Consecration is about helping and giving

First we have to understand that this church is a “do it yourself church” and that applies to all the commandments. including spreading the wealth. Of course we should live a socialist way and teach that to our children because that is one of the basic principles of christianity. Now we can only do it in the scale of our free agency we cannot make others think that way.

europe is tired of capitalism because the most part of the population here discards God/Christ in the first place. So not having principles that can heal us from greed people simple aspect governments to act as the legislators for making the whole group satisfied.

If you know a bit of history from the old continent you will understand what governmental socialism did in both Fascism and Communism fronts. Both of this types of Government can never be in place again. we cannot repeat what happened.

Now we cannot let the capitalism also lose the plot in the since that all of the world security its jeopardized. and How can we cure this?????? by being true Christians and teach others to live as such. We can only try.

What other industrialized country in the world would force people into bankruptcy before helping with medical care. Can we say homeless? So vote for tax cuts that will solve all of our problems.

Here’s hoping for someone with an idea that works stepping up and leading before we get bled dry. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

I wrote a post in response to the generally lame argument you and others keep leaning on. See it here.

The biggest difference is that attending BYU is a freely made choice. Citizenship, for most of us, is not a freely made choice. We are born into it. So for a person who doesn’t want to pay taxes the options are 1) pay, 2) not pay and go to jail, or 3) leave the country of your birth for some (non-existent, to my knowledge) place where there are no taxes. For most citizens, relocating has many huge costs, financial and otherwise. So we’re still left with a coercive situation. The fact that one may submit happily and willingly to taxes doesn’t make them non-coercive. As long as there are people who want to pay no taxes or less taxes, taxation will be coercive.

Darin & Geoff: You just don’t get it. Not all laws are coercive. Some are permissive — like the law that allows us to park on city streets during certain hours. Further, the issue isn’t whether we should have coercive laws, but whether we should avoid coercion by passing laws that coerce. Further, the economic plan of those who want to steal from the rich to give to the poor instead of hiring them is coercive. The question is: do we want government to engage in (more) of this type of coercion rather than less?

Those who prefer the Obama approach to wealth redistribution prefer to have many laws and humongous government programs to insure that everyone gets taken care of. They want a massive socialist medical insurance program, a massive tax increase on those who provide the wealth to pay for the massive government to provide this redistribution. The problem, as we see with the last Bush “stimulus” program, is that such programs have no effect except to make money cheaper and depress our markets because investment capital was sucked out the economy.

You assert that all laws are a matter of democratic process. False again. Many basic constitutional laws protect against the oppression of the masses. Further, the very issue is whether we can persuade folks that we ought to avoid the coercive effect of passing laws that require taxpayers to pay more, have more government programs that dictate how we live rather than let them choose how they will spend their own money and live their lives. You have assumed that since all laws are coercive that any democratically passed government program is just fine. Well, That is just a false assumption. I choose to be freer rather than more coerced.

Anything explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by the government needs to be regulated because to do otherwise creates a serious moral hazard where financial institutions take on excessive risks, relying on the government to satisfy the obligation to their depositors and creditors should anything go seriously wrong.

Sensible regulations, such as requiring writers of risky financial instruments (such as credit default swaps) to carry appropriate collateral or trade on a proper exchange are not exactly conservative heresy.

The type of financial regulations conservatives are opposed to include when government requires or encourages financial institutions to participate on in dubious transactions in the name of social policy.

The Fed is supposed to ensure banks are sound. However, since a poorly implemented Boston Fed study in 1992, in the name of remedying (largely non-existent) racial discrimination it has encouraged a lowering in lending standards for everybody. HUD cheered them on, in both the Clinton and Bush administrations. President Bush in particular publically favored lowering downpayment requirements.

If the government wants to increase the percentage of people who own homes, the responsible way to do that is to give them money for a down payment. Diluting or ignoring the long standing principles of sound financial regulation is a prescription for disaster.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that a “libertarian” central banking policy is an virtual oxymoron. Libertarians are the number one opponents of central banks. Any libertarian true to his principles that became the head of the Fed would use his influence to maintain price stability and the soundness of our currency, rather than trying to print our way out of minor recessions.

Greenspan’s easy money policies (1% interest rates?) over the last decade are conservative and libertarian anathema. Traditionally it is the left-liberals who are the inflationists. It is worth noting in this context that Germany, Canada, France, Australia, and the U.K. all have more conservative monetary policies than the United States.

The same applies to living and working in the US. If one plans to make money is the US one is coerced to contribute taxes. But no one is coerced to live and work in the US. So is it really a coercive situation?

I suppose it is a little bit of both. No one is coerced to belong to the group but once one freely joins the group there are enforceable (coercive) regulations associated with participation.