#53135 Socialism and Pres. Obama’s health care goals

[Waldorf and Sauron]

If we go to D&C 104: 15-16 we read

And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.
But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.

Ah well as long as we're taking quotes out of context, I should point out that this verse says the Lord's way is to redistribute wealth.

And there's a difference between doing welfare in the Church the Lord's way (absolutely, it must be done in the Lord's way) and outside of the church. You realize that your logic seems to declare every single welfare program, organization, or system in the world (beyond our church's) evil? Do you believe that?

[vorpal blade]

If we go to D&C 104: 15-16 we read

And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.
But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.

Ah well as long as we're taking quotes out of context, I should point out that this verse says the Lord's way is to redistribute wealth.

And there's a difference between doing welfare in the Church the Lord's way (absolutely, it must be done in the Lord's way) and outside of the church. You realize that your logic seems to declare every single welfare program, organization, or system in the world (beyond our church's) evil? Do you believe that?

Once again, a voluntary redistribution is the Lord's way. A compulsory redistribution is Satan's way. Not out of context, but as it is used in the booklet "Providing in the Lord's Way." The principles are not restricted to inside the Church.

My logic declares that every single compulsory welfare program, organization, or system which seeks to redistribute wealth is evil.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

Does Acts 5:1-5 not count?

1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

[dzhonatan]

I've gone to great lengths to explain why I don't think taxation can be a violation of agency, which you claimed it was. Your response is a two-line assertation about the end-case of socialism leads to us being "mere puppets in the hands of a dictator"? FWIW, I served my mission in Russia, and if anybody knows the result of the socialism Benson argued so forcefully against, they do. In no sense of the word were they puppets in the hands of a dictator as McKay uses the phrase.

I was expecting a reasoned reply to my various arguments, but I've been disappointed...

[krebscout]

After firmly reasserting your case that welfare corrupts its recipients, I'm no longer unsure whether you meant to implicate the likes of Claudio, Sauron, and I. Well, we're clearly never going to persuade each other either way, because, let's face it, you're not an open-minded man, and from your point of view we're too blinded by our greed and sense of entitlement to see reason.

I just want to state a few things we believe so that, hopefully, you can better understand where we're coming from:

1) God is not a Republican. Nor is He a Democrat.
2) God is not a Capitalist. Nor is he a Socialist.
3) Property ownership is an illusion, as all we have is given to us by God and we did not earn it, but property is to be respected.
4) Socialized healthcare is charity. It is NO DIFFERENT to us than the fire brigade or the police department. I will willingly and happily pay taxes so that those who are in need of firemen and policemen can get them when they need them. (But perhaps this is invalid to you, as I wouldn't be surprised if you wanted to privatize those, too.)
5) We don't want America to be a Socialist country. Socialized healthcare does not equal a Socialist country any more than socialized public school systems and libraries do.
6) We work dang hard for our money.
7) The system is broken, and it needs a solution. (You have proposed yours - your "Modest Proposal" - and we have proposed ours. I think we about break even on how we feel about each other's solutions.)

As you say, to do "more or less" than the Lord's way is evil. "More or LESS." We are doing less, we're doing less right now, because we're not living the United Order. We're working with a flawed, corrupted system. We do not "establish [socialized healthcare] for [the Lord's] doctrine," and I apologize if my comparison to tithing implied that we do; I was trying to use tithing as an example of how giving up one's money can be both voluntary and regulatory with consequences. That's what we want healthcare to be. And we see it as no more compulsory than paying any other tax.

We are trying to seek the Lord's will, and I believe that you are, too. We just have different ways of going about it.

[vorpal blade]

I've gone to great lengths to explain why I don't think taxation can be a violation of agency, which you claimed it was. Your response is a two-line assertation about the end-case of socialism leads to us being "mere puppets in the hands of a dictator"? FWIW, I served my mission in Russia, and if anybody knows the result of the socialism Benson argued so forcefully against, they do. In no sense of the word were they puppets in the hands of a dictator as McKay uses the phrase.

I was expecting a reasoned reply to my various arguments, but I've been disappointed...

You know, it has been said in this forum that I "have a tendency to bloviate more than most." That's possibly true. So when I see an opportunity to be succinct and answer a point raised with just a couple of lines I am glad to do so. I thought I had completely answered you.

If we go back to what David O. McKay said in the source you quoted, and we take the sentences just before and just after what you quoted I think we get a better sense of what Pres. McKay meant.

Force, on the other hand, emanates from Lucifer himself. Even in man’s [premortal] state, Satan sought power to compel the human family to do his will by suggesting that the free agency of man be inoperative. If his plan had been accepted, human beings would have become mere puppets in the hands of a dictator, and the purpose of man’s coming to earth would have been frustrated. Satan’s proposed system of government, therefore, was rejected, and the principle of free agency established.

President McKay was talking about a system of government which uses force to "save" us. That's the way I see it. Taxation can be used as a method of force to compel us to give to the poor and needy. I believe that is a violation of agency, just as President McKay was talking about, with us just puppets in the hands of a dictator. It is difficult for me to imagine in what other sense you think President McKay was talking. And yes, as I recall President McKay talked about communism as slavery and making the people puppets in the hands of a dictator.

Perhaps the problem is merely in my use of the word "agency." You've quoted a definition from the LDS gospel library. I think that is fine as far as it goes, but have you read Elder D. Todd Christofferson's article on "Moral Agency," in the June 2009 Ensign? There is quite a bit more to agency than the narrow definition you've given. Elder Christofferson points out that there are three elements to moral agency. I'll summarize them here, but you can look at the entire article:
1. "First, there must be alternatives among which to choose."
2. "Second, for us to have agency, we must not only have alternatives, but we must also know what they are."
3. "Third is the next element of agency: the freedom to make choices (see 2 Nephi 10:23). This freedom to act for ourselves in choosing among alternatives is often referred to in the scriptures as agency itself. For this freedom we are indebted to God. It is His gift to us (see Moses 4:3)."

I believe you have been looking at only the third element of agency. Our agency can be limited by government actions which limit our alternatives and by limiting our knowledge of the alternatives. A limiting factor can be a law which compels us to do certain things, or punishes us for doing things or not doing things. It may be that the government cannot take away our power to choose, but this is only one element in what is required to have agency. I feel I am using the word agency in the same way the General Authorities use the word agency.

While looking through the topical guide on agency, to see if I could illustrate my point of view to make it clearer to you, I came across the reference to D&C 134: 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.

Now, it seems to me that this scripture says that it is possible for a government to frame laws which violate the individual's free exercise of conscience. That's what I'm saying when I say that certain tax laws can violate our agency. If it makes you feel better, substitute "free exercise of conscience" for the word "agency" in what I wrote.

A violation of our agency does not have to be total and complete abolishment of agency in order to violate it. Each law takes away just a part of it.

[vorpal blade]

Does Acts 5:1-5 not count?

1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

Acts 5: 1-5 is a good illustration of what I'm talking about. Entering into the covenant to have all things in common has to be, and was, entered into voluntarily. As Peter said, it was Ananias's property and Ananias could do whatever he wanted to do with it. But Ananias tried to deceive the Church by lying that he was giving his all to the Church while keeping back a part of the price of the land. For this deception Ananias fell down dead. No compulsion here, but there are eternal consequences to our actions. However, we are free to choose our actions according to the Lord's plan.

[dzhonatan]

Thanks for your clarification.

President McKay was talking about a system of government which uses force to "save" us. That's the way I see it. Taxation can be used as a method of force to compel us to give to the poor and needy. I believe that is a violation of agency, just as President McKay was talking about, with us just puppets in the hands of a dictator. It is difficult for me to imagine in what other sense you think President McKay was talking. And yes, as I recall President McKay talked about communism as slavery and making the people puppets in the hands of a dictator.

I think president McKay was talking about us not having any ability to choose or act--that is, we, like puppets, would be utterly unable to act except as the puppeteer (Satan) pulled our strings. This is a far cry from having our options limited by laws which prescribe certain actions--indeed, this is unattainable by earthly force. The power Satan wanted was absolute (remember, he asked God to give him his glory), and only such absolute power could have allowed such manipulation. We would have been completely deprived of the the ability to choose and to act for ourselves. That seems the obvious interpretation. Speaking of it as "system of government" is perhaps slightly misleading, since while it is such, it is not an earthly system of government, nor can it ever be one--it's a completely different sort of government.

I've never heard anything like the quote you recall about communism making people into puppets. Could you find a source for that, please? I searched briefly but couldn't find anything.

Perhaps the problem is merely in my use of the word "agency." You've quoted a definition from the LDS gospel library. I think that is fine as far as it goes, but have you read Elder D. Todd Christofferson's article on "Moral Agency," in the June 2009 Ensign? There is quite a bit more to agency than the narrow definition you've given. Elder Christofferson points out that there are three elements to moral agency. I'll summarize them here, but you can look at the entire article:
1. "First, there must be alternatives among which to choose."
2. "Second, for us to have agency, we must not only have alternatives, but we must also know what they are."
3. "Third is the next element of agency: the freedom to make choices (see 2 Nephi 10:23). This freedom to act for ourselves in choosing among alternatives is often referred to in the scriptures as agency itself. For this freedom we are indebted to God. It is His gift to us (see Moses 4:3)."

I believe you have been looking at only the third element of agency. Our agency can be limited by government actions which limit our alternatives and by limiting our knowledge of the alternatives. A limiting factor can be a law which compels us to do certain things, or punishes us for doing things or not doing things. It may be that the government cannot take away our power to choose, but this is only one element in what is required to have agency. I feel I am using the word agency in the same way the General Authorities use the word agency.

Yes, if our usage of the term differs, then obviously we will have trouble coming to any sort of agreement. After rereading Elder Christofferson's article, I fully agree that this is one of our major problems. I want to make a further study of the matter (in particular, it's always seemed to me that agency is either present, or it's not--which agrees with my narrower definition of the word--but not so much with Elder Christofferson's wider definition, which allows degrees of agency), and I'll finish my response later. In the meantime, I'd like your thoughts on another related matter: do other prescriptive laws, such as the examples I've already given (alcohol sales licensing, hunting licenses, anti-segregation laws) violate agency in the same way as taxation laws? If not, why not? If so, should we be, or why should we not be complaining about them?

Later,
dzhonatan

[Edit:typo]

[vorpal blade]

After firmly reasserting your case that welfare corrupts its recipients, I'm no longer unsure whether you meant to implicate the likes of Claudio, Sauron, and I. Well, we're clearly never going to persuade each other either way, because, let's face it, you're not an open-minded man, and from your point of view we're too blinded by our greed and sense of entitlement to see reason.

I just want to state a few things we believe so that, hopefully, you can better understand where we're coming from:

1) God is not a Republican. Nor is He a Democrat.
2) God is not a Capitalist. Nor is he a Socialist.
3) Property ownership is an illusion, as all we have is given to us by God and we did not earn it, but property is to be respected.
4) Socialized healthcare is charity. It is NO DIFFERENT to us than the fire brigade or the police department. I will willingly and happily pay taxes so that those who are in need of firemen and policemen can get them when they need them. (But perhaps this is invalid to you, as I wouldn't be surprised if you wanted to privatize those, too.)
5) We don't want America to be a Socialist country. Socialized healthcare does not equal a Socialist country any more than socialized public school systems and libraries do.
6) We work dang hard for our money.
7) The system is broken, and it needs a solution. (You have proposed yours - your "Modest Proposal" - and we have proposed ours. I think we about break even on how we feel about each other's solutions.)

As you say, to do "more or less" than the Lord's way is evil. "More or LESS." We are doing less, we're doing less right now, because we're not living the United Order. We're working with a flawed, corrupted system. We do not "establish [socialized healthcare] for [the Lord's] doctrine," and I apologize if my comparison to tithing implied that we do; I was trying to use tithing as an example of how giving up one's money can be both voluntary and regulatory with consequences. That's what we want healthcare to be. And we see it as no more compulsory than paying any other tax.

We are trying to seek the Lord's will, and I believe that you are, too. We just have different ways of going about it.

I seem to have hurt your feelings, and you seem to be trying to hurt mine. It is understandable that you would be upset at what you believe to be criticism of your choices, and you feel that I believe you are greedy and blinded by a sense of entitlement. I'm not making any judgments of you; I'm just here to present what I believe to be gospel principles related to socialism and health care. If I were speaking as a General Authority, or as your priesthood leader, I would probably go over the basic principles of welfare. I would say that you have a responsibility to first provide for yourself, if you possibly can, looking at all that you can do. Then you should look to your family for support and assistance. Lastly you should look to the Church for assistance. If you were to persist in asking, "But can I accept government help?" I would probably say to you that this is a decision you have to make after prayerful consideration. I cannot make this decision for you. I wouldn't say whether your decision is right or wrong; I'd leave it up to you to make the decision, and you may in fact make the wrong decision, but it would be overstepping my bounds to tell you what you should do.

What we in our country are now considering is whether to take a major step in socializing medicine. No, this single step will not make us 100% socialist, but in my opinion, and I believe in the opinion of Church leaders, any step along the socialist path is a step in the wrong direction. I believe it will harm the country in many ways, including harming the citizens who are recipients of this redistribution of wealth. I think it will result in a loss of liberty, a loss in the quality of our health care, a loss in the character of our citizens.

Just to state my belief in the things you mentioned:
1) God may not be a Republican or a Democrat, but some principles held by the various parties are definitely contrary to God's will.
2) The United Order is a form of Capitalism. Socialism runs contrary to God's will. If you prefer, God is a Capitalist and not a Socialist.
3) Property ownership is anything but an illusion. It is a fundamental principle of the gospel. It is fundamental to freedom and agency. It is true that all we have is given to us by God, but when he gives it to us it is ours to do with as we choose. He will hold us responsible for our choices.
4)Socialized health is not charity. It is not the pure of love Christ, but is built upon force, coercion, and entitlements. There is a HUGE difference between socialized healthcare and the fire brigade or police department. It is one thing to raise taxes to support a necessary and constitutionally legitimate function of government. Police officers and firemen are paid for valuable services rendered, which benefit the society as a whole. Socialized healthcare, on the other hand, takes money from one group and gives it to individuals who are not providing any service, they just need some money for healthcare. Paying employees for legitimate services is completely different from handing out money to the needy. We have a moral responsibility as individuals to voluntarily help the poor, but it is wrong to force people to help the poor through compulsory taxes.
5)I don't want America to be a Socialist country either. A country with socialized healthcare is more of a Socialist country, all else being equal, than a country without socialized healthcare. I don't see why we need to compromise and have any socialism.
6)Good for you. And you should have a right to use your money as you see fit, not as some government official sees fit.
7)The system is not broken. For the vast majority of Americans it works very well. But it could be made better. I've given my unrealistic, idealistic dreams for what I would like to see. Many more practical suggestions have been made, such as tort reform, health insurance regulation reform, allowing health insurance companies to operate over state boundary lines, and others. We don't have to throw out the baby with the bath water.

We as individuals are doing less than we should, but we as a government are doing more than we should. The time is not right to live the United Order, but socialism is not the right direction to get to the United Order. The system is flawed because it is too Socialistic as it is. You may think now that your taxes for socialized medicine are voluntary, but you can only speak for yourself. It is not fair to force other people to do what you what to do voluntarily; you have to let them decide for themselves. Paying any taxes is compulsory; the difference is what the tax is for. When the tax seeks to take from one group and redistribute the wealth to another group, that tax is evil. Other taxes may be good.

[krebscout]

I seem to have hurt your feelings, and you seem to be trying to hurt mine.

Nope, just trying to be honest. As I said, we're never going to persuade each other. We just fundamentally disagree about too many parts. I will admit that many of your arguments are quite solid and give me some good food for thought.

[vorpal blade]

Thank you for the kind words, Krebscout.

[vorpal blade]

In the meantime, I'd like your thoughts on another related matter: do other prescriptive laws, such as the examples I've already given (alcohol sales licensing, hunting licenses, anti-segregation laws) violate agency in the same way as taxation laws? If not, why not? If so, should we be, or why should we not be complaining about them?

I've been meaning to get back to you on this. The study of law and the complicated effects it has on individuals and society is a really big subject. I'll try to briefly hit the high points of what I believe.

Laws in general tend to restrict our behavior. They can do this by physically preventing people from repeatedly violating a law. They can discourage us from disobeying the law by fines and imprisonment. Laws can also have a "chilling effect," so people avoid certain things for fear of running afoul of the law, whether or not the law expressly forbids it.

Laws can also serve to educate people. They represent, in many cases, what society in general thinks of certain behavior. Many people tend to think something is wrong if there is a law against it, and that there is nothing wrong with something else if there is no law. That is why it is sometimes useful to have a law that may not be enforced, because you know you shouldn't be doing something. Sometimes this backfires, and if it is widely known that the law will not be enforced then you feel it is permitted, though it is perhaps somewhat "naughty." God tends to give laws to educate us to eternal principles; what will help us to afford making serious mistakes.

In general laws should be framed to protect the rights of the weak and innocent. Laws restrict your rights, but it is said that "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." Almost any right has restrictions placed on it so that you do not violate someone else's right. Your freedom of speech is limited when you cause serious harm, such as yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater, or you spread falsehoods which destroy the good name of someone or some company. The intent of these laws is to limit your choices, or to limit your agency, if you prefer.

There is nothing particular about tax laws that limit your freedom or agency any more or less than other laws. Laws which limit you from doing what is right, or which compel you to do something that ought to be done of your own free will and choice, but you aren't hurting anyone, are the kinds of laws I oppose. If you can find a justification for the law as protecting the rights of others then it may be a good law, even if it compels you to do the right thing. It isn't always easy to know whether a law is good or bad, and it may have elements of both in it.

Some people have a vision of the way the world ought to be, and they say that everyone has a right to these things. Everyone should be born to parents who love them, they ought to be cared for and given all the food, clothing, shelter, and medical care that they want or need, that they ought to be treated with respect and consideration by everyone all their lives, that they shouldn't ever have to suffer want of any kind, that they should be free to do whatever they want unless it conflicts with "the vision," they should be able to make meaningful contributions to society regardless of their handicaps, that they have a right to a prestigious job, that health care expenses should never bankrupt them, and they should die with dignity surrounded by loving friends and family, whenever they are ready to go. Since the visionary believes we have a "right" to these things, it becomes a moral imperative to frame laws which guarantees these "rights." I'm not saying that these aren't good things to have, but I question where these so-called "rights" come from, and whether it is productive to make laws in regard to these rights. Guranteeing these "rights" will also restrict someone else's right.

Anyway, in regard to your specifics. The Church has made the argument that alcohol is a social evil, destroys many families, cause much suffering, loss of work, and irresponsible behavior, so that there should be laws against the manufacture and sale of alcohol. Others feel this is unduly restrictive of our agency, and that people will learn to disrespect law in general and organized crime will flourish. Alcohol licensing laws do restrict choices and agency, but I think they are a good thing because they protect innocent people and protect the rights of others.

Hunting licenses are restrictive, but probably serve a legitimate public cause by ensuring that others will later have a right to hunt. They serve to protect people from irresponsible hunters.

Anti-segregation laws also restrict what people can and can't do. Some of these laws protect the rights of minorities. Some of these laws seem designed to force us to change our thinking, if we are bigoted or racist. There is and has been a controversy over whether anti-segregation laws are a good thing or a bad thing. I've read an interesting article by Thomas Sowell where he argues that many of these laws have actually hurt race relations and made things worse. It is difficult to discuss these things calmly, because it has become a sort of dogma that if you oppose anti-segregation laws you aren't worth talking to.

I’ve probably overstated my case for laws violating our agency.