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

[FreedomWorks]

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. ;)

[Darren]

Cleon Skousen in his book "The Majesty of God's Law" went into the information of where we get true economic freedom, in the millenniums old culture of Nordic Freemen. The empire south of them wanted to control the world with the Babylonian mechanism of coinage, that became the empire's money system of control.

Economic threats come from the use of Babylon's money.

Economic liberty comes from working together by trust.


"Wealth" comes from the German word for "Voting Stock." When we are all co-owners of the Kingdom of the Lord, we are all wealthy.

A "company" is an ancient Germanic way of organization and working together in an economy wherein trust is the means to economic liberty.


In the idol in the dream of King Nebuchadnezzar were the organizations that operate by the material substances of the earth. The stone that is cut out of the mountain without hands, that smashes the idol is when we realize that we can have an economy without those material substances, that are measured out by the god of Babylon.

Capitalism comes from that Capitoline Hill in Rome, upon which was the Temple of Moneta, where the coins were minted. Capitalism is the material control system of those who are a continuation of the activity that took place in that Temple of Moneta. The Federal Reserve is just another Temple of Moneta.

The Free Enterprise System is people who have joined the family of Christ by their oaths to be good and to work together by Trust. This is why London is said to be the financial capital of the world, because they have always operated by their oaths to be London Freemen.

Will we ever learn to work together by our ancestors system given to them, that we were supposed to continue in (D&C 86:11)?

Any questions?
Darren

[wildad]

Brigham's comments were made many years ago. Since then we proceeded to become the most wealthy nation on earth. The average person has or had more than almost any of their ancestors. Free enterprise worked, in spite of the wealth of a few all these years. We are now losing that prosperity largely because of the efforts of socialists to forcefully distribute wealth evenly. There are no doubt better ways to do things, but, given the telestial nature of the average person, free enterprise is the best of this messy world.

[FreedomWorks]

I agree, Wildad, that forced redistribution of wealth is evil.

Brigham and his Apostles in the official letter I referenced above expressed that both they and God prefer voluntary pre-distribution of wealth and cooperation as a step in the direction of Zion's United Orders. In other words, organize the economy in a way that prevents great gaps between rich and poor, everyone has work to do, everyone who works has plenty, and no small group is able to become super-wealthy "at the expense of the many" (their words).

Now, when you say...

...Since then we proceeded to become the most wealthy nation on earth. The average person has or had more than almost any of their ancestors....

...do you realize that we are actually MUCH poorer in terms of real wealth than many of our ancestors? in terms of our families' abilities to sustain ourselves? Yes, we all have lots of nice "consumer goods", but could we survive and prosper (in cooperation with our neighbors) if the nation's economy were to collapse? No. Not a chance. We are so very dependent on the energy, transportation, and monetary infrastructure that if the terrorists were to successfully detonate EMP weapons, 90% of us would be dead within a year. In 1910, roughly 90% of Americans lived on near self-sustaining farms, producing their own food and trading with their neighbors for what they couldn't produce themselves. Know ANYONE who does that? We may have lots of cool stuff, but we have very little life-sustaining ("real") wealth.

[Darren]

In Entrepreneurial Capitalism, the Capitol of the Capitalism is their Casino, as the supplier of the chips and the rules for the games, to put the economic system to work in the "house's favor."

Today the Capitol is a few ultra-powerful families who manage the Federal Reserve and their cronies inside government such as the IRS.

Capitalist Wannabes within the Greater Rocky Mountain Valleys are such in-the-dark schmucks.

I have these books that explain how the ultra-powerful in the world have dealt with Mormon Innovators and Mormon Business Men. The words of these elite as they make fun of those "hicks in the high and remote valleys of the Rocky Mountains (Mormons)" as they would conspire to take away all of the wealth created by those Mormon Innovators, or to set up their plantational enslavement system among the Mormons because the Mormons cannot organize around any inspired way to work together to keep all of that innovation and wealth unto themselves.

Jim Bills, Exec. VP of Novell, took over running Novell after Ray Noorda was away, battling health problems. Jim Bills told us that the ultra-powerful sent a bunch of thugs from India to buy up a majority control of Novell stock, and as Jim Bills said, quoting those thugs, "to kick the Mormons out."

The economic threats to our liberty are because we fail to learn to work together by the system Joseph Smith promoted, the system that President David O. McKay asked Cleon Skousen to teach to our people.

Ask any questions,
Darren

[davedan]

The Safety Society Banking System addresses the income inequality starting with the Home Mortgage.


1. National Currency
2. Treasury creates money as needed
3. Local Non-profit Safety Society Bank approves loans
4. Simple-interest and fee-based loans granted
5. Debtors earn equity from day 1
6. Missed payments deducted from equity = instant reverse mortgage and mortgage insurance
7. No income tax
8. No inflation
9. Full Reserve banking. 100% Deposits stay at the bank and are never loaned out.
10. Money for new loans is created "on-demand" by US Treasury based on local loan approval and credit worthiness.
11. Communities or groups can qualify together for a hospital or park or aquarium or whatever if credit worthy.
12. Local Safety Societies cover costs with loan origination fees only and monthly loan service charge.
13. Fed Gov earns money via simple interest which constitutes a necessary fee which regulates money supply.
14. Repaid money is retired from circulation by the Treasury.
15. Loans only made for "real assets" not stock
16. Money is "backed" by the "real asset".
17.Value of currency = quantity and quality of human labor. Automation reduces costs.

According to the equation MV = PG, inflation (P) is dependant on money supply (M). US Treasury controls money supply by only creating new money as it is nedeed (on demand). Inflation or deflation happems when there is too much money or not enough.

It should always be more equensive to borrow than to save.

With an equitable economic system, thrre will be a more equitable distribution of wealth.

The Safety Society System is Free Market without a need for the capitalists although there may be a place for Mitt Romney style business venture capital. I like the idea of the ZCMI that was supported by the general public. The Safety Society System would not invest in business aspect but only the land and the building itself. Letting the people themselves be joint shareholders in the rest is a great idea in order to prevent the Walmart syndrome where Walmart has the power to dictate both the wholesale price and the suggested retail price.

[francisco.colaco]

Duplicate.

[francisco.colaco]

Darren,

Capitalism comes from Capitas, latin for quote or part. I do not know where people here get their historical references, but more than once I have seen them plain wrong in this forum.

Capitalism was beget at the share holding system of the Eastern Indies Company, in Holland. The first of it's kind. Each share was a part, a capitas, of the whole. Nothing to do with the Roman Empire and much less with the imperial mint, which was not at the Capitoline Hill, but at the palace, on the Aventine.

Please, Darren, check the sanity (to say the least) of your sources. I believe one can get wacko by association, if overexposed to speculative frivolities.

[Darren]

As I have said before on this Forum. Linguists are the miners of the coal, who have paid the price to know. The dictionary companies are the sellers of the coal.

Capital vs. capitol

As a noun, capital refers to (1) a city that serves as a center of government, (2) wealth in the form of money or property, and (3) a capital letter. As an adjective, it means (1) principal, (2) involving financial assets, and (3) deserving of the death penalty. There are other definitions of capital, but these are the most commonly used ones.

Capitol has two very specific definitions (outside ancient Rome): (1) a U.S. state legislature building, and (2) the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C. State capitols are located in the capital cities of U.S. states, and the Capitol is located in the capital city of the U.S. If you’re not talking about any of these capitol buildings, then the word you want is probably capital. http://grammarist.com/usage/capitol-capital/

The Lie of “Capitalism.” “What is that?” It is the “-ism,” belief, in a “Capital Building.”

It is that All Monetary Values are controlled from “The Capital Building,” St. Peter’s Vatican Basilica, on the Capital Hill that is right next to the “Capitol Hill” of Rome, where the Idol of Moneta, the Romans’ Pagan Deity of Money was located. All of these Controls, over all Money, come up from a dead body, that is the KYBERNION – the essence of all European-type “Governments,” from the beginnings of Medieval Times on, which dead body is at the bottom of a Hole that is directly under the Ali Baba’s, Baba Ali’s, Tower of Babel’s Chair, which Chair is directly under the “vital” DOME of St. Peter’s Vatican Basilica – that transmits All Correct Hunches, up, through the Tower of Babel’s Chair, up through the current TOWER of Babel, the Vatican Basilica’s “vital” DOME, OUT, TO GO DOWN ONLY THROUGH OTHER, CURRENT TOWERS OF BABEL, THE “VITAL” DOMES OF OTHER CAPITAL BUILDINGS,” THAT MUST BE “brick for brick” Copies of St. Peter’s Vatican Basilica Capital Building, in order for the Correct Hunches, that are transmitted from St. Peter’s Vatican Basilica Capital Building’s DOME, to be receivable through the DOMES of these other Capital Buildings – like the one in Washington DC, the one in almost all other State Capitals, such as the one in Salt Lake City etc., etc., etc. – that are the “brick for brick” Copies of St. Peter’s Vatican Basilica Capital Building. (Bruce Wynder, The History of Money, Part 2, pp. 60-61) http://s98822910.onlinehome.us/thousand ... part_2.pdf

Modern Capitalism is found in the feud to control the credit-belief-faith of the Christian people of Western Europe that began with Niccolo Machiavelli and his statement, that the power to control capital comes from, “... an impulse that impels him to just get up, go out, and grab that power.”

Control of the credit-belief-faith of the Christian people of Western Europe has always been The Free Enterprise System, with its essence being the Freeman's oath, and the Trust of his and his people's system, of a mental fixation and devotion to Virtue.

The Free Enterprise System is working together in Christ's family.
Capitalism is laboring within Satan's Control System.

Ask anything,
Darren

[KMCopeland]

Interesting to watch everyone scramble when they find out that a prophet and 12 apostles preached, rather elegantly, true-blue progressive economic principles.

Someone help me define what this "forced wealth redistribution" is that is supposed to be so evil. Is it a new thing? Or not really all that new after all? Is it something that Barack Obama invented? How widespread is it? How successful is it?

[Darren]

Ancestrally, communal living was in townships, each member having his stewardship. This is living in companies.

President McKay and Us http://s98822910.onlinehome.us/thousandyears/

So the Church’s Membership became the Pioneers who traveled to and established Utah. And, continuing according to the Lord’s Instructions, to “continue in my goodness,” the way that they “Worked Together By The Law” made so much sense in “continuing” in their Forefathers’ obviously superior, Anglo-Saxon, Christian way of Working Together, that the descriptive words of the Top Historian on this Subject would be that, “In Salt Lake City the United Order of Tanners and the United Order of Tailors was just a continuation of the English Guild System.”

The Worshipful Company of Merchant Taylors is one of the Livery Companies of the City of London.

http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/l/LABOR.html

When the Mormons entered the Valley of the Great Salt Lake in 1847, they brought with them a tradition, albeit a short one, of craft and merchant guilds in their short-lived capital, the city-state of Nauvoo, Illinois. Contributing to this tradition was the heavy influx of working-class converts from Great Britain with their experience in the growing British trade union movement, along with workers from the not yet industrialized northeastern states. In the seven years of Nauvoo's Mormon history, guilds were established among at least the tailors, smiths, boot and harness makers, coopers, actors, wagonmakers, spinners, and printers--apparently with the blessings of the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith.

http://books.google.com/books?id=NIr1wXurd2kC&pg

Nauvoo: Kindom on the Mississippi (pages 154-157)

The bond of fellowship in the Church made cooperation a natural practice.

In 1843 a guild of boot and shoemakers was formed in Nauvoo;

In March 1844, the citizens of the Tenth Ward established a producers' and consumers' cooperative. Smith who attended the organizational meeting, said that the benefits of a cooperative store were "clearly pointed out."

(Speaking about guilds John Taylor said,) "the best method of carrying on business for the good of the whole, without crating monopolies."

(Brigham) Young said, "We can eventually produce a reaction and bring back some of the money that has been going away from us all the time." Mayor Spencer concluded: "it is in the interest of every Latter-day Saint to use their influence (both pecuniary and in labor,) and to come forward and assist to build us all u as one. ... We are identified as one and ought to feel the interest of all - we must support one another." A cooperative carriage works was organized January 15, 1845

The Majesty of God’s Law

Someday I may write a small book describing how I imagine all of this might come about, but at this point it is sufficient to know that God's law is in America's future and we should be preparing ourselves to live under its principles.

It all begins with understanding the pristine beauty of the original Constitution. Someday it will be completely restored.

God's New Order Will Come After the Cleansing

To appreciate God's new order which is coming, we have to realize that practically everything will be new.

All of the evil which had accumulated under the corruption and abuse of the old Constitution will be gone.

The people will have been cleansed, humbled, and prepared for a virtuous life by having paid the price following an extended epoch of debauchery and rebellion against God.

The leadership of the people will have passed to those who have done their homework and know the requirements of God's law so the people can trust them and cooperate together in setting up the new order predicted by Moses.

The people will be divided by families into tens, fifties, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, etc. At each level they will have selected leaders of the quality described in Deuteronomy 1:13, and who have been approved by those in charge.

The basic community throughout the country will be a hundred families, called a ward. A number of wards will constitute a county and the counties of a designated region will constitute a state.

Work By the Law, 1977 http://s98822910.onlinehome.us/thousand ... w_1977.pdf

The American Business Corporation

About one hundred years ago there were no “business corporations” in this country, except for canal companies the railroads, and some utilities.

All other “corporations” were “municipal corporations”: cities and towns.

John D. Rockefeller and others tried to find a way to build huge business conglomerates in this country. Rockefeller’s first idea, the “trust,” was brought down by the anti-trust laws. The idea that was finally seized upon to make huge businesses in America was to copy the railroads and utilities and organize businesses like a city or town ― a “corporation.”

In America today, not only Exxon and nearly all other large businesses, but nearly every smallest business, starting out, feels that it must become a corporation in order to succeed.

We might ask ourselves, “Are the people who try to start up small corporations in this country in 100% ignorance of the rules that would allow their organizations to survive?” That might be a good question to ask the attorneys to whom these people have to go to get the rules, which they will have drawn up. It seems that both they and the attorneys are confident that the people themselves are not competent to write the rules, because they might not hold up in the trials in court that may result from the companies’ operations. Both clients and attorney refer to the ability that the attorney has with the rules, of which we have spoken, for their ultimate testing in court trials. But, then, the Chief Justice of the United States has recently declared a full half of the trial attorneys in this Country to be INCOMPETENT.

“What are these rules that have become so difficult to grasp?”

If a person is not willing to pay the price to address him- or her-self to this brief review of what the rules used to be, perhaps it may be impossible for that person to ever understand how to fare well in the system that is still kept going by the momentum which these rules once set in motion.

The Origin of the Old Rules

The present arrangement of municipal corporations in England, which is imitated exactly in the USA, had been well established before the years from 870 to 1066 AD, years in which it could be said that “Vikings” controlled the land.

The land was divided into “shires.” The shires were divided into “wards.” Wards are divided into townships.

An American State corresponds to a Shire. An American County corresponds to an English Ward. An American Township (such as are used for local government in New England and in the States north of the Ohio River) is the same as an English Township.

The Viking word for a Township is a, “by.” A large map of Scandinavia shows how many of the smaller settlements are called “(something)-by.”

The people who exercise legislative power at the national level, in both England and America, enact “national” laws. At the level of the English Shire or the American State, people with this power make what Americans call, “State Laws.” The English Ward has all but disappeared, but the people with the power to do so, in American Counties, make “County Laws.” In both the Townships of England and America, and in these last 100 years, in American business corporations, as well, the people with the power to do so enact, “BY-laws.

[It may be of interest in this relation, of Township corporate rules to Scandinavian practices in Viking times, 1,000 years ago, that to this day in Sweden a corporation is called an “Action BYLAW.” For example, the S.A.A.B. Company’s name is, “Swedish Air Action Bylaw.”]

Ask any question.
Darren

[FreedomWorks]

Interesting to watch everyone scramble when they find out that a prophet and 12 apostles preached, rather elegantly, true-blue progressive economic principles.

KM, I get your point that what Brigham & the 12 taught in the aforementioned letter contradicts the values broadly accepted in today's corrupt capitalist economy, however I am uncomfortable with labeling it "progressive". Could you elaborate on what you mean by "true-blue progressive economic principles"?

Someone help me define what this "forced wealth redistribution" is that is supposed to be so evil. Is it a new thing? Or not really all that new after all? Is it something that Barack Obama invented? How widespread is it? How successful is it?

When the government takes money from one man and gives it to another, that's forced wealth redistribution. "Forced" because the tax-payer is under threat of jail or steep fines by the state if he doesn't pay the taxes. Most of the modern-day prophets have decried this as a perversion of the proper role of government (to defend rights by punishing crime).

It is also a perversion under the American Founder's theory of delegated rights, the government has no right to do what an individual by law may not (take from one man and give to another). If a private citizen were to "redistribute" his neighbor's wealth they would be put in jail for theft. Therefore, how could he delegate to his government a power he himself does not have?

No, it is not new. We've been using forced wealth redistribution for some time to fund education. Taxing for roads directly benefits everyone (except maybe a few rare invalids who never travel), but "redistribution" takes from some for the direct benefit of a specific group of people, not everyone.

Since the introduction of the welfare state by President Roosevelt, and it's expansion under Pres. Johnson, government has taken over the various functions of the non-profit sector, beginning with education and extending into caring for the sick, the aged, and the needy. The non-profit sector was based on charity - giving to your neighbor out of the goodness of your heart. Government turned education, health, and welfare into a redistribution of wealth program, based on coercion. Forced wealth redistribution creates resentment for both the government and the welfare recipient when one is coerced into giving. It also engenders dependency and a sense of entitlement on the part of the recipient. On the other hand, there is great benefit to the giver AND the recipient if he gives freely to help the less fortunate. So, to answer your question, forced wealth redistribution has become pervasive in our society (not sure why that matters, popularity does not necessarily indicate justice).

To your question of why forced wealth redistribution is evil:
1. It is a perversion of the proper role of a free government.
2. Coercion was Lucifer's plan, God's was based in free-will.
3. It generates social conflict / disunity by fostering dependence and a sense of entitlement in the recipient, and resentment in the tax-payer, and robs the former of gratitude and the later of the joy of giving freely.

"How successful is it?" - Excellent question. How is success to be measured in an evil program? The number of dependents it creates? The growth of government power? The rate of decay of liberty? The size of the national debt?

Believe I have answered your question thoroughly.

Back to Brigham & company - their economic program was based on voluntary cooperation, mutual-benefit, and unity. The goal was to prevent poverty from arising, not to ease the poverty caused by unbridled capitalism. Their goal was for families and communities to become self-sustaining, not dependent; united, not divided.

The progressives of Roosevelt's era and today are eager to use taxation & redistribution to help the needy (and of course, retain their power). Calling Brigham's economy "progressive" doesn't really fit. It certainly was progressive in that it was a huge leap forward for mankind, had it been allowed to continue. Is that what you meant?

[Ezra]

Brigham's comments were made many years ago. Since then we proceeded to become the most wealthy nation on earth. The average person has or had more than almost any of their ancestors. Free enterprise worked, in spite of the wealth of a few all these years. We are now losing that prosperity largely because of the efforts of socialists to forcefully distribute wealth evenly. There are no doubt better ways to do things, but, given the telestial nature of the average person, free enterprise is the best of this messy world.

Your facts are not correct.

We have now and have had for quite some time the greatest gap of wealth possibly in history.

2000 People own 98% of the worlds capital.

The wealth that is divided to the rest of us of the remaining 2% is the wealth that you are speaking about That the socialists are forceably trying to equally divide between us.

But not equally with those 2000 who are the secret combanations. The Rothschild Rockefeller and other dynasty family's make up there numbers.

But in no way are we more wealthy and more equal then every befor. Your delusional if you really think that. And the secret combination has done there jobs well with you.

[samizdat]

In a country of 120 MILLION people, it is an absolute travesty that ONE man has nearly 4 percent of ALL the money in the country. He has more money than the combined salary of three-fifths of all Mexicans.

Around 100 years ago, the hacendados, a group of families that numbered no more than a couple hundred (in a country of ten million at the time) owned 98 percent of all land. Poorer families were run out of the land and obligated to work for the hacendados to pay off their debts. But the thing was the hacendados only paid them survival wages and required them to buy off of the own hacendados ensuring that they would be born, live, and die in the hacienda.

Your country is headed in that same direction. We tried a revolution which was later hijacked successfully by the socialists. Anyone goes against the system (like Colosio) gets a bullet in the head, or is disappeared. Do not make the same mistakes we did. But now honestly I think it is too late.

[francisco.colaco]

REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH

There is no pronouncement of the Church supporting state mandated redistribution of wealth, and it is easy to find quite the opposite, condemning it.

The redistribution of wealthy is not a right of an individual to receive something from others, but the obligation of those who have to become like Our Heavenly Father. Giving what we have to a person of lesser fortune draws the individual closer to God. Charity is trained on those who give and thankfulness in those that receive.

Redistribution by state mandate is Satan's plan to enslave people in resentment (those who are spoiled), sloth (those who get the spoils), and unjust domain (those bureaucrats that live off the redistribution principles). No wonder that corruption comes soon and lurks wearily at the various actors in this process --- those that pay try not to pay, those that receive are never satisfied, those that live off the process are never enough. Redistribution is telling a message to people: a message that comes directly from the realms of hell:

1) you should be insensitive to others, because you already pay enough. So, thou art not thy brother's keeper.

or

2) You can live off the work of others, though various subsidies and artistic grants, without giving back, so no pressure to work;

or

3) You can make an extra buck skewing the process if you are a bureaucrat. And nobody's paying, anyway. It's all public money.

All christian virtues...


FREE ENTERPRISE

Cooperation should be VOLUNTARY, among like-minded individuals and organisations. That is the key. You want to buy cheaper? Get on board with several neighbours and plan your purchases, negotiating the bulk with a supplier. You can easily scrape 10% off food and 20–30% off durable items. No state involved. No obligation to others.

Imagine you make and sell fruit jam. A competitor of yours is having a hard time. You should be, if you were insensitive, glad that he is going off business. Yet, if you are a Christian, you may ask him to make some jam under your brand when you have a peak of orders, which are not uncommon, allowing your competitor to survive. If he is a Christian, he will do the same when bad times knock at your door. And both will network to survive.

When I was in Africa, I would maintain a safety net of food and fuel with our competitors at the remote wood extraction and construction sites. It was not uncommon to lend 5000 litres of gasoil from our sites 1000 miles away from me to a competitor with a neighboring site because his supply boats were late. Food and medicines and mechanical parts were also subjected to lend on emergencies, when logistics were faulty. We maintained escrow lists among us to repay and be repayed. On such a system, completely voluntary, we never had anyone hungry or a machine down by lack of fuel. It allowed all of us to have less stocks and less costs of inventory. No state was involved. No bureaucrats. No mandated costs. And we were always thankful one another.

[francisco.colaco]

Back to Brigham & company - their economic program was based on voluntary cooperation, mutual-benefit, and unity. The goal was to prevent poverty from arising, not to ease the poverty caused by unbridled capitalism. Their goal was for families and communities to become self-sustaining, not dependent; united, not divided.

You should make a post on just these words. They are the busilis of christian free enterprise.

The progressives of Roosevelt's era and today are eager to use taxation & redistribution to help the needy (and of course, retain their power). Calling Brigham's economy "progressive" doesn't really fit. It certainly was progressive in that it was a huge leap forward for mankind, had it been allowed to continue.

Socialism is the wrong answer to a wrong problem. Socialism premises that men should be taken care of, which is wrong, and proposes forceful solutions, which is even worse. LDS know better, for we are children of God. We take care of others better than we are taken care of.

[Benjamin_LK]

The Safety Society Banking System addresses the income inequality starting with the Home Mortgage.


1. National Currency
2. Treasury creates money as needed
3. Local Non-profit Safety Society Bank approves loans
4. Simple-interest and fee-based loans granted
5. Debtors earn equity from day 1
6. Missed payments deducted from equity = instant reverse mortgage and mortgage insurance
7. No income tax
8. No inflation
9. Full Reserve banking. 100% Deposits stay at the bank and are never loaned out.
10. Money for new loans is created "on-demand" by US Treasury based on local loan approval and credit worthiness.
11. Communities or groups can qualify together for a hospital or park or aquarium or whatever if credit worthy.
12. Local Safety Societies cover costs with loan origination fees only and monthly loan service charge.
13. Fed Gov earns money via simple interest which constitutes a necessary fee which regulates money supply.
14. Repaid money is retired from circulation by the Treasury.
15. Loans only made for "real assets" not stock
16. Money is "backed" by the "real asset".
17.Value of currency = quantity and quality of human labor. Automation reduces costs.

According to the equation MV = PG, inflation (P) is dependant on money supply (M). US Treasury controls money supply by only creating new money as it is nedeed (on demand). Inflation or deflation happems when there is too much money or not enough.

It should always be more equensive to borrow than to save.

With an equitable economic system, thrre will be a more equitable distribution of wealth.

The Safety Society System is Free Market without a need for the capitalists although there may be a place for Mitt Romney style business venture capital. I like the idea of the ZCMI that was supported by the general public. The Safety Society System would not invest in business aspect but only the land and the building itself. Letting the people themselves be joint shareholders in the rest is a great idea in order to prevent the Walmart syndrome where Walmart has the power to dictate both the wholesale price and the suggested retail price.

I would also add the importance of keeping commercial and investment banking separate. It would be nice if we could finally reinstate Glass-Steagall or any law that follows its' policy.

[KMCopeland]

Interesting to watch everyone scramble when they find out that a prophet and 12 apostles preached, rather elegantly, true-blue progressive economic principles.

KM, I get your point that what Brigham & the 12 taught in the aforementioned letter contradicts the values broadly accepted in today's corrupt capitalist economy, however I am uncomfortable with labeling it "progressive". Could you elaborate on what you mean by "true-blue progressive economic principles"?

The concerns expressed in this remarkable article, about income disparity and the dangers of most wealth being concentrated in the hands of a very few, could have been a recent interview, or speech or article by Elizabeth Warren, or Bernie Sanders, or Barack Obama or Joe Biden or any number of modern-day progressives.

Someone help me define what this "forced wealth redistribution" is that is supposed to be so evil. Is it a new thing? Or not really all that new after all? Is it something that Barack Obama invented? How widespread is it? How successful is it?

When the government takes money from one man and gives it to another, that's forced wealth redistribution. "Forced" because the tax-payer is under threat of jail or steep fines by the state if he doesn't pay the taxes. Most of the modern-day prophets have decried this as a perversion of the proper role of government (to defend rights by punishing crime).

I don't think most of the modern day prophets have done any such thing. But it's for sure and certain that the 12 who produced that article didn't believe that. They believed the opposite of it.

It is also a perversion under the American Founder's theory of delegated rights, the government has no right to do what an individual by law may not (take from one man and give to another). If a private citizen were to "redistribute" his neighbor's wealth they would be put in jail for theft. Therefore, how could he delegate to his government a power he himself does not have?

That's a new one. So the government has no right to establish an army, a navy, and an air force? Or build an interstate highway system? Or the national parks? Or regulate airline safety, or a prison system? This makes no sense.

No, it is not new. We've been using forced wealth redistribution for some time to fund education. Taxing for roads directly benefits everyone (except maybe a few rare invalids who never travel), but "redistribution" takes from some for the direct benefit of a specific group of people, not everyone.

The entire tax code is a system of redistribution. Much of it was supposedly for the common good, and much of it still is. Much of it is for the good of the uber-wealthy only. So we agree on one thing anyway: it's not really serving the common good. It's serving the ultra-rich at the expense of the rest of us.

When you draw a distinction between taxing for roads (good) and taxing for education (bad) you're talking about your personal preferences for where the income should be distributed. You're really not objecting to income redistribution itself at all.

Since the introduction of the welfare state by President Roosevelt, and it's expansion under Pres. Johnson, government has taken over the various functions of the non-profit sector, beginning with education and extending into caring for the sick, the aged, and the needy. The non-profit sector was based on charity - giving to your neighbor out of the goodness of your heart.

Government turned education, health, and welfare into a redistribution of wealth program, based on coercion. Forced wealth redistribution creates resentment for both the government and the welfare recipient when one is coerced into giving. It also engenders dependency and a sense of entitlement on the part of the recipient. On the other hand, there is great benefit to the giver AND the recipient if he gives freely to help the less fortunate. So, to answer your question, forced wealth redistribution has become pervasive in our society (not sure why that matters, popularity does not necessarily indicate justice).

It's nice to believe that the non-profit sector would take care of those among us down on their luck, or victims of something they had no control over. But it has never done that. It helps a few. The vast majority of people who need help are not helped by the non profit sector, and they never have been.

Churches and charities receive incredibly favorable tax treatment under the theory that they will address the needs of the poor. If that were going to work, there would be no poor people by now. It's not going to work. Many churches, including ours, do an admirable job of helping people who need help. And there are still millions of desperately poor people, and their ranks are growing. As are the ranks of the super rich. If the so-called forced redistribution of money from the rich to the poor were actually taking place, that would not be true.

I submit that all this complaining from the right about the entirely fictional "forced income redistribution" is the result of a well-funded -- by the people who don't want anybody touching their zillions of dollars that they don't need and may very well not even have earned -- propaganda campaign.

To your question of why forced wealth redistribution is evil:
1. It is a perversion of the proper role of a free government.

The power to levy taxes is specifically granted by the Constitution. I guess the Constitution is part of Satan's plan too?

2. Coercion was Lucifer's plan, God's was based in free-will.

I hear this a lot. It too, doesn't make any sense when applied to civic life.

There is a great deal of coercion in a civilized society. If there isn't, it isn't civilized. Now, if you're serious about this, there are places in the world you can live that have little or no coercion/laws. I don't think you'd like living in one of them. But you do have that option.

3. It generates social conflict / disunity by fostering dependence and a sense of entitlement in the recipient, and resentment in the tax-payer,

Despite the right-wing media fostered stereotype, very few people who receive some kind of government assistance enjoy receiving it.

and robs the former of gratitude and the later of the joy of giving freely.

It isn't possible to prevent someone from feeling gratitude, or to rob anyone of the joy of giving freely. Both freedoms are alive and well, as they will always be.

"How successful is it?" - Excellent question. How is success to be measured in an evil program? The number of dependents it creates? The growth of government power? The rate of decay of liberty? The size of the national debt?

Are we talking about all income redistribution? Including the redistribution of your income upward, to the already fantastically rich? Or just the ones that help people out when they fall on hard times?

The size of the national debt could be significantly reduced if corporations, and the 1%, were taxed at the same rate as the rest of us are. Withdrawing funding of programs that help the poor wouldn't make a dent in it.

Believe I have answered your question thoroughly.

You have. Thanks.

Back to Brigham & company - their economic program was based on voluntary cooperation, mutual-benefit, and unity. The goal was to prevent poverty from arising, not to ease the poverty caused by unbridled capitalism. Their goal was for families and communities to become self-sustaining, not dependent; united, not divided.

Well, I suppose technically it was voluntary. But you forget: Brigham Young ruled what was essentially a theocracy, with an iron hand. I'm not sure just how voluntary it really was. But yes, those were their goals. They were also very clear about another goal -- the progressive one. The one that prevented any one person, or group of people, from becoming far more wealthy than everybody else. It was a goal based on the Christlike notion that you look out for each other no matter what. Bear one another's burdens whether you think they deserve help with their burdens or not. That was real, real clear in that article.

The progressives of Roosevelt's era and today are eager to use taxation & redistribution to help the needy (and of course, retain their power).

I think they are eager to even the playing field.

Calling Brigham's economy "progressive" doesn't really fit.

I respectfully suggest that you feel that way because of the negative connotations the right wing noise machine has succeded in attaching to the word. Because it actually fits it to a T.

It certainly was progressive in that it was a huge leap forward for mankind, had it been allowed to continue. Is that what you meant?

Yes. Think what we could do in this country if the system was a little less rigged in favor of the super rich, and a little more in favor of the little guy.

[cmichael]

I think you've mistranslated - it wasn't "capitalism" the brethren were decrying, and it wasn't the forced leveling of wealth they were promoting. Think about the Biblical parable of the talents - there is implicit recognition that talents are not equally distributed and that each person's increase varies. And the laborer is worthy of his hire and that laborer is entitled to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

The law of consecration is entirely voluntary, and is entirely negotiated between the member and the member's bishop. Any redistribution is done by virtue of a freely given gift, not a confiscation of the wealth by the leadership.

Likely the threat mentioned in the writings is referring to the central bankers who control the money supply and skim off portions of it for their own selfish gain.

There is nothing in that writing that suggests that material goods should be leveled, only that some members of the society spend a disproportionate amount of their attention on materialism and on wealth acquisition, while ignoring the fatherless and the needy.

They say nothing about 'capitalism' or any other ism.

Actually, it depends on what you mean by capitalism. Free enterprise is already cooperative, and when you have an honest money system, not controlled by monopolists or central bankers, it is not difficult for everyone in the system, to benefit and prosper.

We don't have capitalism or "cooperative" free enterprise in a system based upon fraudulent money, such as we have to day, which is why you see the inequality in "wealth" accumulation and distribution. The purchasing power of our money is being siphoned off into the hands of the central bankers.

[Ezra]

Interesting to watch everyone scramble when they find out that a prophet and 12 apostles preached, rather elegantly, true-blue progressive economic principles.

KM, I get your point that what Brigham & the 12 taught in the aforementioned letter contradicts the values broadly accepted in today's corrupt capitalist economy, however I am uncomfortable with labeling it "progressive". Could you elaborate on what you mean by "true-blue progressive economic principles"?

The concerns expressed in this remarkable article, about income disparity and the dangers of most wealth being concentrated in the hands of a very few, could have been a recent interview, or speech or article by Elizabeth Warren, or Bernie Sanders, or Barack Obama or Joe Biden or any number of modern-day progressives.

Elizabeth warren net worth est. 3.7-10 million
Joe Biden net worth est 1.5 million
Barak Obama. Net worth est over 7 million
Benie sanders net worth 8 million

Why is it that all these rich people are the ones that advocate the equal redistribution of wealth yet obviously don't practice what they preach?

They have the most to loose yet they never do.


And us little guys pay a 50% taxation

http://www.nowandfutures.com/taxes.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[cmichael]

“I attended a second lecture on Socialism...I said I did not believe the doctrine.” (Joseph Smith, after attending two lectures on socialism given by Mr. John Finch, a socialist from England, Joseph wrote the above comment, underlining the original. History of the Church, Vol. VI, pp. 32-33. September 1843.)

[KMCopeland]

The concerns expressed in this remarkable article, about income disparity and the dangers of most wealth being concentrated in the hands of a very few, could have been a recent interview, or speech or article by Elizabeth Warren, or Bernie Sanders, or Barack Obama or Joe Biden or any number of modern-day progressives.

Elizabeth warren net worth est. 3.7-10 million
Joe Biden net worth est 1.5 million
Barak Obama. Net worth est over 7 million
Benie sanders net worth 8 million

Why is it that all these rich people are the ones that advocate the equal redistribution of wealth yet obviously don't practice what they preach? They have the most to loose yet they never do. And us little guys pay a 50% taxation

http://www.nowandfutures.com/taxes.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

These are not hugely wealthy people. Compared to the 1% this is chump change.

If you have a good job, a pension plan, and you buy a house when you're young so that by the time you're 60 or so it has doubled or tripled in value, it isn't very hard to find yourself, in the second half of your life, with a net worth of several million dollars. Would they only be practicing what they preach if they were destitute?

There are people, mostly corporate CEO's and the titans of Wall Street & the banking industry, who spend what Elizabeth Warren etc. have as their net worth in a few hours and never miss it. Their money is not taxed like yours, mine, or Elizabeth Warren's. We subsidize their outrageous wealth. They wouldn't have it if the laws and the tax code hadn't been rigged for them by their servants in Congress. You should be cheering for the progressives Ezra. They are the only ones in Washington on your side.

[Ezra]

The concerns expressed in this remarkable article, about income disparity and the dangers of most wealth being concentrated in the hands of a very few, could have been a recent interview, or speech or article by Elizabeth Warren, or Bernie Sanders, or Barack Obama or Joe Biden or any number of modern-day progressives.

Elizabeth warren net worth est. 3.7-10 million
Joe Biden net worth est 1.5 million
Barak Obama. Net worth est over 7 million
Benie sanders net worth 8 million

Why is it that all these rich people are the ones that advocate the equal redistribution of wealth yet obviously don't practice what they preach? They have the most to loose yet they never do. And us little guys pay a 50% taxation

http://www.nowandfutures.com/taxes.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

These are not hugely wealthy people. Compared to the 1% this is chump change.

If you have a good job, a pension plan, and you buy a house when you're young so that by the time you're 60 or so it has doubled or tripled in value, it isn't very hard to find yourself, in the second half of your life, with a net worth of several million dollars. Would they only be practicing what they preach if they were destitute?

There are people, mostly corporate CEO's and the titans of Wall Street & the banking industry, who spend what Elizabeth Warren etc. have as their net worth in a few hours and never miss it. Their money is not taxed like yours, mine, or Elizabeth Warren's. We subsidize their outrageous wealth. They wouldn't have it if the laws and the tax code hadn't been rigged for them by their servants in Congress. You should be cheering for the progressives Ezra. They are the only ones in Washington on your side.

Oh Ya I'm cheering for 50% plus taxation. Just like the unbearable taxation spoke about in the scriptures. Mosiah 7: 22-23

Only ones in Washington on my side you say??? Those cronies were as I recall in direct conflict with one of the only ones in Washington that was on my side. Ron Paul.

Awake kmc to your awful situation that you side with.

[KMCopeland]

Cleon Skousen in his book "The Majesty of God's Law" went into the information of where we get true economic freedom, in the millenniums old culture of Nordic Freemen. The empire south of them wanted to control the world with the Babylonian mechanism of coinage, that became the empire's money system of control.

Economic threats come from the use of Babylon's money.

Economic liberty comes from working together by trust.


"Wealth" comes from the German word for "Voting Stock." When we are all co-owners of the Kingdom of the Lord, we are all wealthy.

A "company" is an ancient Germanic way of organization and working together in an economy wherein trust is the means to economic liberty.


In the idol in the dream of King Nebuchadnezzar were the organizations that operate by the material substances of the earth. The stone that is cut out of the mountain without hands, that smashes the idol is when we realize that we can have an economy without those material substances, that are measured out by the god of Babylon.

Capitalism comes from that Capitoline Hill in Rome, upon which was the Temple of Moneta, where the coins were minted. Capitalism is the material control system of those who are a continuation of the activity that took place in that Temple of Moneta. The Federal Reserve is just another Temple of Moneta.

The Free Enterprise System is people who have joined the family of Christ by their oaths to be good and to work together by Trust. This is why London is said to be the financial capital of the world, because they have always operated by their oaths to be London Freemen.

Will we ever learn to work together by our ancestors system given to them, that we were supposed to continue in (D&C 86:11)?

Any questions?
Darren

What exactly are you trying to say?

[cmichael]

Some of my favorite Mises quotes:

Political economy - Ludwig von Mises
"The market economy and the socialist economy preclude one another. There is no mixture of the two systems possible or thinkable; there is no such thing as the mixed economy, a system that would be in part capitalistic and in part socialistic. Production is directed either by the market or by the decrees of a production tsar or a committee of production tsars.
Human Action
-----------------------
A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings.
------------------------

Whatever people do in the market economy, is the execution of their own plans. In this sense every human action means planning. What those calling themselves planners advocate is not the substitution of planned action for letting things go. It is the substitution of the planner’s own plan for the plans of his fellow-men. The planner is a potential dictator who wants to deprive all other people of the power to plan and act according to their own plans. He aims at one thing only: the exclusive absolute pre-eminence of his own plan.

-----------------------------
Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone. Luxury consumption provides industry with the stimulus to discover and introduce new things.

Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition (San Francisco: Cobden Press, 1985), 32.