Socialism is evil. Tell my why I am wrong. (and let's keep it civil)


Str8Shooter
 Share

Recommended Posts

There you have it.

I believe that socialism is a product of man mixed with the gospel.  It is evil.  Socialism is not the law of consecration.  Socialism steals.  It is theft.  Socialism is a government of Godless, immoral people.

These people also said that socialism is not good:  Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, John Taylor, Charles W. Nibley, Heber J. Grant, Harold B. Lee, Joseph L. Wirthlin, J. Reuben Clark Jr., Ezra Taft Benson, Marion G. Romney,  and David O. McKay.

This is what Brigham Young said in 1870:  

"What can they do? Live on each other and beg. It is a poor, unwise and very imbecile people who can not take care of themselves."



I am asking for productive, meaningful debate not involving any political candidates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The root of socialism is self-centeredness. Those that want it place their self interests foremost. Those that support it either believe they will be one in power or fail to realize that the end result of socialism is bondage and death. 

 

No no way and no how is Zion a form of socialism. Ironically the liberals desire a Zion society but they want it without having to lose the self-centeredness and that is why they will end up with socialism, which will be bondage and death. 

 

Zion can only exist when all involved have the pure love of Christ in their heart. We are not ready for it. Why? Because even as members we seek either self-centeredness or we seek fairness. Fairness is a problem? Absolutely! When one seeks fairness, such as under the Golden Rule, they find it unfair to get the 'short end of the stick' in situations. The want a fair portion of the pie, not an unfair small portion or even no portion at all. In a Zion society one is serving others because they love them. But when they feel like they are getting the short end of the stick then they'll cop an attitude and begin demanding fairness. That will lead to Zion failing. Fairness must be set aside for the greater reward of love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Socialism, as noted earlier, is based on lies, and demands we break the fundamental  laws of God (at least four of the Ten Commandments).

Pragmatically, it cannot work, and more importantly, it makes us all worse, as individuals and as a country.

Socialism is the counterfeit of the Law of Consecration, and, like all of Satan's counterfeits, he makes it sound great, makes it mimic the real thing, but the results are always evil.

Further, the Satanic version, socialism, is always implemented by force. Coercion is not the Lord's plan. His is liberty, not force; freedom, not compulsion.

Socialism is evil, by its very nature and by the source of its ideas: Satan. Just as he wanted to supplant Father in the premortal world, he wants to supplant every good thing on earth, too.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before this topic gets too deep in the weeds, you first need to define Socialism.  There are many ways to implement it and a lot of times, that's what people refer to - a certain method to implement its principles instead of the principles themselves.  So, what exactly are you referring to when you say Socialism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Before this topic gets too deep in the weeds, you first need to define Socialism.  There are many ways to implement it and a lot of times, that's what people refer to - a certain method to implement its principles instead of the principles themselves.  So, what exactly are you referring to when you say Socialism?

Agreed. Definitions are important. It's hard to me to envision an America that practices full-blown "all things equal" socialism. I've said before that capitalism can coexist with some socialist policies, and I stand by that. I'm not looking for a world in which doctors and CEOs of successful companies live on the same income as cooks and janitors, but I fully believe that there's more that we can be doing to empower the lower class. There's plenty of room for reform in our welfare system to allow us to do that while discouraging "leeches". There's also room to improve our tax code and national budget to reign in "corporate welfare". Because if Johnny Junkie using a few hundred tax dollars every month to buy drugs bothers you, but Billy Billionaire using millions of dollars worth of government subsidies to buy a new private jet doesn't, then you need to rethink your priorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
19 minutes ago, Godless said:

Agreed. Definitions are important. It's hard to me to envision an America that practices full-blown "all things equal" socialism. I've said before that capitalism can coexist with some socialist policies, and I stand by that. I'm not looking for a world in which doctors and CEOs of successful companies live on the same income as cooks and janitors, but I fully believe that there's more that we can be doing to empower the lower class. There's plenty of room for reform in our welfare system to allow us to do that while discouraging "leeches". There's also room to improve our tax code and national budget to reign in "corporate welfare". Because if Johnny Junkie using a few hundred tax dollars every month to buy drugs bothers you, but Billy Billionaire using millions of dollars worth of government subsidies to buy a new private jet doesn't, then you need to rethink your priorities.

We totally agree on this. Billy and Johnny are BOTH an issue in this world. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Godless said:

Because if Johnny Junkie using a few hundred tax dollars every month to buy drugs bothers you, but Billy Billionaire using millions of dollars worth of government subsidies to buy a new private jet doesn't, then you need to rethink your priorities.

I like that you qualified the problem of Billy using government subsidies to buy the jet.  Just realize though, that most people who use phrases like "make the rich pay their fair share" or complain about how unfair it is that Billy can buy a jet are not making that distinction.  Class envy doesn't care how Billy got his millions.  Billy might have subsidies, he might have inherited it, or he might have earned it through his own hard work and investments, but that doesn't mean squat to those people.  They treat wealth as a zero sum game, and believe that no matter how Billy became a Billionaire, it MUST have come at the expense of the poor.  This is why we hear about "the 1%" as the rallying cry for socialist policies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
19 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I like that you qualified the problem of Billy using government subsidies to buy the jet.  Just realize though, that most people who use phrases like "make the rich pay their fair share" or complain about how unfair it is that Billy can buy a jet are not making that distinction.  Class envy doesn't care how Billy got his millions.  Billy might have subsidies, he might have inherited it, or he might have earned it through his own hard work and investments, but that doesn't mean squat to those people.  They treat wealth as a zero sum game, and believe that no matter how Billy became a Billionaire, it MUST have come at the expense of the poor.  This is why we hear about "the 1%" as the rallying cry for socialist policies. 

The rich don't get rich through government subsidies, just like a welfare check won't pay for a split-level home in the suburbs. Billy got his wealth on his own. Good for him. I have no desire to take that away. I just don't want my tax dollars paying for his trip to the Cayman Islands, nor do I want him using his money to pay for a US Senator's new car. My problem with the wealthy isn't that they're wealthy, it's that there's too much money being exchanged between them and our government employees. And yes, part of that stems from the fact that they use loopholes in the tax code to avoid paying "their fair share".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Godless said:

My problem with the wealthy isn't that they're wealthy, it's that there's too much money being exchanged between them and our government employees.

This, I agree with.

9 minutes ago, Godless said:

And yes, part of that stems from the fact that they use loopholes in the tax code to avoid paying "their fair share".

Care to define what "their fare share" is?  I have yet to see anyone do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
11 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Care to define what "their fare share" is?  I have yet to see anyone do that.

That's one of my many issues with socialism as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
23 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Care to define what "their fare share" is?  I have yet to see anyone do that.

Ensuring that taxes are paid on all taxable income would be a great start. I have no reason to believe that that's happening for people in the highest tax brackets. As far as actual tax rates go, it's hard to say. It's easy to say that the rich should carry a higher tax burden (and I fully support that), but how do you establish a tax rate that accomplishes that without taxing them into oblivion (which I don't support)? I'm not an economist, so I don't have the answer to that. Heck, I have friends with extensive backgrounds in economics that don't have an answer to that. There seems to be a pretty common consensus that the rich should be paying more, but not much consensus on how much more. That's why I'm more concerned with ending unnecessary tax breaks, loopholes, and subsidies rather than trying to alter tax rates. The former will still generate plenty of tax revenue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Godless That's kind of the intent behind why I asked you that.  I think the desire to tax rich people more, in most cases, is based on class envy and not an actual, articulable sense of what the problem is.  I'm personally an advocate for a flat tax, because then everybody pays the same (proportionally.) 

The trouble with terms like "their fair share" is that it's a really great propaganda/marketing term... It means something different to everyone, and who would argue against such a noble sounding phrase like "their fair share?"  It's just like "social justice" or "assault weapon."  Everybody understands the term differently so you can rally a lot of support for it without having to define anything specific at all, and it's really easy to vilify anyone who argues against it because all one has to do is use a language trick.... "Oh, so  you DON'T think the rich should pay their fair share?"  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sadliers said:

Zion can only exist when all involved have the pure love of Christ in their heart. We are not ready for it. Why? Because even as members we seek either self-centeredness or we seek fairness. Fairness is a problem? Absolutely! When one seeks fairness, such as under the Golden Rule, they find it unfair to get the 'short end of the stick' in situations. The want a fair portion of the pie, not an unfair small portion or even no portion at all. In a Zion society one is serving others because they love them. But when they feel like they are getting the short end of the stick then they'll cop an attitude and begin demanding fairness. That will lead to Zion failing. Fairness must be set aside for the greater reward of love.

More to the point, socialism is at base, an economic concept.  Economics deals only with scarcity and want.[1]  In an idealized society where people don't want excessively and the supply of necessities (real necessities, and quite a few simpler luxuries are easy to provide in a society that doesn't need to concern itself with most types of internal conflict[2]) is plentiful, there is no need of economics in any form.

 

[1] Specifically just scarcity, but that only really apples if more than one entity desires the scarce resource in some form.  (One could also simply argue that a universally unwanted resource cannot become scarce at all, scarcity being relative to the overall desire in most definitions.)

[2] Imagine if all the resources dedicated to law enforcement could be redirected to food production.  Now add in the losses due to theft, violence, etc. that make LE necessary.  Now add the cost of maintaining the court system we currently have, as opposed to a simple civil court as described in Scripture and elsewhere, resolving disputes on a voluntary basis to keep the peace.  We would all be too fat to argue pretty soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Str8Shooter said:

I believe that socialism is a product of man mixed with the gospel.  It is evil.  Socialism is not the law of consecration.  Socialism steals.  It is theft.  Socialism is a government of Godless, immoral people.

IMO, the best summation of it is simply that there is no virtue - nor even a possibility of virtue - in coerced acts.  

If you choose to give to someone in need, you demonstrate charity.  If I force you to do so, neither of us is manifesting any virtue whatsoever.  If you would have done so without my compulsion, then that can only be considered at the final Judgment, as none of us can know your heart when it is not permitted to act freely.  Moreover, knowing that you will be compelled to give will likely adversely affect your attitude toward giving in the first place, especially if you don't feel you have a surplus (or not as much as the compelling authority deems you to have) by your own determination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
27 minutes ago, unixknight said:

@Godless That's kind of the intent behind why I asked you that.  I think the desire to tax rich people more, in most cases, is based on class envy and not an actual, articulable sense of what the problem is.  I'm personally an advocate for a flat tax, because then everybody pays the same (proportionally.) 

The trouble with terms like "their fair share" is that it's a really great propaganda/marketing term... It means something different to everyone, and who would argue against such a noble sounding phrase like "their fair share?"  It's just like "social justice" or "assault weapon."  Everybody understands the term differently so you can rally a lot of support for it without having to define anything specific at all, and it's really easy to vilify anyone who argues against it because all one has to do is use a language trick.... "Oh, so  you DON'T think the rich should pay their fair share?"  

Objectively speaking, it makes more economic sense to place a higher tax burden on the wealthy simply out of virtue of the fact that they can afford it. Because of this, I'm actually not fond of the "fair share" term. That implies equal, which I'm not necessarily in favor of. I'm all for allowing the rich to stay rich, but to expect them to share a proportional tax rate with a household bringing in $20K a year is unrealistic, imo. The system has to be rigged against someone, why not the ones who can afford to pay a little more? People say that this is punishing people for being rich, or disincentivising people from trying to reach higher tax brackets. But I challenge you to find anyone in my tax bracket who wouldn't love to be in Warren Buffet's tax bracket. If I had a mansion and a private jet, I doubt that you'd hear me complaining about having to pay more taxes than someone in the middle class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Str8Shooter said:

There you have it.

I believe that socialism is a product of man mixed with the gospel.  It is evil.  Socialism is not the law of consecration.  Socialism steals.  It is theft.  Socialism is a government of Godless, immoral people.

Capitalism is the law of the jungle. It is heartless, ruthless, cold-blooded, and it leaves in its wake a bloody trail of mangled bodies. It is the strongest prospering, the weakest getting eaten, and everyone else trying to stay out of the way. Those who think that capitalism is some celestial law deceive themselves. Capitalism is the ultimate embodiment of competition. And don't count on capitalism being "fair". It is nothing of the sort.

But as Winston Churchill noted of democracy, that it is the worst form of government except for all the rest. so it is with capitalism, We embrace it, not because we love and laud it, but because non-capitalist solutions are always -- always -- much worse. I know of no historical record (except for 4 Nephi) that describes an enduring system that is superior to one based on capitalistic principles.

Of course, many people seek to blunt the razor-sharp edges of capitalism. The "robber barons" are so called for very good reason. The very idea of levying taxes for public works (such as roads) is a defiance of the ideal of capitalism, yet only a few of us would disagree with the greater good of such things. Does anyone really want to live in a society where all the roads are privately owned and can be used only by paying the owner, who is free to set his prices as he sees fit, including charging people different amounts and utterly refusing passage to some at his whim?

The real tension here lies in the fact that "pure" capitalist principles, if there be any such thing, are at odds with a free and open society. The government of the people must somehow be decoupled to a great extent from the economic activity; if not, the result is always that the rich rule.

But right here, we reach the classic paradox that Kurt Gödel identified mathematically and suggested as a societal rule: Any sufficiently complex structure contains the seeds of its own destruction, and these will eventually come to fruition. If we give the poor and ignorant the franchise, the seemingly inevitable result (which we are seeing right this minute) is that the poor and ignorant vote "entitlements" for themselves, to the ultimate destruction of the economy and the society. It happened in ancient Rome, where the political doctrine was enshrined (or at least identified) as "bread and circuses". It happened in the Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc countries. It is happening now in Europe. And we in America are inviting it, welcoming it here, enthusiastically, cheering loudly as the destruction descends garbed in words of "fairness".

Socialism is a lie because it is the embodiment of the attempts to assuage this desire for "fairness", for the blunting of capitalism's sharp edges. Somehow, there is the idea that, since "pure" capitalism is a poor fit for a free society, socialism must be better. But it is not better. It is much, much worse. It is bread and circuses. it is the selling out of the long-term health of society for the short-term benefit of the politicians (and of the short-sighted, greedy, selfish, narcisisstic voters who put them in power). Once the wealth so painstakingly amassed over generations is eaten up from the inside, the economy collapses, and the society, destabilized and demoralized, soon follows.

8 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

Do you think that some day, perhaps in the millennium, we will live the United order?

No, not as the Saints tried in the 19th century. We will surely live an implementation of a society founded on the precepts of the law of consecration -- but then, we have made covenant to live the law of consecration right now. There is nothing special about a "united order" that suddenly makes possible living that divine law. We live that law by turning our hearts over to God and allowing all our actions to follow that principle. It is really no different at all from how we live the law of chastity.

1 hour ago, Godless said:

And yes, part of that stems from the fact that they use loopholes in the tax code to avoid paying "their fair share".

By definition, a man's "fair share" of taxes is what the law compells him to pay. If these people are illegally evading taxes, they should be jailed and their assets seized. If they are acting within the law, then guess what? They are paying their fair share.

Many so-called "loopholes" are not loopholes at all; they are intentionally built into the tax code to encourage investments and financial transactions that benefit the whole society. The fact that they also greatly benefit those who use them is hardly a bad thing.

29 minutes ago, Godless said:

Ensuring that taxes are paid on all taxable income would be a great start.

Doing away with all taxes on taxable income would be a far better start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Godless said:

The system has to be rigged against someone, why not the ones who can afford to pay a little more?

Because it is a disincentive to work harder and produce more. You are saying, "Well, it won't really disincentivize most people." I don't believe that is true.

But at some point, the Lefts' favorite issue -- fairness -- actually comes into play. If I work twice as hard as you, why shouldn't I make twice as much as you? And if I provide a hundred times the benefit to society as you do, say by providing jobs and inventing and making useful things, why shouldn't I have a hundred times as much as you? And if I save and invest wisely and you don't save or invest at all, why shouldn't I have piles of money while you're flat broke?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Godless said:

That implies equal, which I'm not necessarily in favor of. I'm all for allowing the rich to stay rich, but to expect them to share a proportional tax rate with a household bringing in $20K a year is unrealistic, imo.

Why?  If unnecessary/unConstitutional spending is eliminated, the tax burden could be reduced to a level manageable by all except the truly destitute who have nothing at all to give.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Godless said:

...

" we can be doing to empower the lower class.  "

...

Right there is the basis of your problem.  You think you (or your collective 'we') can run someone else's life.  You cannot do anything to the "lower class" to make them do anything they don't want to do.

L B Johnson (a president long ago) thought that by giving poor people money, they would no longer be poor.  Well, they still are, and all they do today is give them more money.

Only an individual can run his own life, and work his way out of poverty, or not.

In reality, you would be better off if you gave them no money.  They then would have no choice but to work and earn their way.  In fact, that is the best motivation for anyone. 

I think also you do not have a good grasp of the different social value of a person of wealth, as opposed to the doper.

dc

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, unixknight said:

@Godless That's kind of the intent behind why I asked you that.  I think the desire to tax rich people more, in most cases, is based on class envy and not an actual, articulable sense of what the problem is.  I'm personally an advocate for a flat tax, because then everybody pays the same (proportionally.) 

The trouble with terms like "their fair share" is that it's a really great propaganda/marketing term... It means something different to everyone, and who would argue against such a noble sounding phrase like "their fair share?"  It's just like "social justice" or "assault weapon."  Everybody understands the term differently so you can rally a lot of support for it without having to define anything specific at all, and it's really easy to vilify anyone who argues against it because all one has to do is use a language trick.... "Oh, so  you DON'T think the rich should pay their fair share?"  

There you have it.  We are seeing the use of all their favorite "buzz words".

When they talk about "Billie Billionaire" do they ever talk about the many companies he runs, that employ people, who then are not poor, nor idle and using drugs and are paying taxes and giving to charity.  They only insist that he "stole" the wealth from the poor. 

No, in many cases he created it.  He made wealth where there was none. 

dc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
15 minutes ago, Vort said:

Because it is a disincentive to work harder and produce more. You are saying, "Well, it won't really disincentivize most people." I don't believe that is true.

 

 

Yes, I'd rather make $20K a year than $2M a year because that way I don't have to pay as much tax. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

 

But at some point, the Lefts' favorite issue -- fairness -- actually comes into play. If I work twice as hard as you, why shouldn't I make twice as much as you? And if I provide a hundred times the benefit to society as you do, say by providing jobs and inventing and making useful things, why shouldn't I have a hundred times as much as you? And if I save and invest wisely and you don't save or invest at all, why shouldn't I have piles of money while you're flat broke?

I have no desire to tax the rich into poverty. A higher tax rate for the wealthy isn't going to prevent them from making exponentially more money than me. All I'm saying is that if I'm going to take 15% of someone's income, it makes more sense to take it from the millionaire than the janitor. The millionaire can pay that and still be rich. The janitor would have to scrounge up two or three months worth of rent payments to meet that demand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other problem they never address is, there is no such thing as equality.  No one is ever equal to any one other.  In many cases we compliment one another, such as husband and wife, but they are not equal and never will be.

We all have different talents, skills, and abilities and all use them differently.

But they like to impose this cookie cutter "equal" on everyone to force them into what they don't fit into.

And what happens is the cookie cutter cuts off a lot of the upper or better skills and talents and incentives in this false quest for "equality" which doesn't, in reality exist.

To use their own buzz word they engage in a "misguided effort" to pretend everyone is equal when they are not.

dc

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