Ending poverty, the liberal way.

[Maxel]

I think perhaps you should do research on both the United Order and communism. You'll find that the only fundamental differences are that the United Order was administered on as local a level as possible, and was entered into by choice and not by coercion.

There are other major differences (see below).

Coincidentally, that is exactly the fundamental difference between Christ and Satan. So I guess you're right, but that doesn't make it any less true.

The difference in agency is the fundamental difference betwen Satan's and God's plan- there are many more differences between the two, such as power, righteousness, honesty, godliness, wisdom, etc.

They're different not only in their implementation and form, but also in their fundamental natures and philosophies. It is Christ's nature that made Him fit to be the Savior; it is Satan's nature and actions that led Him to rebel against God.

Making everyone equal requires a strong head of the community (as you said, the United Order was administered at a local level) at every major level- township, state, nation, etc. Add corruption into the mix, and the entire system can collapse- especially if the corruption comes from the top. For "Communism" to work, the leaders would have to be devoted heart and soul to the good of their people. Since men cannot see what lies in others' hearts, however, men are inadequate electors of good Communist officials. Only God can and ought to promote a person to the level of authority that a bishop holds in the United Order.

More philosophical differences between socialism (Communism) and the United Order, from a talk by Elder Marion G. Romney

(1) 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) 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.

One time the Prophet Joseph Smith asked a question by the brethren about the inventories they were taking. His answer was to the effect, "You don't need to be concerned about the inventories. Unless a man is willing to consecrate everything he has, he doesn't come into the United Order." (Documentary History of the Church. Vol 7,pp.412-413.)

On the other hand, socialism is implemented by external force, the power of the state.

(3) In harmony with church belief, as set forth in the Doctrine and Covenants, "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.

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) The United Order is non-political. Socialism is political, both in theory and practice. It is thus exposed to, and riddled by, the corruption that plagues and finally destroys all political governments that undertake to abridge man's agency.

(5) A righteous people is a prerequisite to the United Order.

Socialism argues that it as a system will eliminate the evils of the profit motive.

The United Order exalts the poor and humbles the rich. In theprocess both are sanctified. The poor, released from the bondage and humiliating limitations of poverty, are enabled as free men to rise to their full potential, both temporally and spiritually. The rich, by consecration and by imparting of their surplus for the benefit of the poor, not by constraint but willingly as an act of free will, evidence that charity for their fellowmen characterized by Mormon as "the pure love of Christ." (Moro. 7:47.)

Also, if you read through Church leaders' statements about communism, what you'll learn is that the biggest issue they had against it was its manifestation as 'godless communism.' But again, taking these statements into context, what these people meant by communism was actually Marxism. Marxism and the United Order were both forms of communism.

Notice that Romney specifically admits that "all socialists may not be atheists"- this isn't 'godless Communism' he's adressing, but the underlying philosophy of socialism itself, as defined by prominent socialist philosophers.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Maxel

[Moksha]

If it is a refund...they have already paid. Medicaid could be expanded...why not? Framework is in place.

You mean a refund for those who already have health insurance?

The framework of Medicaid is indeed in place. A monthly buy in for those above qualifying levels would certainly conserve health dollars.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Beefche, the US will never be made into a classless society with everyone receiving the same quality or amount of care like Japan, but selfish reasons aside, there is no good reason for some citizens to be without reasonable healthcare. We already spend more per person than any other country. Their health care systems spend with wiser control.

:)

[bytor2112]

You mean a refund for those who already have health insurance?

No. I mean a refund for everyone that pays taxes for an amount equal to an annual premium for the purchase of health insurance. It would in affect be a tax cut, BUT, would be required to be used specifically for the purpose of health insurance.

[Maxel]

Moksha, you might be interested in this passage from the above-quoted talk from Elder Romney:

The United Order exalts the poor and humbles the rich. In theprocess both are sanctified. The poor, released from the bondage and humiliating limitations of poverty, are enabled as free men to rise to their full potential, both temporally and spiritually. The rich, by consecration and by imparting of their surplus for the benefit of the poor, not by constraint but willingly as an act of free will, evidence that charity for their fellowmen characterized by Mormon as "the pure love of Christ." (Moro. 7:47.)

Seems to be a heavy argument against Nationalized health care, yes? The rich would resent the tax- not because they have a dearth of love in their souls, but because it's a forced taxation, taken by coercion from the government. Similarly, we must ask ourselves if a gift freely given with no requirements will be well taken care of by someone who has little experience in the duties required in a stewardship. Don't forget that the Church Welfare System requires reciprocal action from those who receive goods- there's no such thing as a free lunch in this world.

Then again, Elder Romney was one of those pesky, greedy capitalist pigs, so that might explain his words...