Faust was a devoted democrat who was chairman of the Utah's Democratic Party. He was a man much more liberal in his political views, and managed a campaign for the three term democratic senator Frank Moss. Ironically, Moss was able to win his seat in the Senate because Utah voters were displeased with Republican candidate's position as chairman of the committee that censured Joe McCarthy.

You have to remember Christ is at the head of this church, he calls the Prophet and the Prophet speaks on behalf. To remove that fact would make it confusion. Benson didn't have a split personality, he spoke of truths, truths that you and I don't know the half of, and let me tell you that I bet the Prophet of today is more aware of our government than you or I are! Socialism isn't the issue, it is the men behind it and what they want. Does Satan want to look after you? Is he in control of the government? Or is Christ? The answer is quite simple. Benson knew very well what he was talking about.....or he would have been removed from his position in an instant!

So now a prophet doesn't have an opinion? Everything he says is true? What about when Brigham Young said that blacks were less valiant than whites in the pre-existence? is that doctrine? Or when Young said that there were tall men living on the moon? is that doctrine? Or when Joseph F Smith said man would never walk on the moon? is that doctrine? How about when Bruce R McConkie said blacks would not hold the priesthood in his lifetime (that policy was rescinded six years before his death)? Does this apply to every prophet, or just the president of the Church?

It seems to me that everybody here knows more about Socialism than the Prophet did. I tend to doubt that. This seems like the text book answer and OK fair enough. What Benson said then applies more today because I believe as THE PROPHET OF GOD he forewarned us of this happening....right? So when you meet him when we are looking at him in the judgement seat, then you can tell him that he had it a bit wrong.....not me!!! LOL

Prophets grow up as humans. They develop opinions and interpretations their entire lives, and they have many opinions and personal interpretations prior to their receiving a call to serve as a prophet. Do you really think that Benson's feelings on communism developed only after he became a prophet? Isn't it possible that he developed opinions as a regular member of the Church then went and found justification for his personal views in the scriptures much as we often do?

President Benson grew up in an era where the US had made a science of turning the Cold War into an issue of good vs. evil; much in the same way the US political landscape as become an issue of conservative vs. liberal (viewed by many conservatives to be a good vs. evil thing; and by liberals as a dumb vs. intelligent thing). It astounds me that people have a hard time seeing how the environment in which a prophet grew up could influence his view on matters.

Birth control used to be railed against in the Church. It was condemned in no uncertain terms by men who were coming of age when it was first released and touted as a way to prevent pregnancy. The Church has since implicitly rescinded those policies and statements as leaders who grew up in an environment less judgmental of birth control have been called to lead. The Church's position on oral sex followed a very similar path.

Perhaps before we continue to feed Mormons' fear of socialism and communism, demonizing both of these as Satan's perversion of the Law of Consecration, perhaps we should take a closer look at the fact that the Law of Consecration is a form of socialism. Contrast how it is administered with the way that various governments administer their communist and socialist governments and you'll begin to see the evils that Benson was warning about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last I knew there was nothing in the Standard Works to indicate that capitalism has divine favor over socialism, nor do the standard works describe communism as the creation of Satan. It is quite reasonable to assign these interpretations as the opinion of a very politically biased man.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that everybody here knows more about Socialism than the Prophet did. I tend to doubt that. This seems like the text book answer and OK fair enough. What Benson said then applies more today because I believe as THE PROPHET OF GOD he forewarned us of this happening....right? So when you meet him when we are looking at him in the judgement seat, then you can tell him that he had it a bit wrong.....not me!!! LOL

No, I know what socialism is. The socialism during the time of Benson was still classic Marxist socialism, the kind we probably all learned about in high school. The kind of "socialism" that exists in Europe today is a really watered-down mix of capitalism and the democratic bits of socialism. I think Benson was right when it came to Marxism but Europe isn't anywhere close to having that kind of socialism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I know what socialism is. The socialism during the time of Benson was still classic Marxist socialism, the kind we probably all learned about in high school. The kind of "socialism" that exists in Europe today is a really watered-down mix of capitalism and the democratic bits of socialism. I think Benson was right when it came to Marxism but Europe isn't anywhere close to having that kind of socialism.

except growing up in the UK I never heard Eastern Europe, USSR, Korea referred to as socialism to me they were communism or totalitarianism

Socialism for me was caring face of democracy - which is why I ask do I take President Benson's definition or do I apply the knowledge of the term I had growing up

-Charley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

your rights are only being violated if you object to paying it - I don't object to being taxed I see it as a good thing, my rights are not violated. If I did object I could move to Hong Kong, the US or South Africa-

-Charley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

except growing up in the UK I never heard Eastern Europe, USSR, Korea referred to as socialism to me they were communism or totalitarianism

Socialism for me was caring face of democracy

-Charley.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your rights are only being violated if you object to paying it - I don't object to being taxed I see it as a good thing, my rights are not violated. If I did object I could move to Hong Kong, the US or South Africa-

-Charley

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

except growing up in the UK I never heard Eastern Europe, USSR, Korea referred to as socialism to me they were communism or totalitarianism

A lot of socialistic and communistic countries end up going to totalitarianism if they have a corrupt, greedy, but well-liked military leader. I find this really odd as totalitarianism is so fundamentally different from socialism... I don't see how the people would like such a change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I do subsidize walmart - tax money is used in European Grants to help them build stores and employ people, or they can start a new political party and see if they can get enough votes. Its how we got the Labour Party

-Charley

Edited by Elgama
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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.

Free exercise of conscience: our laws provide that

The right and control of property: our laws also provide that. We own houses, cars, televisions, clothing, etc…but is money property? Can a person own money (as opposed to being in possession of it)? Our legal system recognizes a difference between money and property; consider that divorcees often engage in arguments over money and property.

the protection of life: Also granted by our government.

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?

What in the Standard Works gives any justification that capitalism is God’s chosen form of government? In fact, the Book of Mormon alone teaches simultaneously that a monarchy can be good or it can be bad. It teaches that democracy can be good or it can be bad. We learn that the form of government isn’t the root of problems in government, but the [lack of] righteousness of the people running government. What the Standard Works teach is that civil government should not dictate how or what individuals think; should not control what property people own, nor should it dictate how property is managed; and that it cannot willfully and knowingly endanger the lives of its citizens. All of those things may be accomplished under communist, socialist, capitalist, laissez faire and anarchist governments alike. They can even be accomplished under monarchies and despotisms. The problem is not a matter of what form of government exists, but of how the government administers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

trouble is greed tends to lead to those that climb the available ladder doing everything they can to pull it up behind them and stiffle true competition

Well, I have no defense for 'capitalist pigs', as I've heard them called. Those who stoop to unethical means to protect their property are doing a disservice to themselves and their fellow man, no matter what situation or government they live in.

The right and control of property: our laws also provide that. We own houses, cars, televisions, clothing, etc…but is money property? Can a person own money (as opposed to being in possession of it)? Our legal system recognizes a difference between money and property; consider that divorcees often engage in arguments over money and property.

I think that's the crux of the matter- "is money property". I would say- as an autodidact with no real economics training- that a monetary system is instituted to facilitate the transaction of property between two people trading, and is an improvement on the barter system. By your own definition all personal property in a barter system would fall under the jurisdiction of being "owned" by the person who worked to gain it. I can't see how one could claim that money is not owned by the person in possession, because in reality the money is simply a replacement for other goods that would be owned by someone in another economic system. From the standpoint of cause-and-effect (person A does such-and-such work and is compensated with such-and-such amount; be it a sheep or 10 dollars) relationships, I don't see how the argument that money isn't property stands.

I would be interested in learning how our legal system differentiates between money and property, though.

What in the Standard Works gives any justification that capitalism is God’s chosen form of government? In fact, the Book of Mormon alone teaches simultaneously that a monarchy can be good or it can be bad.

It also clearly teaches that it is preferable that the people should not have a king because of the reality of human nature (Mosiah 29:16- "Now I say unto you, that because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you"). I would argue that this line of reasoning extends to all forms of government in which the government has too much power. I would also argue that having a hand in every industrial pie and/or overseeing the means of the production of goods, is giving the government too much power.

It teaches that democracy can be good or it can be bad.

Again in Mosiah 29, it is plainly taught that a democratic republic is far preferable to a monarchy (vv. 21, 25-29). I find it interesting- and enlightening- that the shift from centralized power to a democratic republic is extolled by Mosiah as a good thing because it will help give unto the people autonomy, and make the people more accountable to God than under a kingship (v. 30-32). I think we can safely extrapolate that lesson to this discussion.

We learn that the form of government isn’t the root of problems in government, but the [lack of] righteousness of the people running government. What the Standard Works teach is that civil government should not dictate how or what individuals think; should not control what property people own, nor should it dictate how property is managed; and that it cannot willfully and knowingly endanger the lives of its citizens.

Quite agreed. However, the Book of Mormon plainly teaches that, when it comes to the form of government, there are different manifestations and organizational philosophies that are superior to others.

All of those things may be accomplished under communist, socialist, capitalist, laissez faire and anarchist governments alike.

I would like to see how an anarchist government can guarantee the people's safety (I would argue that part of the role of government is to go beyond not endangering its citizens, and to actually protect them- D&C 134:2) when the very philosophy of an anarchist government is that... government is bad. I think you were trying to prove a point- that any government can fulfill the mandate given in D&C 134- but I think the point is proven in the opposite manner: not all governmental ideologies are created equal, and will not all work as efficiently to guarantee the rights of its citizens.

They can even be accomplished under monarchies and despotisms. The problem is not a matter of what form of government exists, but of how the government administers.

I would say- with Mosiah 29 as support- that different forms of government are inferior to others because they more easily set the stage for a take-over by unrighteous men to turn the country to a despotic regime. LittleWyvern commented on the phenomenon of certain political systems (socialism and communism), under certain conditions, giving way to totalitarianism- I submit because socialism and communism are, by their nature, not as insulated from such a take over as a capitalist, democratic republic.

As far as the idea that President Benson's words don't apply to the modern-day situation because [enter reason here]- the idea that recent prophets who speak in matters of principles, extolling the virtue of one thing are so fundamentally wrong that what they decried can be seen as "good" nowadays is, to me, repugnant. I doubt Benson was talking about non-Marxism socialism- but he was talking about the principles and tenets of socialism in the broad sense. The entire purpose of a "seer" is to see the things that we don't, and tell us and forewarn us. I don't see it as coincidence that the Book of Mormon extols democracy and republican governments and decries forms of government that place too much power on those in charge of said government, and the fact that the Book of Mormon was preserved, by God, for use in our day specifically. I don't think it's coincidence that Mosiah 29, or Ether 6:23- in a book of scripture compiled and preserved by a prophet who said "Behold, the Lord hath shown unto me great and marvelous things concerning that which must shortly come, at that day when these things shall come forth among you" (Mormon 8:34)- decry monarchies and extol democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free exercise of conscience: our laws provide that

The right and control of property: our laws also provide that. We own houses, cars, televisions, clothing, etc…but is money property? Can a person own money (as opposed to being in possession of it)? Our legal system recognizes a difference between money and property; consider that divorcees often engage in arguments over money and property.

the protection of life: Also granted by our government.

What in the Standard Works gives any justification that capitalism is God’s chosen form of government? In fact, the Book of Mormon alone teaches simultaneously that a monarchy can be good or it can be bad. It teaches that democracy can be good or it can be bad. We learn that the form of government isn’t the root of problems in government, but the [lack of] righteousness of the people running government. What the Standard Works teach is that civil government should not dictate how or what individuals think; should not control what property people own, nor should it dictate how property is managed; and that it cannot willfully and knowingly endanger the lives of its citizens. All of those things may be accomplished under communist, socialist, capitalist, laissez faire and anarchist governments alike. They can even be accomplished under monarchies and despotisms. The problem is not a matter of what form of government exists, but of how the government administers.

"Perhaps the most important of the great fundamentals of the inspired Constitution is the principle of popular sovereignty: The people are the source of government power. Along with many religious people, Latter-day saints affirm that God gave the power to people, and the people consented to a constitution that delegated certain powers to the government. Sovereignty is not inherent in a state or nation just because it has the power that comes from the force of arms. Sovereignty does not come from the divine right of a king, who grants his subjects such power as he pleases or is forced to concede…The sovereign power is in the people." (Dallin H. Oaks, The Divinely Inspired Constitution, Ensign February 1992)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do subsidize walmart - tax money is used in European Grants to help them build stores and employ people, or they can start a new political party and see if they can get enough votes. Its how we got the Labour Party

-Charley

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share