The Commandment To Spread The Wealth
Mormons really have no business sneering at the ideals of socialism.
What is socialism? We get this from the wiki:
Socialism refers to an economic theory of social organization advocating social or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society where one’s labor is the only important, individual factor of production. …
Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism by nature concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.
Ok so socialism is about “the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly” and it against philosophies which by nature “concentrate power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, and creates an unequal society”.
Sound familiar? Well if you are Mormon it should because our scriptures are chock full o’ instructions from God for us to form egalitarian societies, to work toward evenly distributed wealth, and to avoid the evils of concentrated wealth in a segment of our society. Here are some of those exhortations from the D&C:
D&C 42: 30 And behold, thou wilt remember the poor, and consecrate of thy properties for their support that which thou hast to impart unto them, with a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken.
D&C 49: 20 But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.
D&C 51: 3 Wherefore, let my servant Edward Partridge, and those whom he has chosen, in whom I am well pleased, appoint unto this people their portions, every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.
D&C 70: 14 Nevertheless, in your temporal things you shall be equal, and this not grudgingly, otherwise the abundance of the manifestations of the Spirit shall be withheld.
D&C 78: 5 That you may be equal in the bonds of heavenly things, yea, and earthly things also, for the obtaining of heavenly things.
But of course we aren’t just commanded to “spread the wealth” like good socialists in the D&C; there are some good injunctions to do so elsewhere in our scriptures as well.
2 Cor. 8: 14 But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality:
4 Ne. 1: 3 (Also Acts 2: 44; Acts 4: 32-37; 3 Ne. 26: 19; ) And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift.
Moses 7: 18 And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.
So there you have it. We Mormons are emphatically and repeatedly commanded by God to “spread the wealth” like good socialists do.
Mormons really have no business sneering at the ideals of socialism.
I still sneer at the idea of socialism. In all the instances where the scriptures mention a socialist like society is among God’s people. As in all members of the same fold. In small Kingdom’s of God I could see how it would work well, but in an economy of our size, and society as diverse as ours, its ludicrous.
Comment by Craig Atkinson — October 17, 2008 @ 10:15 pm
COLLEGE students:
“Spread the Grades” (think about it)
If you have a 3.5-4.0 GPA = 3.0
If you have a 3.0-3.40 GPA = 2.8
If you have a 2.8-2.99 GPA = 2.6
If you have a 2.6-2.7+ GPA = 2.4
If you have a 2.0 - 2.5 GPA = 2.2
If you are failing GPA = 2.0
We will use the GPA credits we collected from the fortunate students
to raise the GPAs of the less fortunate students. This will insure that those students that have lower grades will have the same success that those who have good grades have had. We feel that this will insure a fair distribution of grades AND make
it more FAIR in the job market after our students leave college.
We feel that this will attract more highly qualified students to our
institution and increase the academic standards as well. Those
students who cannot make good grades will not be at a disadvantage
when thay look for a job. It will also insure that any student can
take any course and pass. Our institution will produce the best and
brightest people who will lead the world!
We will also implement this same “spread the grade” program for our engineering, technical, medical and dental schools as well!!!! Think of the professionals we can graduate!!!! We will also be eliminating all entrance requirments so as to open more opportunities to all students.
This is only fair, as this type of program may soon be implemented in the real world.
We want to stay abreast of the real world so as to better prepare our students for life after collage!
Remember…study hard for good grades …or not, someone else will
carry you through.
IF YOU DON”T SUPPORT ACADEMIN WELFARE>>>DON’T SUPPORT GOVERNMENTAL WELFARE!
think about it!!!!
Comment by Mike D — October 17, 2008 @ 10:36 pm
Craig: In small Kingdom’s of God I could see how it would work well, but in an economy of our size, and society as diverse as ours, its ludicrous.
Uhhh… Our scriptures insist that Zion (based precisely on these egalitarian/socialistic principles) will be established throughout the earth and among all people eventually. You just called that idea we received through revelation ludicrous.
Comment by Geoff J — October 17, 2008 @ 10:39 pm
Mike D,
So are you saying God is wrong and you are right? What is your response to the revelations?
PS — See here regarding ALL CAPS and exclamation points in comments.
Comment by Geoff J — October 17, 2008 @ 10:41 pm
There is a huge fundamental difference between what Mormon revelation and socialism are, one is guided and directed of God and the other is guided and directed of Satan. Socialism is the devils counterfeit, its just a part of his plan to take away our free agency. I hate to be too melodramtic and come off as the crazy guy who sits in the back of priesthood but this is the simplest way I can think of putting it. Did we have a war in heaven to be here and have a right to choose or not? Should we live United Order and Consecration? Yes.
Should somebody force us to? No.
Nuff said.
Comment by David J. West — October 17, 2008 @ 10:56 pm
Seems to me the only difference between Socialism and the United Order is the inclusion of God in the the mix. When you determine that it is the Lord that is at the head of the Society you get a different Order entirely. One that is run without corruption and power grabbing. Until you throw Pride into the mix… then the corruption and power grabbing begins and all bets are off.
Comment by Dianna B — October 17, 2008 @ 10:57 pm
The fundamental difference between the United Order (as described in the D&C) and state socialism is that membership in the United Order is voluntary. That is significant.
Comment by Mark D. — October 17, 2008 @ 11:13 pm
Dianna — True principles are true principles right? For instance, just because eternal marriage is best does not mean earthly/civil marriage should be avoided. Likewise, just because economic egalitarianism among the people of God is best does not mean all other attempts at economic egalitarianism are not desirable.
Mark D. — True enough. But even in actually socialist countries there is always ample room to be personally altruistic. In a democracy shouldn’t we Mormons encourage people to vote in policies and politicians that move us closer to Zion in this way?
It seems to me that based on the scriptures Mormons should be conservatives on social/moral issues and liberals on economic issues.
Comment by Geoff J — October 17, 2008 @ 11:22 pm
I don’t think so Geoff. Private initiative and public funding are quite at odds with each other.
Contemporary social welfare states consume such a large portion of economic production that they crowd out what used to be a dominant role for private charity - hospitals, orphanages, benefit societies and so on. What few non-religious charitable organizations remain tend to be dependent on government grants.
Among other problems - inefficiency, political favoritism, knowledge/power imbalance, private resource deprivation and so on - that tends to be an excuse for people to neglect their voluntary social obligations and let the government do everything for them. The Nanny State. [Or as some rather pejoratively call it, "Satan's Plan".]
So you get no end of organizations who once upon a time actually tried to help people with their problems that now focus on stirring up sentiment for more state action instead. That is what “Liberation Theology” is all about.
Comment by Mark D. — October 18, 2008 @ 12:29 am
Sneering at? Appalled by, is more like it.
The record of socialism as actually practiced in the 20th century varies from not all that great to horrifying butchery. Given that so many socialists have taken their inspiration from Karl Marx, an anti-prophet if there is such a thing, I do not expect that record to improve in the 21st.
If I thought those political figures who advocate socialism were honest, godfearing men who
would bring us closer to Zion, I would support them.
However, I see more evidence that more of them are corrupt demagogues full of empty promises that they have neither the ability nor intention to keep.
Comment by Confutus — October 18, 2008 @ 12:42 am
Mark D: Contemporary social welfare states…
Interesting assertion. Which specific states are you referring to here?
that tends to be an excuse for people to neglect their voluntary social obligations
Are you implying that people don’t neglect their voluntary social obligations here in the US but they do in places like Australia or the UK or Norway where socialist parties are in power?
In a democracy like the US we certainly could vote for policies and politicians who were interested in at least inching closer to economic egalitarianism (an end God is clearly in favor of) rather than policies and politicians that tend to increase the disparity between the rich and poor as we have seen in recent years. And based on our scriptures I think we probably should do so.
Comment by Geoff J — October 18, 2008 @ 12:51 am
Confutus,
There are all sorts of variations on the socialism as the excerpt I used in the post notes. Surely you are not accusing present day Australia, Norway, and the UK — all of which are currently led by socialist parties — of horrifying butchery right? In a place like the US why shouldn’t we Mormons vote for economically liberal politicians who want to begin to close the massive chasm between the rich and the middle class in America? Our scriptures certainly support that sort of position. Our scriptures clearly indicate that spreading the wealth can be a great good in the world.
Comment by Geoff J — October 18, 2008 @ 12:58 am
As with abortion, this comes down to whether you think state enforcement of an ideal is a good thing. Saints are justifiable on either side with all of these issues, as far as I can tell from the statements of current general authorities.
How much of the state’s power do you want to enlist in building Zion? How much do you trust it in that?
Comment by The Right Trousers — October 18, 2008 @ 1:09 am
Geoff J,
Thank you for posting this! I love the juxtaposition of Socialism and Zion/United Order.
Of course, it is hard for most with a western culture and education to bring Socialism into an objective setup. The feelings inheridted from western political views, teachings and culture are simply too strong.
I find it very interesting how members of the Church react to this juxtaposition and the justifications they make to preserve the culture that defines them (and how ultimately, their scriptures seem to come second on the line of how they define themeselves).
Thank you for this post, and also for your answers.
From the person that aligns socialism with Satan, to the person that thinks those scriptural principles are ludicrous when applied to the an economy the size of a nation. All comments are valid and important because they explain how people regard these scriptures and how they reconcile them with their political views.
I am always interested to see how people define themselves. Clearly, for some people, the feelings inherited from their political culture are stronger than the devotion to statements they aknowledge as “revelation from God.”
I applaud your post.
Comment by Manuel — October 18, 2008 @ 1:14 am
Geoff, I am using “state” in the generic sense of “nation state”. By the standards of a century or so ago, there probably isn’t a country on earth that doesn’t qualify as a social welfare state.
Governmental spending in the U.S., for example, is about 35% of the gross domestic product. That means the average worker works from January though mid May to fund government initiatives, and the rest of the year to support himself and other private initiatives.
This is historically rather unprecedented. The Wikipedia article on Government Spending has some nice graphs.
Comment by Mark D. — October 18, 2008 @ 1:26 am
Are you suggesting that being subject to the vagaries of private donors is better than having stable, adequate and predictable funding from the state?
These problems are not unique to social welfare states, so we can safely ignore them for the time being.
Considering that the level of US official development assistance ranks around that of Greece and Portugal, I suppose it is a good thing that private citizens step up to take in the slack.
US private assistance to developing countries is quite impressive, but maybe not the sign of inherent generosity it might appear to be at first glance when you consider that two-thirds consists of individual remittances made by immigrants living in the US sending money home to support their families. Any guesses how that number might be affected if the US enforced its immigration laws?
It’s also true that private donations in some (but not all!) social welfare states are quite low, but rather than maligning those who live there as suffering from an excuse-seeking moral condition, why not consider the relatively high tax rates, tax laws that are not nearly as friendly to donations as in the US as well as the overall standard of living available to the elderly, children, unemployed, and even immigrants?
Comment by Peter LLC — October 18, 2008 @ 1:43 am
Maybe if US government spending had any relation to tax revenue…
Comment by Peter LLC — October 18, 2008 @ 1:45 am
Good luck winning this one, Geoff.
Comment by Ronan — October 18, 2008 @ 2:10 am
Love it!
Once, bored in HP Group, I asked what the difference was between the United Order and Communism.
And I did it with a straight face.
Comment by Floyd the Wonderdog — October 18, 2008 @ 2:45 am
Geoff J;
I did say varied between the not so great to appalling, so yes, I can distinguish Norway from North Korea. The British have been switching back and forth between more and less socialist oriented governments for the past 60 years or so, but I’m not sure their flirtation with socialism has done them all that much good. There are also have the French and Germans, who have recently backed away somewhat from more socialist-oriented governments.
As for why I as a Mormons am not willing to vote for economically liberal politicians who begin to close the massive chasm between the rich and the middle class in America,
First, I think Zion will be brought about by conversion to Christ, not taxation and transfer payments.
Second, on general principles, I don’t trust any government run by fallen men to be entirely either just or benevolent. I especially don’t trust the altruism of economically liberal politicians. I suspect the majority of them of buying votes or political influence from one class or other. It’s a whole lot easier to be generous with the taxpayer’s money than with your own.
Third, I’m not sure it’s even politically possible to equalize wealth by confiscation from the very wealthiest. Lobbyists and funding of political campaigns come into play at that level, for instance.
Comment by Confutus — October 18, 2008 @ 3:48 am
It is a common misunderstanding to confuse socialism and communistic government with the true order of the Lord’s government. Socialism is simply a counterfeit, and like so many of the plans Satan invented, it holds out a promise that is never fulfilled.
Church leaders have counselled us against the evils of this plan for many years. Here is a good talk on the church web pages that compares and contrasts the evils of socialism with the churchs’s United Order. You can see the similarities, as well as the striking differences.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — October 18, 2008 @ 7:34 am
The biggest problem with confiscatory and forced redistribution of wealth is that it immediately introduces corruption. In all the historical implementations of socialism, it seems that instead of spreading the wealth to make poor and rich of equal standing, there is simply the creation of a new wealthy class — rich politicians and bureaucrats instead of wealthy merchants and businessmen. It doesn’t seem to work. The poor are still with us, in ever greater numbers. I suppose we could grab all the treasures of the earth, with the best of intentions, but greed and evil would thrive. The wealth would end up in the hands of conspiring men, and the poor would still be hungry.
I cannot see how any political party short of advocates of the Lord’s Zion can achieve the aim of prospering all.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — October 18, 2008 @ 7:51 am
For those who would dismiss the outdated rhetoric of long-dead church leaders, I recommend Elder Oaks’ excellent discourse, the Lord’s Way. It is a good overview of the church welfare system as it has been, and as it is implemented today.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — October 18, 2008 @ 8:34 am
But Geoff, hasn’t the American mix of free market capitalism and social welfare done a pretty good job of spreading prosperity? Have other models been demonstrably, unarguably more successful at creating a well-fed, healthy, and generally contented population? Can you point to a historic or current secular society after which we should model our government and economy to be closer to Zion? Who is doing it right?
Comment by Tom — October 18, 2008 @ 8:50 am
Geoff: Uhhh… Our scriptures insist that Zion (based precisely on these egalitarian/socialistic principles) will be established throughout the earth and among all people eventually. You just called that idea we received through revelation ludicrous.
The essence of what I was saying wasn’t so much that the society HAD to be small. Socialism definitely works better on smaller scales. The real difference is that Zion is God’s people. A group of people with a common core belief, and common core values. In a society as diverse as America’s, Socialism just isn’t viable.
Comment by Craig Atkinson — October 18, 2008 @ 9:25 am
Geoff J.,
I cannot believe that you would write this blog post promoting Satan’s counterfeit. It must be the effect of a frenzied mind.
We righteous people who reject Satan’s counterfeit know that people should be free to make use of that which is their own. We prosper according to our genius and conquer according to our strength, and everybody gets by in this life according to how they manage their affairs. This is the Lord’s will as expressed in the Book of Mormon, chapter 30.
Comment by Cory Hoar — October 18, 2008 @ 10:07 am
Manuel: Thank you for this post, and also for your answers.
No problem. With BYU not being undefeated anymore I have time to post about less important things again… (grin)
Mark D: By the standards of a century or so ago, there probably isn’t a country on earth that doesn’t qualify as a social welfare state.
Ooh… Good point. Perhaps the world is approaching Zion after all.
Floyd: Once, bored in HP Group, I asked what the difference was between the United Order and Communism.
Check out the United Order wiki. It is described as being similar to “Christian communism” so you were clearly not far off in your comparison.
Cobabe: Socialism is simply a counterfeit
Yeah yeah, we’ve all heard the talking points Jim. And civil marriage is just a counterfeit of eternal marriage. But it is a useful counterfeit no? Besides, we are only talking about how far we should lean toward policies that better spread the wealth and shrink the gap between the rich and middle class in the US here.
Tom: hasn’t the American mix of free market capitalism and social welfare done a pretty good job of spreading prosperity?
I think you have a pretty good point. Americans have historically reacted when one side of this tug-of-war has overdone it and started to hurt the country. For instance, when the welfare state was getting out of hand the free market conservatives were broadly voted into office. Now that free market folks have been running things for a while and have overstayed their welcome it looks like Americans will wisely send them packing and let the “spread the wealth” crowd start running Washington for a while.
Comment by Geoff J — October 18, 2008 @ 10:12 am
Cory Hoar (#26),
Hehe. Nice Korihor reference. (Hey, did you notice your name is kinda similar to his?)
Comment by Geoff J — October 18, 2008 @ 10:16 am
Peter LLC (#17),
On the contrary - suppose the government never directly taxed anyone, but rather funded its current operations by printing money. Either way it would still consume the same percentage of the GDP, and on average the same percentage of the average worker’s production (however obtained) would be directed to government activity.
The difference would be that the taxes on the average worker would come in the form of (rather severe) inflation instead. There are similar consequences for deficit spending, corporate taxation, price controls, and so on.
The government is not Santa Claus - everything it consumes in real resources must be paid out of real production. Borrowing from foreign countries can time shift the burden somewhat, but the long term load remains the same.
Comment by Mark D. — October 18, 2008 @ 10:21 am
Geoff, I was pretty certain you would not care to hear anything contrary. But I suppose someone else might listen. He that hath ears…
Comment by Jim Cobabe — October 18, 2008 @ 10:47 am
Likewise Jim.
Comment by Geoff J — October 18, 2008 @ 10:50 am
Peter LLC (#16),
The way private charities of any size (private universities for example) stabilize their funding is by placing contributions in long term endowments and withdrawing and supplementing as necessary.
The downsides I mentioned to state socialism exist to some degree in freer economies, but the point is they are far worse under socialism. That is why state socialism on a sufficiently large scale doesn’t work. Besides the fundamental liberty issues related to government control of everything, centralized command and control economies (including historical implementations of the United Order) dramatically underperform free market economies in terms of providing for the health and welfare of the average participant.
If that were not the case, North Korea (for example) would be a worker’s paradise. In the places where state socialism works at all, it is always an appendage to a fundamentally freer economic order. As the dominant mode of social organization it always falls flat on its face. That is the great lesson of the twentieth century.
Comment by Mark D. — October 18, 2008 @ 11:02 am
Personally,I think the main problem american’s have with socialism is that it means “Evil Russia and China” in our minds due to government rhetoric in the past.
Are public schools totally evil? public libraries? Both are socialist. It’s more a question of how much socialism is good and how much is bad.
Anyway, just to speak both ways, here’s a pretty good ensign article on the differences between to UO and govt. socialism: (long)
Comment by Matt W. — October 18, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
Matt: Are public schools totally evil? public libraries? Both are socialist.
Exactly. And the good news is that in a democracy like our we get to decide if it is appropriate for the ultra rich to be taxed more than the middle and lower classes.
Which brings us to our current presidential election. I am baffled by the rally clips I see from McCain. He starts talking about how Obama wants to tax people making more than $250,000 per year and the crowd full of middle class people probably making closer to $50,000 per year on average gets all angry about it. It’s like “we must protect the rich in the US at all costs” is his main point right now. He then talks as if “spreading the wealth around” is some horrible evil.
Now people can vote against their own self interests or even against the interests of the poor and middle class if they want — that is what democracy is all about. But with so many Mormons such dyed in the wool Republicans I think this economic policy issue is a major problem. Falling back on the “we can totally ignore all those scriptures about the virtues of spreading the wealth until Jesus returns” simply won’t do. And no amount of spin in a 70s Ensign article removes those basic principles from our scriptures.
We may not have Zion yet but we can and should do our best to approximate it in the meantime.
Comment by Geoff J — October 18, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
Mark,
When I responded to you earlier you were talking about contemporary social welfare states which I’m sure we can agree look nothing like centralized, command and control economies you shifted to in #32. And if North Korea can be said to hew to an ideology beyond the personality cult around the current Leader, then it would be independence and self-reliance rather than socialism per se.
I submit that there is will always be a demand for social welfare as long as the poor, sick, old, needy, etc. are among us. The question isn’t so much “should we provide it?” but “who will provide it?” It turns out that even among the bastions of the European social welfare state, private, voluntary efforts play an important role. Just as they do in the US.
As a red-blooded American living in Europe, I chafe at the taxes, but I get kind of a warm, fuzzy feeling when I consider that it is impossible to go bankrupt receiving non-elective medical care, that families get a little extra to help raise children, that even farmers get pensions. There is a price, the “solidarity contribution,” but I still have my toys and have grudgingly come to view it all as a basically good thing.
Comment by Peter LLC — October 18, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
It is pretty hard to find things that are “totally” evil. By degrees backwards, impoverished, wasteful, and ineffective is more like it.
Comment by Mark D. — October 18, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
This describes, inter alia, the unfortunate practice of the uninsured in the US seeking primary care in the nation’s emergency rooms.
Comment by Peter LLC — October 18, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
Geoff I wouldn’t call that very well written ensign article spin, but I also wouldn’t say it has anything to do with the current elections. And I don’t see how taxing the uber rich has anything to do with a zion like society either.
I think Mormons tend to be republican leaning due to social issues like abortion, ssm, etc which party members have used to paint major lines in the sand in the past, and which issues are rather egregiously over emphasized in elections.
Comment by Matt W. — October 18, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
Peter,
“Independence and self-reliance” - in the form of autarky perhaps, but personal independence and self-reliance is the antithesis of the North Korean program.
North Korea is at the pretty extreme end of the spectrum between anarchy and totalitarianism. There is no question that in terms of degree of government control, European welfare states are closer to the totalitarian end of the spectrum than the U.S. is.
Of course that is not all bad - there are benefits. But there is also a price to be paid, and the economic history of postwar Europe demonstrates the downsides quite well. Latin America even more so.
Comment by Mark D. — October 18, 2008 @ 1:12 pm
I’m in the UK, and I don’t see anyone here going without medical care because they can’t afford it, or bankrupted because of it, or subjected to undignified means tests in order to obtain it.I pay less in national insurance contributions each month (which contribution covers NHS care, benefits contributions in case of illness/unemployment, and state pension) and my monthly contribution to such is less than I pay in tithing, so I don’t understand the unfounded fear of huge taxation that Americans seem to suffer from when this issue is raised. There is an element of choice too- if one opts out of the state pension, one pays a reduced rate. I am able to spread the wealth as I don’t need to squirrel away money to pay for ridiculous medical bills,or insurance, so can make extra donations to fast offering etc to help those in immediate need.
just calling it as it affects me.
Comment by Anne — October 18, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
Being uninsured is not an excuse not to pay your bills. The main reason why emergency room care is so expensive is that too many people don’t. Hospitals currently charge the responsible, bill paying uninsured about three times what they charge insurance companies for the same procedures. That ought to be illegal. An unavoidable social cost should be born by everyone.
Comment by Mark D. — October 18, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
Thanks for your comment Anne. It is an interesting insight for across the pond.
Comment by Geoff J — October 18, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
“Hospitals currently charge the responsible, bill paying uninsured about three times what they charge insurance companies for the same procedures. That ought to be illegal. An unavoidable social cost should be born by everyone. ”
I agree. This is why I believe socializing some aspect of medicine in America is reasonable.
Comment by John C. — October 18, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
Mark D.
The reason many people don’t pay their medical bills is because many of them are too poor to pay for medical insurance (let alone medical bills) and pay for food and shelter. So when push comes to shove food and shelter win.
As others mentioned here, there is a lot of merit to (and potential increased efficiencies) in looking into a way to get some kind of health benefits for every American.
Comment by Geoff J — October 18, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
Socialism is obviously exactly what we need. Church authorities who have spoken against it are apparently mistaken.
Like this silly statement from J Reuben Clark:
And this one, from Marion G.Romney:
Thanks, Geoff, for illuminating these points. It helps dispel my confusion,for sure.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — October 18, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
Arguments for more government involvement aside, the main issue is that support for the United Order (which is private, religious, and voluntary) does not imply support for state socialism (which is public, secular, and mandatory).
It is no accident that socialist (and quasi socialist) countries are inevitably hostile to religion. State socialism and private religion are competing ideologies. State socialism is the religion of big government. And the thing about government is, you only get one of them, one overarching “religion” with mandatory tithes that tends to marginalize all others.
Comment by Mark D. — October 18, 2008 @ 3:01 pm
Mark and Jim,
Once entered into, are there consequences for failing to continue in the United Order fellowship? Are those consequences ever discussed as a means of keeping people in the fellowship?
Jim,
Certainly, I believe both of those men were prophets and both lived in periods when the plague of communism in Russia was an ever-present threat, one that may have plagued even their rhetoric. If you agree with them that the United Order is neither communal nor communistic, then what is it?
Mark,
Spain, if I recollect correctly, is a socialist state with a strong religious bent. So is, as another example, Russia at present. Further, since there ain’t no purely capitalist societies out there, I would guess that any state that is friendly to religious freedom is a socialist state wherein private religion is encouraged (or, at least, not punished). To take another example, charitable donations given to churches are considered tax-deductible in the US (I think); doesn’t that indicate that the US (socialist) government wants some of your money to go to churches?
Comment by John C. — October 18, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
Jim Cobabe — You really will need to specify exactly what you are talking about when you rail against socialism before I can respond. As has been mentioned already, public schools and public libraries are accepted forms of socialism in America. Are you against those things? Do you think J Reuben Clark was opposed to those things?
Mark — America is a democracy so if Americans vote to make health care or college tuition public benefits then that is what we will get. We are in no danger of official state socialism if that is what you are hinting at. Nor are we in danger of losing our right to worship as we please. As soon as the people stop liking the way a government has handled thing (like this year for instance) we vote for change.
Again, my point is that Mormons have no business griping about the general idea of spreading the wealth. Our scriptures just don’t allow it.
Comment by Geoff J — October 18, 2008 @ 3:15 pm
The main distinction that was made in the past when men addressed the issue is that socialism is a coercive political system, while the united order is intended to be voluntary, and works by individual cooperation, allowing agency to be preserved.
Am I understanding this right?
Plans that require mandatory taxation to fund “charity” social programs don’t seem to serve quite the same purpose, no matter what their intent.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — October 18, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
J. Ruben Clark had his own opinions about social issues — as do you and me. I don’t presume to say what he thought about funding for public interests, like libraries and road building and such. I assume he was in favor of projects that serve public interest.
My concern centers on social programs that are subject to such inevitable corruption. Yet another opportunity for control of the treasure by greedy men.
Nothing unique about coveting the riches that don’t belong to you. It has been a problem since the beginning of time. Such problems are inherent in political solutions to things like health care, poverty, and the like. Socialism as implemented through earthly governments has never solved those problems effectively, though the intent is usually stated as a good one.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — October 18, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
Jim,
You have to pay your taxes or you could go to jail. Your taxes pay for, among other things, public schools (thus the “public” part). This is a form of socialism. Public schools are certainly examples of being compelled by law to spread the wealth in America. Public schools could also easily be labeled “charity social programs”. So I’ll ask you again: Are you against public schools or are you for public schools?
Comment by Geoff J — October 18, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
Geoff,
Public schools are an abysmal failure and a controversial solution. Lots of people do without them. I am not interested much one way or another, being too old and lazy to care about education any more, but for the sake of discussion, are you seriously suggesting that this is a good example of socialist government serving the needs of society?
Maybe you are right, but I think the socialist approach for education has had plenty of chances, and earned an “F”. If you want my vote for socialism, you’d better come up with a better example.
I don’t disagree with forced mandatory taxation. I think there is no way to fund legitimate government functions without it. I just think a lot of the money and government projects could do a lot better, if they operated privately, on a voluntary basis.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — October 18, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
Great, so you are against our government funding public schools. I suppose you like the idea of every parent paying for schools out of their own pocket. That way rich kids can get a great education (and thus grow up to be rich) and poor and middle class kids may get no education at all (and thus grow increasingly poor over time). Of course that is directly contrary to all those scriptures I quoted in the post but you are free to disregard scriptures all you want in this life.
How about libraries, do you think the public should stop funding those too? Why stop there? How about social security? Should the public pull out of the caring for the elderly business entirely? How far would you like to see this go? What constitutes a “legitimate government function” on your view?
(Thankfully we are a democracy so your extreme views get overridden in public elections, but I am always interested in seeing just how far out there some extremists are willing to go…)
Comment by Geoff J — October 18, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
John C.,
In Spain, a nominally socialist party currently controls Parliament, but I would hardly call Spain a “socialist state”. Social democratic parties, of socialist heritage or otherwise, are typically balanced by conservative center-right parties, and are hence rather more moderate in practice than the radical (Marxist) socialists. That is a good thing.
In terms of hostility to religion, consider China, North Korea, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, and the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. One party, totalitarian socialist states all.
In addition religion tends to be much more compatible with radical socialism in areas where there is one overwhelmingly dominant religion. Most of the middle east for example. But such states are hardly friendly to minority sects. Any religion is either co-opted by a one party state, or marginalized by it.
Comment by Mark D. — October 18, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
For the record, our hospitals in tx charge less to the uninsured than to the insurance companies. At least for having a baby. Of course if insurance pays, I pay less in the end, but the hospital did charge more for with insurance
Comment by Matt W. — October 18, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
I think government funding of education is a good thing for practical reasons, but I don’t think the government is the proper party to operate schools or universities. The government should fund students, not schools.
That mitigates the third party capture that you see in Massachusetts, among other places, where educational elites want to impose their values on students independent of parental and democratic input. I call it the “divine right of teachers”.
Comment by Mark D. — October 18, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
Mark (#54),
If that is how you are defining a socialist state then your arguments (about religion and socialism being at odds) are largely moot in this discussion among mostly Americans. The kinds of socialism we might see would not even hold a candle to the variety of socialism in Spain.
Comment by Geoff J — October 18, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
Geoff J., what should happen to me if I don’t want to spread my wealth?
Comment by mondo cool — October 18, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
Mondo,
Well according to the scriptures you lose blessings at the very least.
Comment by Geoff J — October 18, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
Geoff. I assume you are speaking in relation to Zion, no?
Under a manmade government. I face the very real possibility of losing my blessing of liberty and having my wealth (plus my ability to create more wealth) taken away, no?
All manmade governments are “force” - the antithesis of Zion. Zion is a Celestial law governed by the economic principle of stewardship and freedom of choice. Capitalism is maybe high-end telestial law, IMO. Socialism is definitely low-end telestial law, IMO.
Comment by mondo cool — October 18, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
Mondo,
I’m speaking regarding our scriptures. We are commanded to spread our wealth and care for the poor and needy in scriptures. (See the post: “it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin”)
Now it is true that you can ignore that commandment personally and never give to the poor. You are also free to vote to make sure that our government ignores that commandment in regard to its taxing and spending policies.
Comment by Geoff J — October 18, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
Everybody here is a socialist, right up to the point where you think somebody else is benefiting from your money — never mind how much you might be benefiting from someone else’s. You hop on the freeway, you turn on the faucet, you plug your computer into an outlet, you call 911 when your house catches fire or when your neighbors party too loudly, you swim or play tennis at the city rec center, you put your trash can on the curb, you expect the bridge you drive over not to fall out from under you, you enjoy drinking unadulterated milk, you don’t expect to find bugs in your morning cereal, you immunize your children with vaccines funded by public research, you use electronics developed from publicly-funded space research, you paint your rooms with unleaded paint so your kids aren’t poisoned, and when you buy a bottle of dishwashing liquid you count on it holding the number of ounces the label says it does. All that and a thousand more benefits paid from the public treasury are fine and dandy.
But let me ask for affordable public transit or the chance to have my blood pressure checked when no doctor will accept an uninsured patient (even one with cash in hand), and you start screaming about Satan and counterfeits and picking your pocket.
Nice post, Geoff. And, especially, nice job of keeping your cool despite the barrage of outraged protest.
Comment by Ardis Parshall — October 18, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
Thanks Ardis. And amen to your comment!
Comment by Geoff J — October 18, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
I like the quote from Geo. Washington: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
D&C 134
1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.
2 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.
Socialism does not secure to me in an inviolate way the right and control of property. Capitalism is getting worse and worse in its present U.S. practice. Socialism presumes that Government “knows better” what to do with property than I do. It does not allow me free exercise of conscience on how I choose to spread my wealth. Present day U.S. tax law questions that also. Somewhere in the IRC is a provision that if an individual gives away more than a certain percent of his income, he is to be subject to investigation by auditors. etc, etc.
Spreading my wealth should be by my free exercise of conscience….not by confiscatory government fiat.
The assumption in the title of this post “…The Wealth” is that wealth is not a stewardship of any one individual. The wealth, versus My wealth, or Our wealth. It’s like the wealth is everybody’s wealth. For me, socialism is collective covetousness.
Comment by mondo cool — October 18, 2008 @ 6:02 pm
Geoff,
I find it amusing and somewhat perplexing to be referred to as “extremist” by an apparently open advocate of unrestrained government socialism.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — October 18, 2008 @ 6:03 pm
Mondo: Socialism does not secure to me in an inviolate way the right and control of property.
This is simply not true. As Ardis pointed out, we already have all kinds of socialism going on in America yet we citizens can own and control our property here.
Spreading my wealth should be by my free exercise of conscience….not by confiscatory government fiat.
You are free to spread your personal wealth all you want. And God wants us all to do so liberally. In our democratic society you are also free to vote for policies that better help the poor and all of our fellow citizens — even if such policies ask for a little more from our rich fellow citizens. These two approaches seem like they go hand in hand to me.
Comment by Geoff J — October 18, 2008 @ 6:11 pm
Jim,
Who around here advocates “unrestrained government socialism”? Does that person think you’re an extremist too? Maybe we are all on to something (especially in light of your opposition to public schools)…
Comment by Geoff J — October 18, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
You are free to spread your personal wealth all you want. And God wants us all to do so liberally. In our democratic society you are also free to vote for policies that better help the poor and all of our fellow citizens — even if such policies ask for a little more from our rich fellow citizens. These two approaches seem like they go hand in hand to me.
Sir, that is incorrect. The two approaches are diametrical opposites.
If you force me to give of my time and money to help the poor, I am deprived of the blessings that I would have received from having chosen to do so myself. I am also deprived of the freedom to choose how I would have done so, but instead have to trust that you know best.
All laws criminalize something, and punish the perpetrators of those acts using force. But socialist policies aren’t about punishing people for hurting others. Socialism makes “not being nice enough” a criminal act. It is literally an example of the devil’s plan put into practice, to force us to do the right thing.
The Law of Consecration is more like the Law of Chastity — it is a natural law that sharing according to God’s plan makes everyone happier, including the person who does it. The penalties for breaking the Law of Consecration are also natural — unhappiness in this life, and separation from God in the next. To the degree that we’re forced to abide by it, we’re also deprived of its blessings.
The problems that Socialism tries to address are real. But I don’t think it’s right to address the problems that way. I also think that it’s disingenious to take money away from the rich, when we’re the ones who gave it to them in the first place. Bill Gates and Sam Walton used questionable means to get ahead, and (especially in Gates’ case) the courts failed to stop them. But we also failed to stop buying from them.
Comment by Jared Spurbeck — October 18, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
Then, Jared, how about getting with the Lord’s program and abiding by the Law of Consecration by choice, and thereby becoming eligible for the blessings? It’s a real hoot to read all these comments saying, in effect, that selfishness, greed, and covetousness are the highest laws of heaven because asking anything else is a violation of agency.
Comment by Ardis Parshall — October 18, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
Jared Spurbeck,
I’m afraid your logic doesn’t hold up.
It is true that if your taxes are higher you may have less discretionary money to give to the poor. (I say “may” because if you are middle class or below you might benefit and actually have more discretionary money if programs I have heard proposed this election season worked right).
But let’s assume you make more than $250,000 per year and end up with higher taxes under the next president. If you voted for that president with the intent of helping the poor then the Lord knows your heart and will bless you for that. Plus you can still give of your discretionary funds to the poor so you won’t be deprived of any blessings there. Plus, as the story of the widow’s mite clearly illustrates, it is the intent that God looks at so if you give very generously of your own funds you will not be deprived of any blessings no matter how small that voluntary offering is. So there is zero chance of you losing blessings.
On the other hand, if you are looking at this from a consequentialist point of view you want the poor to be taken care of in the most effective way possible, by voting for policies that help the poor and middle class you will achieve you desired end of better helping the poor.
So voila! You can vote to help the poor and run zero risk of losing blessings. There is no downside and there is certainly no tension between your two goals of helping the poor while retaining the blessings of giving generously.
Comment by Geoff J — October 18, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
Ardis,
Surely there is some practical medium between one extreme and another.
My only real objection was the way the arguments were presented. Of course the scriptures advocate charity — but socialism is not the only way to support the poor, and many church leaders have counseled against the appeals of socialism, though it seems like an effective method for sharing wealth. Maybe I am an extremist for believing that church leaders have counseled us to adopt a better solution. If so, I accept that categorization — and I am not alone.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — October 18, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
Then, Jared, how about getting with the Lord’s program and abiding by the Law of Consecration by choice, and thereby becoming eligible for the blessings?
That is exactly what I advocate. Selfishness is wrong.
But let’s assume you make more than $250,000 per year and end up with higher taxes under the next president. If you voted for that president with the intent of helping the poor then the Lord knows your heart and will bless you for that.
I do not presume to speak about the election. But I do not believe that the Lord will bless you for using force to “consecrate” someone else’s money.
Many of the “rich” have done things that are wrong and illegal to make that money (I keep thinking of Bill Gates — or, worse, defense contractors). They should be punished. The money should be returned. But it’s also our fault for giving it to them.
It’s not right to take back the money we gave them when we already got something in return. We should stop giving it to them to begin with. And before we raid Warren Buffet’s portfolio, we should re-examine our own needs and wants, and give what we can to help out the poor.
Comment by Jared Spurbeck — October 18, 2008 @ 7:13 pm
Jared Spurbeck: But I do not believe that the Lord will bless you for using force to “consecrate” someone else’s money.
This may very well be true. But based on the consequentialist argument the end (having the poor cared for better) is still something the Lord clearly desires so he certainly wouldn’t look down on such a vote. And as I mentioned, there is zero risk of you losing blessings for personal consecration either so it is a no-lose proposition.
Comment by Geoff J — October 18, 2008 @ 7:17 pm
#62 - well put, Ardis. As a retired military officer I am benefiting from socialized medicine. For $460 per year (not per month), my wife and I qualify for full coverage - no deductible - and free prescriptions from the local base pharmacy ($5 per month if we go to our neighborhood supermarket). We use civilian doctors and facilities and are quite happy with the care we receive. My mother-in-law’s life has been significantly extended through 20 major surgeries, all covered under Medicare. My brother is dying of lung cancer, but hasn’t paid a penny for the quality care he’s received through the VA system under a recent innovation that allowed him to apply his employer’s Blue Cross premiums to VA care until he couldn’t work, and now provides 100% coverage for care provided mostly in his local civilian facilities.
Socialized medicine? For many of us, that train has already left the station.
Comment by J. Michael — October 18, 2008 @ 7:25 pm
Geoff J: This may very well be true. But based on the consequentialist argument the end (having the poor cared for better) is still something the Lord clearly desires so he certainly wouldn’t look down on such a vote. And as I mentioned, there is zero risk of you losing blessings for personal consecration either so it is a no-lose proposition.
That is incorrect, sir. “The end justifies the means” is not a doctrinally tenable position. It is, in fact, the position which Satan took when he proposed that exact plan.
And while I may not be robbing you of the opportunity to do all within your power to follow God’s plan, I may be reducing you to saying with the poor man that “I give not, because I have not.” You won’t be deprived of the blessings of salvation, but you will be deprived of the specific blessings you could have had from being able to touch others’ lives.
Comment by Jared Spurbeck — October 18, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
You are in an enviable position J. Michael.
I know a small business owner who gets to pay $500 per month to keep my family insured against catastrophic medical disasters. And that is just for the right to pay only the first $5000 per year in medical expenses. So he normally pays more than $10,000 per year in medical bills as a result. I have no idea why any “Joe the Plumber” small business owner would not be rushing to vote for the candidates that are pushing for a more socialized medical system.
Comment by Geoff J — October 18, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
Er … if I were to force you to give up your money, I mean, I may be reducing you to saying that. >.>
Let me be frank: I agree with all of socialism’s ends. I just don’t think that the ends justify the means. Insofar as we disagree on that point, we have reached an impasse.
Comment by Jared Spurbeck — October 18, 2008 @ 7:41 pm
Jared: “The end justifies the means” is not a doctrinally tenable position. It is, in fact, the position which Satan took when he proposed that exact plan.
You are incorrect sir. See the story of Nephi and Laban (you know — when God tells Nephi to behead the helpless drunk guy passed out in front of him…). God uses “the end justifies the means” approaches all throughout scripture.
may be reducing you to saying with the poor man that “I give not, because I have not.”
How on earth would that happen? If you made $250,000 a year and had a small increase of your taxes you would not suddenly become poor. The is a ludicrous argument.
but you will be deprived of the specific blessings you could have had from being able to touch others’ lives.
This statement is completely contra-scriptural. By your logic the widow who gave her mite is deprived of all kinds of blessings because she only had a mite to give rather than a bag of gold.
Comment by Geoff J — October 18, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
Regarding #77 — I can accept that. With the caveat that I am defining socialism just like Ardis defines it in #62 so I think it is mostly an incoherent or at least uniformed argument for Americans to claim they don’t believe in socialism since we have plenty of socialistic policies that are basically undisputed by even the most ardent free market folks in the US.
Comment by Geoff J — October 18, 2008 @ 7:43 pm
See the story of Nephi and Laban (you know — when God tell Nephi to behead the helpless drunk guy passed out in front of him…). God uses “the end justifies the means” approaches all throughout scripture.
I think I agree with you there. That was definitely a place where God was forced to instruct someone to choose the lesser of two evils. I can see the logic behind choosing to rob someone (an evil act) versus letting people starve (also evil).
I still think that socialism is disingenious, though, because the money we’re talking about appropriating is money we gave to them in the first place. If we think that rich people have too much money, if we think Walmart’s being unfair to suppliers, if we know that large corporations are using child labor and slaves, shouldn’t we stop buying from them? A lot of our problems with greedy rich people would go away, if we as individuals took responsibility for what we did with our money.
There’s also the problem of unintended consequences. A socialist bureaucracy may ostensibly exist for the purpose of helping other people, but it’s still a government bureaucracy that is not directly accountable to the people. Even if we all took an active interest in government, and watched out for abuse and corruption, it’d still be a lot less responsive than an organization that had to ask people instead of congresspeople for money.
Comment by Jared Spurbeck — October 18, 2008 @ 8:01 pm
Geoff J: By your logic the widow who gave her mite is deprived of all kinds of blessings because she only had a mite to give rather than a bag of gold.
She would have been deprived of those blessings if I’d taken her mite, instead of letting her donate it. ^.^
Comment by Jared Spurbeck — October 18, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
Jared: we’re talking about appropriating is money we gave to them in the first place
You lost me with this comment. All we’re really talking about in America this election season is a graduated tax code — something that has already been in place for a long time in the US. And from there the plans are to do things like help more people afford health care.
if I’d taken her mite, instead of letting her donate it. ^.^
I know you are kidding with this but I will point out that in a more socialist society she wouldn’t have been destitute to begin with so she would have had plenty to charitably donate…
Comment by Geoff J — October 18, 2008 @ 8:14 pm
Geoff J: You lost me with this comment. All we’re really talking about in America this election season is a graduated tax code — something that has already been in place for a long time in the US. And from there the plans are to do things like help more people afford health care.
You’re talking about the election. I’m talking about your original post, which said “You’re all in favor of helping the poor, so you shouldn’t be against socialism.” Although it used a lot more words than that. ^.^
And I still agree with those goals. No one should be left un-cared for. And people with lots of disposable income should recognize that there are others who don’t have enough. But they have that disposable income because we gave it to them, because we just had to have that iPod and all those goods at the “Everyday Low Prices.” Then after we buy from them, we vote to take money away from them and give it away to the poor … using a complex bureaucracy that’s not accountable directly to the people.
Wouldn’t it be a better if we didn’t buy from them in the first place? How about looking into Fair Trade, Ethical Consumerism, or any of a number of charities? How about giving up luxuries, in order to buy what we need from people who don’t have to slave in order to make it? Let’s start talking about what we can do, before we talk about storming Wall Street with pitchforks. Let’s starve them to death, instead of feeding them with one hand and taking their wallet with the other. Because that’s what any socialist policy amounts to … including the ones you just mentioned.
I actually wrote an article about this, and it has a few useful suggestions if you’d like to know more about what you can do to help! You can read it here: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1014520/the_one_campaign_how_you_can_help_make.html
Comment by Jared Spurbeck — October 18, 2008 @ 8:32 pm
Geoff J: I know you are kidding with this but I will point out that in a more socialist society she wouldn’t have been destitute to begin with so she would have had plenty to charitably donate…
So what you’re saying, then, is that you would have given her my money so that she could donate it. Well, that makes perfect sense. ^.^
Comment by Jared Spurbeck — October 18, 2008 @ 8:33 pm
Geoff:
Well, back to the Wiki definition of socialism you used: “an economic theory of social organization advocating social or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.”
For me the most important word is “egalitarian” which I understand to mean “asserting, resulting from, or characterized by belief in the equality of all people, esp. in political, economic, or social life.”
So, for socialists the belief in the equality of all people is the summum bonum. When Satan said: “…I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it…,” was he not making an egalitarian proposal for salvation?
The Son’s focus was “Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.” For Him, the highest good was doing the Father’s will; i.e., what is good and what is evil.
Having no poor among the citizens of Enoch’s Zion was a result of them having one heart and one mind and dwelling in righteousness. Please explain to me how one group of people (even a majority) can bring another group into a state of “one heart and one mind” by using the power of the ballot and the resulting enforcement power of the state to “have no poor among them.”
If I want to take your paycheck because you really don’t work as hard as someone else who gets paid less, or if I think you really don’t need that car, or watch, or 3rd computer, am I not being covetous?
Someone please explain to me how a bunch of people together wanting and thinking the same thing is not collective covetousness? Socialism is collective selfishness, greed, and covetousness.
“Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me. And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you? And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.”
After all, didn’t the first brother have an egalitarian view of inheritance? Obviously, the deceased father was not being fair by giving one brother more than the other. Wouldn’t it have been better if the father had spread the wealth around?
Comment by mondo cool — October 18, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
And, didn’t Laban already steal Nephi’s property and threaten to beat them & have them arrested - falsely accusing them of being robbers? I’m fairly confident that Laban was worthy of death under the law of the land at that time - a law given by the same one who told Nephi to slay him.
I don’t think the means/end argument works in this illustration.
Comment by mondo cool — October 18, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
God is not asking us to spread the wealth like socialists do. They take it by force of law. Under socialistic thought, the “rich” that Robin Hood took from could and should consider themselves as charitible givers, helping the poor and all. In this election, and way too many in the past, we haven’t just “asked” the rich to give a little more. We’ve demanded it by force of law.
God, on the other hand, wants us to freely give out of genuine love and concern for our fellow beings.
Just not the same.
Comment by mondo cool — October 18, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
mondo cool @86: And, didn’t Laban already steal Nephi’s property and threaten to beat them & have them arrested - falsely accusing them of being robbers? I’m fairly confident that Laban was worthy of death under the law of the land at that time - a law given by the same one who told Nephi to slay him.
In all fairness to Geoff, I’m not sure that attempted murder is worthy of the death penalty.
mondo cool @87: In this election, and way too many in the past, we haven’t just “asked” the rich to give a little more. We’ve demanded it by force of law.
At the same time, though, the people on the “other” side keep voting for candidates who say that they support hot-button social issues (abortion, gay marriage) to get elected, and then use the power of government to rob from the poor and give to the rich. ^.^
I still think that socialism is bad, but corporate socialism is really low.
Comment by Jared Spurbeck — October 18, 2008 @ 9:33 pm
Jared,
I agree with your point that we should dial back our consumerism. And I emphatically agree with your comment about our policies and politicians that have allowed the rich to rob the majority this decade.
Comment by Geoff J — October 18, 2008 @ 9:43 pm
“use the power of government to rob from the poor and give to the rich”
That is one of the most ridiculously unfounded generalizations I have ever heard. Evidence please.
Comment by Mark D. — October 18, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
Jim #49 - You said “that socialism is a coercive political system, while the united order is intended to be voluntary, and works by individual cooperation, allowing agency to be preserved.”
I think this has allready been addressed, regarding the fact that most (if not all) political systems are by their very nature coercive. Our government, at every point from 1776 forward has been coercive at least to some degree.
Another anecode from my family tree. My great-great grandfather, who joined the church in Canada, marched in the Mormon Battalion, etc, started many towns, including the Muddy Mission in Nevada. At one point he was in Sunrise Az, which was a United Order town. This particular community was run essentially as a commune. All meals were prepared in common and eaten at a large table together. As this was to be a Zion Society, One of the commandments was that there was to be no complaining or grumbling. The penalty of such was some sort of corporal punishment or denial of food. As the meals were cooked in large batches they would be somewhat inconsistent in quality. at one particular meal, my great-great grandfather was presented with a particularly unedidble biscuit, and commented that the biscuits were burned again, and then raw in the middle. Lest he risk punishment, he quickly added “just the way I like them”.
I think the story might be apocryphal, but it illustrates that even the United Order wasn’t completely voluntary (yes yes I know it will be said that this is the reason we abandoned the system).
I agree with Geoff that our doctrine prevents us from denying a “redistribution of wealth”. You may deny that the United States Government is the appropriate agent to administer this, but you can’t deny that this is the principle we covenant to as members of the church. Thus, if you vote for the one who has promised to cut taxes for the wealthy, and you are wealthy, you should take that savings and give it to the poor and needy. The presiding bishopric, church educational plan or humanitarian fund would all be worthwhile donations.
Comment by jay s — October 18, 2008 @ 9:58 pm
Mondo: When Satan said: “…I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it…,” was he not making an egalitarian proposal for salvation?
Did you even read the post? There are very specific scriptures there that disagree with your arguments here. You are free to disregard the scriptures if you want but don’t expect me to ignore it when you try to spin them away like this.
If I want to take your paycheck because you really don’t work as hard as someone else who gets paid less, or if I think you really don’t need that car, or watch, or 3rd computer, am I not being covetous?
Oh I love this. Now you’re equating the size of paychecks to the amount of effort put in. I heard just today that as recently as 30 years ago that CEOs of large corporations made something like 25 times the average salary of their employees. Today CEOs of those large corporations reportedly are making 500 times the salary of their average employee. Do you think those CEOs work 25 times harder than their employees? Do they work 500 times harder? Your arguments connected with working harder are just silly.
Now if you think it is wrong for Americans to ask those CEOs to pay higher taxes then by all means vote to protect them from tax increases. Lap up the lines the politicians feed you that raising the taxes of those people is evil “sharing of the wealth” that is somehow deeply unfair and inspired by Satan himself if you choose.
But there is no question that our scriptures indicate that the idea of sharing the wealth itself is a highly desirable to God.
Last, Zion of the scriptures is the most egalitarian of all societies. If you wish to vote against any semblance of Zion (even if it is only a counterfeit of the real thing) that is your right. Thankfully, if the majority of Americans vote for a society that more closely resembles Zion in one way at least we are all bound as citizens to follow the will of the people on such matters.
Comment by Geoff J — October 18, 2008 @ 10:03 pm
And I agree w/ #88 & #89.
Good night, all.
Comment by mondo cool — October 18, 2008 @ 10:04 pm
All political government is coercive by definition. If it weren’t coercive it wouldn’t be government. The primary function of government is to hold a monopoly on the use of force.
Re: “robbing the poor”. The poor do not pay federal taxes, so it is pretty hard to rob them that way. I will concede that some government programs - agricultural subsidies for example - “rob” the middle class in a way that benefits primarily the wealthy. However, support for such corporate welfare is - surprise - stronger on the left side of the aisle.
Comment by Mark D. — October 18, 2008 @ 10:08 pm
Mark,
This is a bit off topic for this thread but since you brought it up…
The charge that is most defensible is not really that the government robbed the poor and middle class. Rather the idea is that the government of the current decade, at the behest of uber-rich bankers and whatnot, deregulated to such a degree that the biggest ponzi scheme of all time was foisted upon the middle class by the fat cats on Wall Street. So while the uber-rich at the banks and oil companies etc made out like bandits with this deregulated “shadow market” thing on Wall Street, when this great ponzi scheme collapsed the poor and middle class were left holding the bag. What our government is guilty of is deregulating at the behest of banking lobbyists (senator Phil Gramm as the lead dog on that one) and then standing by as America got fleeced. So while the government didn’t rob the poor — they let the robbers in the house and didn’t protect us from them.
Of course the massive problem with our current government is that it is already socialistic for large uber-rich corporations in that we socialized their risk. The problem is that we privatized their profits so it is the worst of all systems for the majority of us.
Comment by Geoff J — October 18, 2008 @ 10:36 pm
I agree that there are very real issues about the nature and extent of government financial regulation. What I object to is the suggestion that those on the right deregulated for the purpose of grinding upon the faces of the poor.
Whatever the merits of the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, it passed the House on a roll call vote of 377 to 4(!). The idea that the bill was designed to allow the rich to exploit the poor is preposterous.
Comment by Mark D. — October 18, 2008 @ 10:53 pm
Your point is well taken Mark. The watchmen in our government let the wolves in by deregulating credit default swaps with that one (plus opening the door for the Enron fiasco) but it wasn’t on purpose and neither party prevented it.
Comment by Geoff J — October 18, 2008 @ 11:36 pm
Isn’t the current funding of the missionary program a model of the type of socialism you’re proposing? As I understand it, don’t all missionaries pay the same amount regardless of which mission he or she is sent? Thus, a missionary in Mexico is paying more than he or she otherwise would and that extra money is used to subsidize a missionary in an expensive mission like Japan or Western Europe or the Eastern US. This communal approach seems to work pretty well. Brother Clark must be spinning in his grave.
Comment by rbc — October 19, 2008 @ 4:43 am
rbc @98: Isn’t the current funding of the missionary program a model of the type of socialism you’re proposing?
Noes. Church welfare programs are voluntary.
jay s @91: At one point he was in Sunrise Az, which was a United Order town.
I was under the impression that the United Order was abandoned as an idea while Joseph Smith was still alive, and that it was non-coercive in nature. When you say that it was a “United Order” town, do you mean that in the same sense that certain places in Utah today are polygamist societies — i.e. without official sanction?
geoff j @89: I agree with your point that we should dial back our consumerism. And I emphatically agree with your comment about our policies and politicians that have allowed the rich to rob the majority this decade.
*bow*
Comment by Jared Spurbeck — October 19, 2008 @ 5:06 am
My goodness, Jared, you aren’t familiar with the United Order experiment under Brigham Young? See any standard history of the Church for general background, or see Leonard J. Arrington, Feramorz Y. Vox and Dean L. May, Building the City of God: Community & Cooperation among the Mormons, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976, for specifics.
Familiarity with the United Order experiment should be a prerequisite for commenting in any discussion of Mormonism and economics.
Comment by Ardis Parshall — October 19, 2008 @ 5:34 am
Jared,
The spread the wealth program among Mormon missionaries isn’t really voluntary in the way you imply. If you wish to be a missionary you are compelled to participate in the missionary “spread the wealth” program where families with missionaries in cheap places subsidize families with missionaries in expensive places. So rbc is right.
Comment by Geoff J — October 19, 2008 @ 7:48 am
41:
55:
Exactly. What we have in the US is a form of de facto socialized medicine–one that is at turns unfair and grossly inefficient.
Against this backdrop, what speaks against a rationalized system in which all contribute and get what they need in return?
Comment by Peter LLC — October 19, 2008 @ 10:38 am
Peter LLC @102:
You make it sound like it’d be voluntary, like in Church welfare. When the government’s doing it, it isn’t voluntary anymore. ^.^;
How efficient is Church welfare compared to any government program? Or volunteer labor and offerings in general, compared to government bureaucracy? Shouldn’t we be trying to come up with ways we can help — and then doing them — instead of rationalizing the use of force to make others help?
Comment by Jared Spurbeck — October 19, 2008 @ 11:11 am
Jared,
You are missing Peter LLC’s point. He is saying that we are all paying for the current inefficient socialized medicine program in the US already through our taxes. The idea is that openly providing socialized health care would be less expensive and more efficient than the de facto socialized medical system we are currently saddled with.
Also, it is worth noting that ongoing citizenship in the US is voluntary — just like ongoing membership in the church is voluntary. In a democracy like ours all citizens are obligated to follow the laws the majority agree to, including tax laws, if they wish to enjoy the full benefits of membership. The very same principle is true of the church with tithing (at least) being obligatory for people who wish to enjoy the full benefits of membership. So the comparison between to two has merit.
Comment by Geoff J — October 19, 2008 @ 11:32 am
Geoff J @104:
I’m not going to argue that!
You haven’t read Arudou Debito’s blog, where he talked about how crazy hard it is to renounce one’s US citizenship and stop paying taxes to the federal government. ^.^
Seriously, though, the church doesn’t send the police after us to get us to pay our tithing. That’s where things differ — living in the country may be optional, but obeying the laws is mandatory! You’re talking about using force, here, and that’s the biggest problem I have with it.
Aside from that, though, there are a lot of practical considerations. Like one I just thought of: If the rich are making their money off of child slave labor in Africa, sweatshop conditions in China, environmental exploitation and all-around not-niceness, then isn’t it blood money you’re talking about taking, here? Worse, you’re making a self-perpetuating government bureaucracy that lives off of human blood, taking the ill-gotten gains of the rich and giving them to American citizens.
Who’s standing up for the rights of the exploited workers, animals and whole ecosystems? It’s not going to be the bureaucrats whose jobs depend on it! And it’s sure as heck not going to be the congressmen, whose re-election depends on promising a bigger share of the fat cats’ pie to Americans, and helping us forget the human costs that are involved.
How can we possibly justify that? Why aren’t we stopping the problem at its source, instead of just making things worse?
Comment by Jared Spurbeck — October 19, 2008 @ 11:44 am
“citizenship in the US is voluntary — just like ongoing membership in the church is voluntary”
That does not follow. Non-citizens are required to follow the laws of the jurisdiction where they reside. Leaving the Church does not require you to move to a new country and join another church with similar rules.
“I just don’t believe in government anymore, so I have decided to go inactive.” I don’t think so.
Comment by Mark D. — October 19, 2008 @ 11:58 am
Jared,
The problems connected with our world economy in general are interesting but they are way off topic in this thread. So back to the topic at hand — the scriptures are clear about God’s desire for people to spread the wealth on earth. You, like all Americans, are free to vote however you wish in the upcoming election. If you don’t like the “For of him unto whom much is given much is required” approach to taxation and social policies then by all means vote against them.
Comment by Geoff J — October 19, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
Mark,
What doesn’t follow? You quoted two true but independent statements that I made. There was no “therefore” in that quote.
Comment by Geoff J — October 19, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
There are two ways to accomplish the same objective here - one coercive and one non-coercive. People in favor of the coercive approach inevitability cite the advantages of the comphrensive coverage of such requirements.
Suppose we take a few examples. We have a commandment to abstain from alcohol and tobacco. Does that mean we should reinstate the Prohibition?
What about the commandment not to commit adultery? Should we enact and enforce anti-adultery and fornication laws? Should pornography be made illegal? What about gambling? Should all shops be required to close on the Sabbath?
Surely such a society would more closely resemble Zion than the one we have now.
Comment by Mark D. — October 19, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
I should have quoted further:
“Also, it is worth noting that ongoing citizenship in the US is voluntary — just like ongoing membership in the church is voluntary. In a democracy like ours all citizens are obligated to follow the laws the majority agree to, including tax laws, if they wish to enjoy the full benefits of membership.”
The fallacy is that you are implying that non-citizens are not obligated to follow the laws where they reside. In addition you imply that non-compliance is simply a matter of losing “benefits” - where the reality is non-compliance will result in severe civil and criminal penalties ranging from seizure of property to prison terms.
Comment by Mark D. — October 19, 2008 @ 12:26 pm
I should not have responded to that tangent to begin with Mark — it is both off topic and totally boring so forgive me for even going in that direction.
Comment by Geoff J — October 19, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
Mark: There are two ways to accomplish the same objective here - one coercive and one non-coercive.
This is true with economic issues as well as social/moral issues like abortion. Both the right and left have their preferences on what they believe should be open to choice and what should be coerced by law. That is partially why I said in comment #8 “It seems to me that based on the scriptures Mormons should be conservatives on social/moral issues and liberals on economic issues.”
Comment by Geoff J — October 19, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
There is a big difference between laws that prohibit activities and laws that mandate activities. The former are usually an occasional irritation where the latter are necessarily an omnipresent burden. Death and taxes are the certainties of life, not death and prohibition.
Comment by Mark D. — October 19, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
Well I agree that there is a difference Mark, but I’m not convinced it is a big difference.
Plus it is largely a matter of perspective as to whether laws prohibit activities or mandate activities. One could argue that tax laws prohibit citizens from spending all of the wages they earn or that such laws mandate a portion of wages be given to the public till. Likewise hypothetical anti-abortion laws could be seen as prohibiting abortions or as mandating that women carry pregnancies to term whether they want to or not.
We as citizens largely get to decide what activities we should prohibit/mandate in our society.
Comment by Geoff J — October 19, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
What we have, in the case of US government programs of wealth redistribution are programs that are not based on sound principles, but shaped by what will be politically advantageous or expedient for the supporters; run by administrators paid from the same source as the (only partly voluntary) contributions; and supervised by a Congress of dubious integrity and a reputation for financial irresponsibility.
Is this how we are to build up Zion? Especially considering D&C 105:5, I remain entirely unconvinced that the scriptures quoted in the original post are an endorsement of socialism.
Comment by Confutus — October 19, 2008 @ 4:33 pm
The ideals of the two clearly match to a large degree, but that doesn’t mean that the actual implementation to date has lived up to the ideals.
Comment by Geoff J — October 19, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
I feel like the majority of Americans–say the poorest 90%–are ganging up on the minority–the richest 10%–and saying, “There are more of us than there are of you, so we’ll vote on it and we’ll take your money.” It seems immoral to disrespect the rights of the minority like that.
Comment by rd — October 19, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
Geoff: I don’t believe that the scriptures are addressing any kind of government program — full stop and end of discussion. It is beyond ludicrous to suggest that the coercive force of government to take money that is not freely given is somehow like the United Order which is based on covenants freely entered.
Further, I reject your basic premise that capitalism centers capital in only a few. In fact, every dollar that goes to a wealthy individual gets returned to the economy as an investment _- those who have it don’t let it sit around but reinvest it. The multiplier effect of money means that every dollar someone of means puts into the economy in terms of hiring labor or investing in new ventures gets greatly multiplied. On the other hand, if the money goes to someone who cannot afford to spend it then it has no effect.
That is precisely why the last Bush gimmick to give a tax break to those who couldn’t reinvest did absolutely nothing to boost the economy.
The socialism now suggested by the DNC and Obama is simply bad math and bad economics. Capitalism would never have put the US and world in the mess that it is in. The real culprit is the government interference in the market forces to insure “affordable housing” even for those who could not afford it. If the free market had been allowed to govern housing loans, then the real risk of giving loans would have been reflected and the loans would not have been made to those who could not afford to pay back what was borrowed. It took the Clinton administration and government interference by Freddie and Fannie to upset the markets so that loans didn’t reflect the actual risk. Throw in the Clinton administration’s move to upset the markets with securities backed by real estate and you have a real mess — as we now see in living color. To fix the problem of big government screwing up the markets, we now get the solution in even bigger government to the tune of $800,000,000,000! Yep, socialists screw up markets with big government and then claim that we need even bigger government to solve their screw-ups. Socialism is a disaster. There is a reason that Sweden has now twice bailed out its massive bank failures and has one of the lowest productivity rates in the civilized world.
Further, it is a lie the richest are not pulling their weight in terms of taxes. The richest 5% of the population pay 83.8% of all the taxes. Why should they have to pay more to support this monstrosity of a federal government than others? Yeah, I know — there are are of us than them as rd says. Throw in taxation at the federal, state, county, city and special service district and school district levels, together with the tangle of fees and charges and surcharges and bonds, and it is no wonder that our economy is dying. There are three working in the private sector for every government employee. Our government is out of control — and the moron Americans are about to make the biggest mistake in the history of the American economy (as if the Clinton and Bush administrations with their record tax hikes and spending didn’t screw it up enough). Like it or not, the Constitution didn’t contemplate taxing the hell out of citizens to support a Behemoth from the depths of the abyss.
Comment by Blake — October 19, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
rd: the majority of Americans–say the poorest 90%–are ganging up on the minority
Welcome to democracy baby!
It seems immoral to disrespect the rights of the minority like that.
Well then you ought to vote to protect the richest 10% of Americans from taxes my friend. I can recommend a party that seems interested in such a policy if you’d like…
Comment by Geoff J — October 19, 2008 @ 7:44 pm
Blake: I don’t believe that the scriptures are addressing any kind of government program
I agree. But there are certainly political philosophies that are more aligned in principle with the scriptures than others.
full stop and end of discussion
Well it was nice hearing from you again.
Further, I reject your basic premise that capitalism centers capital in only a few.
Wait — I thought you said this discussion is over. Well I’m glad you’re back.
I am a fan of capitalism too. I simply think it must be tempered with sufficient regulation and social programs to keep the natural voracious greed of humankind sufficiently in check. I like our overall system of government and policy in America where we mix capitalism with various socialistic programs. This post was large motivated by the ludicrous comments I have been hearing from the GOP this election season acting as if “spreading the wealth” is some evil thing regardless of the degree to which it is utilized.
The real culprit is the government interference in the market forces to insure “affordable housing” even for those who could not afford it.
That certainly contributed. But the thing that really caused this crash was the deregulation of credit default swaps back in December of 2000. That deregulation as written by banking lawyers and championed by GOP senator Phil Gramm was the most important destabilizing factor in a slew of other factors that got us here.
But as someone who has been connected to the mortgage industry for a few years now I can assure you that the majority of sub-prime loans had nothing to do whatsoever with Fannie and Freddie. They were rather funded by upstart companies who realized that this great ponzi scheme created by deregulation of credit default swaps had also created a voracious demand for mortgages no matter how ridiculous they were. In fact loans backed by Fannie and Freddie were never even called sub-prime. They were instead referred to as “Alt-A” loans and they were harder to qualify for than true sub-prime loans.
The richest 5% of the population pay 83.8% of all the taxes.
This is not very impressive if the richest 5% make 95% of the money…
Seems to me that we have a major problem with capitalism mostly benefiting the richest among us while the rest of us are called in to bail them out when their giant deregulated ponzi scheme came crashing down. As they say, we’ve privatized profits but left losses socialized. Only the very few win in such a system while all the rest of us lose.
Comment by Geoff J — October 19, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
Someone needs to read/hear Marion G. Romney’s “Socialism and the United Order”.
They are not the same things.
http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=480
Comment by pedro — October 19, 2008 @ 8:15 pm
And someone needs to read the thread before bringing up a point that has been addressed multiple times already.
Comment by Geoff J — October 19, 2008 @ 8:17 pm
Amen to Blake @ 118.
Just for the record, I abhor the tax policies of both the Dems and the GOP. (There are many more issues I disagree on with the both of them.)
I support the FAIR tax idea as the most equitable. (Not meant to be a threadjack.)
Geoff J @ 119: Welcome to democracy baby!
I interpret this statement as “It is more important to be fair than to be right.” How far is the trip from democracy to mobacracy?
Comment by mondo cool — October 19, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
Actually Geoff, I’d say that the number one contributor to the present crisis is greedy loan officers who pushed loans to get fees at many levels. However, what you call de-regulation wasn’t — it was the creation of a new type of futures commodity that removed the underwriter of a loan from the risk-taking in giving the loan.
No coercive government programs are more in alignment with a free decision to enter into covenants. The United Order doesn’t take money for ear-marks and waste and multiple levels of government.
Further, you just ignore the multiplier effect of investment. Taking money from the rich to give to the poor not only gets government involved where it has no business being involved, but it wrecks the economy. I just don’t see it as a legitimate role for government to take from the rich and give to the poor and if that is what democracy means to you, then democracy is surely doomed to economic failure.
However, I don’t disagree that the bailout (a socialist program if ever there was one) is a bad idea. It does in fact reward incompetence and greed and shields those responsible from accountability at the expense of the rest of the population — instead it isn’t really the rest, it is really just the richest 5% that are p