Brigham & his 12 Apostles' letter about economic threats to liberty

[KMCopeland]

-- You failed to address the actual contention that the progressive politicians you named are hypocrites.

That's actually the first thing I did. Check again.

All you did is try and misdirect. The fact that there are also wealthy CEO's is irrelevant to the point that was made.

Misdirect? That's a thing? I guess it is. Because when you put the wealth of the 1% on the same par as the net worth of Elizabeth Warren etc, I think that's what might be considered "misdirecting." Since there's absolutely no comparison between them.

-- When Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Barack Obama distribute their current and future $$$ to the poor I might start listening to them and think they are genuine. As long as they continue to advocate distributing other peoples $$$ while holding on to their own I'll call them what they are.. hypocrites.

Ah. So you earn the right to object to a grossly unfair playing field which shuts out far too many of your fellow citizens by divesting yourself of everything you own. Makes perfect sense. To you maybe. To few others.

You can listen to whoever you want to. You can place sniffy little conditions on bestowing your approval on the aforementioned people. I think they'll live if they don't have your approval. In fact I'm sure they will.

It is perfectly ridiculous to suggest that anyone with a comfortable living has no right to object to poverty, has no right to work to make things more fair for everybody, or to speak out against a tax code that rigs the system in favor of a handful of people at the expense of everybody else.

The people we're discussing are in a position to actually change this. In a way that might actually help somebody, which them making sure they're as poor as the people they're trying to help wouldn't do. It's an idiotic suggestion.

Once again, you are fighting a straw man of your own creation.

"Straw man of your own creation" is redundant. Not to mention that, although accusing someone of using the straw man fallacy is one of your favorite things to do, the thing you're calling a straw man almost never is. Like now.

I have suggested none of the things you are arguing against. I simply stated that the people you referenced were hypocrites. Which they are.

And you support them in their hypocrisy while railing against others. Guess what that makes you?

The winner?

[Serragon]

-- You failed to address the actual contention that the progressive politicians you named are hypocrites.

That's actually the first thing I did. Check again.

All you did is try and misdirect. The fact that there are also wealthy CEO's is irrelevant to the point that was made.

Misdirect? That's a thing? I guess it is. Because when you put the wealth of the 1% on the same par as the net worth of Elizabeth Warren etc, I think that's what might be considered "misdirecting." Since there's absolutely no comparison between them.

-- When Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Barack Obama distribute their current and future $$$ to the poor I might start listening to them and think they are genuine. As long as they continue to advocate distributing other peoples $$$ while holding on to their own I'll call them what they are.. hypocrites.

Ah. So you earn the right to object to a grossly unfair playing field which shuts out far too many of your fellow citizens by divesting yourself of everything you own. Makes perfect sense. To you maybe. To few others.

You can listen to whoever you want to. You can place sniffy little conditions on bestowing your approval on the aforementioned people. I think they'll live if they don't have your approval. In fact I'm sure they will.

It is perfectly ridiculous to suggest that anyone with a comfortable living has no right to object to poverty, has no right to work to make things more fair for everybody, or to speak out against a tax code that rigs the system in favor of a handful of people at the expense of everybody else.

The people we're discussing are in a position to actually change this. In a way that might actually help somebody, which them making sure they're as poor as the people they're trying to help wouldn't do. It's an idiotic suggestion.

Once again, you are fighting a straw man of your own creation.

"Straw man of your own creation" is redundant. Not to mention that, although accusing someone of using the straw man fallacy is one of your favorite things to do, the thing you're calling a straw man almost never is. Like now.

I have suggested none of the things you are arguing against. I simply stated that the people you referenced were hypocrites. Which they are.

And you support them in their hypocrisy while railing against others. Guess what that makes you?

The winner?

Keep beating your chest. It just allows your hypocrisy to shine for all to see.

Obama, Warren, and Sanders are all trying to force others to live in a way they are not choosing for themselves and you support and defend those hypocrites.

[KMCopeland]

The people we're discussing are in a position to actually change this. In a way that might actually help somebody, which them making sure they're as poor as the people they're trying to help wouldn't do. It's an idiotic suggestion.

Once again, you are fighting a straw man of your own creation.

"Straw man of your own creation" is redundant. Not to mention that, although accusing someone of using the straw man fallacy is one of your favorite things to do, the thing you're calling a straw man almost never is. Like now.

I have suggested none of the things you are arguing against. I simply stated that the people you referenced were hypocrites. Which they are.

And you support them in their hypocrisy while railing against others. Guess what that makes you?

The winner?

Keep beating your chest. It just allows your hypocrisy to shine for all to see.

That must be it.

Obama, Warren, and Sanders are all trying to force others to live in a way they are not choosing for themselves and you support and defend those hypocrites.

Oh for heavens sake. They aren't trying to force anybody to do anything least of all you. They are trying to produce principled legislation that makes the country a better place for everyone. Which is their job.

You people give new meaning to the word paranoia.

[Serragon]

Oh for heavens sake. They aren't trying to force anybody to do anything least of all you. They are trying to produce principled legislation that makes the country a better place for everyone. Which is their job.

You people give new meaning to the word paranoia.

And you give new meaning to the words "useful tool". Legislation = Force. It isn't paranoia. You just admitted to it.

Laws are needed to protect your natural rights and freedoms. No law that takes property from one person to give to another is "principled". They are tyranny.

[KMCopeland]

Oh for heavens sake. They aren't trying to force anybody to do anything least of all you. They are trying to produce principled legislation that makes the country a better place for everyone. Which is their job.

You people give new meaning to the word paranoia.

And you give new meaning to the words "useful tool". Legislation = Force. It isn't paranoia. You just admitted to it.

What did I admit? That we hired legislators to legislate? Where did you get the force part? You made it up?

Laws are needed to protect your natural rights and freedoms. No law that takes property from one person to give to another is "principled". They are tyranny.

Tyranny schmyranny. You folks throw that word around nearly as much as you throw around crony, socialism, evil and Gadianton. Laws are not tyranny. They are civilization.

Laws are needed for a great deal more than the mere protection of your natural rights and freedoms. Laws protect your ownership of your home and car -- you have no natural right to own a car or a house. Laws protect the value of your home by preventing someone from building a toxic waste dump next door to you. You have no natural right to that protection. And the law protects your wife from you running off with your secretary and leaving her penniless -- she has no natural right to that protection either.

Making the tax code more fair is not taking anyone's property from anyone. It fulfills the measure of the Constitution's creation. It returns protection to you, from the oligarchs, who've had their hands in your wallet for decades with the tax code's blessing. It will keep you from being forced to subsidize the most profitable companies in the world and people on Wall Street who make in a day what you make in a year, and pay taxes on it at less than half the rate you pay. That's the income redistribution you should be upset about -- your income redistributed from your bank account into the pockets of Big Oil, the banksters, and Wall Street. It dwarfs the crumbs that the poor get, that the right thinks is such a crime. But shovel money into the pockets of the 1% -- you're all not only okay with that, you fight like crazy to keep it from changing.

You seriously need to change the channel.

[Serragon]

KMC --

What you describe as not being natural rights are actually property rights. You are correct that you do not have the right to a house or car. However, once you aquire one you have the right to keep it. This is your natural right. You have the right to the fruits of your labor.

Law should protect that. Not be used to give it to someone else. The very argument you are using is proof of its illegitimacy. It would be ridiculous to create a law that gave everyone a house or car as you just admitted that you have no right to it. However, these are the very types of laws you are an advocate for.

All laws are morality backed by force. This isn't debatable, yet you continue to deny it. I can't think of a single great philosopher in history, including Marx and Hobbes, who don't acknowledge this.

Using law to force your vision of a "good" society on people is evil, whether your intentions are good or not. I agree with many of the goals of progressives, but as already admitted by you, they want to use force (legislation) to make people behave in a way they think moral. This is always wrong!

Persuading someone to give of their substance to help those in need is good and aligns with the principles of liberty. Forcing people to give of their substance is bad and aligns with the principles of tyranny and leads to slavery and corruption.

[KMCopeland]

KMC -- What you describe as not being natural rights are actually property rights. You are correct that you do not have the right to a house or car. However, once you aquire one you have the right to keep it. This is your natural right. You have the right to the fruits of your labor.

Law should protect that. Not be used to give it to someone else. The very argument you are using is proof of its illegitimacy. It would be ridiculous to create a law that gave everyone a house or car as you just admitted that you have no right to it. However, these are the very types of laws you are an advocate for.

You're doing it again. You're saying I said something I didn't say, then proceeding to argue with the thing I didn't say. It's funny how the thing you are constantly accusing someone else of, is the very thing you're most guilty of yourself. It's your Jungian Dark Side at work.

All laws are morality backed by force. This isn't debatable, yet you continue to deny it. I can't think of a single great philosopher in history, including Marx and Hobbes, who don't acknowledge this.

And there you go again. Deploying your favorite fallacy: Straw Man. I have not only never denied that, I'm the one who's been pointing it out, in response to these claims that all force is from Satan. All laws contain an element of force. I've said it many times. The real question is: why don't you know that prior to arguing with me about it? Poor preparation Serragon. Very poor.

Using law to force your vision of a "good" society on people is evil, whether your intentions are good or not.

No progressive I know -- and I know a lot of progressives -- feel that laws that provide for a level economic playing field are about forcing our idea of a good society on anyone. They're about neutralizing the forces arrayed against everyone except the one percent. And I do not for the life of me understand why anyone, of any political persuasion except fascism, would ever fight that effort.

I agree with many of the goals of progressives

Of course you do.

but as already admitted by you, they want to use force (legislation) to make people behave in a way they think moral. This is always wrong!

They want to use legislation to level the playing field. Period. And if it's always wrong, then all laws are wrong. Including all the ones that you take advantage of daily. Hourly.

When you decry law because by definition, it involves force, you are decrying civilization. Put your money where your mouth is. Go live somewhere where they don't have laws. You'll be back so fast it will make your head spin.

[Serragon]

What a funny response! Once again, you are what you accuse others of being. Here are some of the best parts...

you have no natural right to own a car or a house

No Straw man here. What I attributed to you were your exact words.

Here is another beauty where you contradict yourself in the exact same argument...

All laws contain an element of force.

No progressive I know -- and I know a lot of progressives -- feel that laws that provide for a level economic playing field are about forcing our idea of a good society on anyone

That last quote is why people like you are so dangerous. You carry a loaded gun and point it at people without understanding the damage you can cause.


Now.. if you would really like to see a straw man, I'll show you one...

Law should protect that. Not be used to give it to someone else .... Laws are needed to protect your natural rights and freedoms.

When you decry law because by definition, it involves force, you are decrying civilization. Put your money where your mouth is. Go live somewhere where they don't have laws.

[KMCopeland]

What a funny response! Once again, you are what you accuse others of being. Here are some of the best parts...

you have no natural right to own a car or a house

No Straw man here. What I attributed to you were your exact words.

Here is another beauty where you contradict yourself in the exact same argument...

All laws contain an element of force.

No progressive I know -- and I know a lot of progressives -- feel that laws that provide for a level economic playing field are about forcing our idea of a good society on anyone

That last quote is why people like you are so dangerous. You carry a loaded gun and point it at people without understanding the damage you can cause.

Now.. if you would really like to see a straw man, I'll show you one...

Law should protect that. Not be used to give it to someone else .... Laws are needed to protect your natural rights and freedoms.

When you decry law because by definition, it involves force, you are decrying civilization. Put your money where your mouth is. Go live somewhere where they don't have laws.

This is actually rather sad.

We're officially at the "I know you are but what am I" stage. Sometimes called the "nanny-nanny-boo-boo one.

I do wish you well.

[Ezra]

What a funny response! Once again, you are what you accuse others of being. Here are some of the best parts...

you have no natural right to own a car or a house

No Straw man here. What I attributed to you were your exact words.

Here is another beauty where you contradict yourself in the exact same argument...

All laws contain an element of force.

No progressive I know -- and I know a lot of progressives -- feel that laws that provide for a level economic playing field are about forcing our idea of a good society on anyone

That last quote is why people like you are so dangerous. You carry a loaded gun and point it at people without understanding the damage you can cause.

Now.. if you would really like to see a straw man, I'll show you one...

Law should protect that. Not be used to give it to someone else .... Laws are needed to protect your natural rights and freedoms.

When you decry law because by definition, it involves force, you are decrying civilization. Put your money where your mouth is. Go live somewhere where they don't have laws.

This is actually rather sad.

We're officially at the "I know you are but what am I" stage. Sometimes called the "nanny-nanny-boo-boo one.

I do wish you well.

I will interpret this.

Well you pointed out exactly what I did. Using my own words. And instead of having the humility to say sorry I will just say "I do wish you well." So I can keep my pride intact while sounding like I care.

[FreedomWorks]

Just curious if anyone actually read the article mentioned in the OP and if it altered their economic world-view.

[cmichael]

I read it. I don't think it means what you think it means.

[iWriteStuff]

Just curious if anyone actually read the article mentioned in the OP and if it altered their economic world-view.

I read it and agree that, as has been said by many a modern prophet, the people of the church are filled with idolatry and we've supplanted the system of Zion with the system of Babylon. Seemed pretty clear. Zion and Babylon are complete polar opposites. If you think capitalism is the system of Zion, you are greatly deceived.

[jwharton]

Just curious if anyone actually read the article mentioned in the OP and if it altered their economic world-view.

I read it and agree that, as has been said by many a modern prophet, the people of the church are filled with idolatry and we've supplanted the system of Zion with the system of Babylon. Seemed pretty clear. Zion and Babylon are complete polar opposites. If you think capitalism is the system of Zion, you are greatly deceived.

Zion in actuality takes from both capitalism and communism.
For the most part it is capitalism because this system comes the closest to respecting individual sovereignty.
The one aspect of capitalism that the Father's economic system curtails is the aspect wherein it enables one individual to trespass another individual.
For example, under the Father's economic system, usury is not allowed. And, when I say usury, I mean it in a general sense.
Thus, it is not lawful to take of your capital goods and use them to the injury of another individual.
If you have an excess of money you should be willing to lend it out with an interest rate of 0%.
If you have a house you do not need you should be willing to let it out with a rental fee of $0.

In other words, move forward in laboring and addressing your needs and your wants.
But, beyond that, consecrate your surplus to the good and benefit of society instead of to the debasing of others.

This is the equality aspect that consecration brings about.
It isn't the equal rationing of everyone's stuff.
It is keeping the playing field on equal grounds for everyone.

Unfortunately many people think that Zion is just voluntary communism, but in other threads I have gone over this in detail how such is not so.
The best approximation of the Father's economic system is Capitalism where all surplus goes into a common fund and all forms of usury are outlawed.

The one key ingredient of the Father's economic system that most people seem to overlook that takes away the voluntary theft aspect is inheritances.

When a person consecrates their surplus the bishop would take out the tithe portion for his disposal but the remaining 90% portion goes into that individual's inheritance. The more a person consecrates the more they build up their individual inheritance. If someone needs to draw upon the common fund they aren't just handed over money to use and dispose of as they please. They are actually making free use of someone else's inheritance where there is actually a fiduciary responsibility in place. Therefore, when common fund monies are used they are used by way of an interest free loan. Therefore, whatever the poor are making use of, they are also understood to need to repay. This will most definitely put in check the tendency of the poor to abuse welfare systems. If they want to build up an inheritance then they will need to pay back whatever they have borrowed from other people's inheritances and then produce a surplus of wealth beyond their own needs and wants and participate.

[Silver Pie]

Interesting. I didn't know this letter existed.

Here are some remarkable quotes, from what we would call today a letter from the First Presidency. It comes from a revealing 1875 letter reflecting the economic values of Brigham Young and his 12 Apostles and signed by their hands. The Brethren decried unbridled Capitalism as a powerful threat to liberty and saw Cooperative Free Enterprise as a much more humane economic system and a stepping-stone to the United Order.

The experience of mankind has shown that the people of communities and nations among whom wealth is the most equally distributed, enjoy the largest degree of liberty, are the least exposed to tyranny and oppression and suffer the least from luxurious habits which be get vice.

Translation: History shows that the more equally wealth is distributed, the more the people enjoy liberty, and the less society is plagued with drug abuse, prostitution, and other vices.

One of the great evils with which our own nation is menaced at the present time is the wonderful growth of wealth in the hands of a comparatively few individuals. The very liberties for which our fathers contended so steadfastly and courageously, and which they bequeathed to us as a priceless legacy, are endangered by the monstrous power which this accumulation of wealth gives to a few individuals and a few powerful corporations. By its seductive influence results are accomplished which, were it more equally distributed, would be impossible under our form of government. It threatens to give shape to the legislation, both State and National, of the entire country. If this evil should not be checked, and measures not be taken to prevent the continued enormous growth of riches among the class already rich, and the painful increase of destitution and want among the poor, the nation is liable to be overtaken by disaster; for, according to history, such a tendency among nations once powerful was the sure precursor of ruin.

Translation: The concentration of wealth in the hands of a few is one of the great evils menacing our nation. Our priceless legacy of freedom from our Founders is threatened by the "monstrous power" concentrated wealth gives to a few individuals and powerful corporations. Things are accomplished by that power that are normally impossible under a free government. The concentration of wealth shapes legislation on a state and national level. If the rich are not prevented from getting richer, this evil will increase poverty and bring national disaster. History shows that it foreshadows the ruin of great nations.

Years ago it was perceived that we Latter-day Saints were open to the same dangers as those which beset the rest of the world. A condition of affairs existed among us which was favorable to the growth of riches in the hands of a few at the expense of the many. A wealthy class was being rapidly formed in our midst whose interests, in the course of time, were likely to be diverse from those of the rest of the community. The growth of such a class was dangerous to our union; and, of all people, we stand most in need of union and to have our interests identical. Then it was that the Saints were counseled to enter into co-operation. In the absence of the necessary faith to enter upon a more perfect order revealed by the Lord unto the church, this was felt to be the best means of drawing us together and making us one.

Translation: Years ago the Brethren realized that the Saints were dividing into classes of rich and poor. That saw that as a danger to their much-needed unity as a people (remember, "If ye are not one, ye are not mine"?). At that point, the Brethren counseled the Saints to enter into Cooperative Free Enterprise, since they didn't have enough faith to go all the way into the United Order.

There's much more, but my Babylonian task-master is cracking his whip. You can read the entire article and be SURE to read the concluding paragraph, but try to keep your jaw from hitting your desk when it drops.