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

[vorpal blade]

One of my concerns in the reply by Waldorf and Sauron is that it might give some people the idea that some of the Brethren disagreed with Ezra Taft Benson’s views on socialism. Waldorf and Sauron use Ryan Decker's article "The Mormon Trump Card," who makes some claims that there were differences of opinion among the Brethren, which should not come as a surprise to anyone who knows these strong-willed and experienced men, but Decker does not show that in regard to socialism Benson did not represent the views of the Church. How much involvement Benson should have in the John Birch Society, perhaps, but not on the correctness of his views on socialism.

Waldorf and Sauron criticized the link provided by the questioner, but I found their comments more aptly applies to Ryan Decker’s article:

Regarding the link:
You know that that's just posted by some random person, right? That it's not from an actual news source, and that it's completely biased and uncited, a supreme case of one sticking one's head in the sand? Please don't believe anything that you receive in an email forward or on a blog.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

Yeah, but as I mentioned in my response, I don't believe Elder Benson's "socialism" is the same term we're using today—then, it was about Soviet-Style communism and now it's about canadian-style health. They have a few things in common, but they're different enough that calling them the same thing is misleading. Bensons remarks are taken out of context today.

And I've complained about Ryan Decker's lack of citations before (see http://theboard.byu.edu/index.php?area=viewall&id=50207, and actually, I have sent him a personal email criticizing the article for that reason.) However, he does give a (weak) bibliography in the comments.

As for the Brethren's stance on socialism, you might be interested in a quote from Brigham Young and the twelve. I don't mean this to back up my own point of view, only to display some of the variations in political perspective throughout church history:

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 beget vice.

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.

(Card has an article about its context here; it's been circulated, erroneously, as a "Proclamation on the Economy".)

You're right that none of the brethren supported communism. But, they did disagree with how the Church should react against it, and whether the Church needed to be outspokenly anti-communist at all. And their disagreements illustrate that Elder Benson's political viewpoint—however much they may personally agree with parts of it—was not an official position of the Church.

Sorry I haven't had time to reply to many of the threads, but I'm having too much fun with my family on vacation

[vorpal blade]

Yeah, but as I mentioned in my response, I don't believe Elder Benson's "socialism" is the same term we're using today—then, it was about Soviet-Style communism and now it's about canadian-style health. They have a few things in common, but they're different enough that calling them the same thing is misleading. Bensons remarks are taken out of context today.

Thank you for the reference to a previous response you had made using Ryan Decker's article. The link you provided didn't work for me, but I found the response by searching the archives. I read the talk by Ezra Taft Benson that was referenced in that question (#50207) you answered. I don't see how you can think that Benson is referring to some kind of socialism different from what we see today.

Socialism Disguised under Welfare State Measures

As citizens of this noble land, we have marched a long way down the soul-destroying road of socialism. If you question that statement, consider the recent testimonial from the Nobel prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman. He indicated that government spending in the United States at all levels amounts to over forty percent of today's total national income. If we continue to follow the trend in which we are heading today, two things will inevitably result: first, a loss of our personal freedom, and second, financial bankruptcy. This is the price we pay when we turn away from God and the principles which he has taught and turn to government to do everything for us. It is the formula by which nations become enslaved.

This nation was established by the God of heaven as a citadel of liberty. A constitution guaranteeing those liberties was designed under the superintending influence of heaven. I have recounted here before what took place in the St. George Temple when the Founding Fathers of this nation visited President Wilford Woodruff, who was then a member of the Twelve and not president of the Church. The republic which was established was the most nearly perfect system which could have been devised to lead men toward celestial principles. We may liken our system to the law of Moses which leads men to the higher law of Christ.

Today, two hundred years later, we must sadly observe that we have significantly departed from the principles established by the founders of our country. James Madison opposed the proposal to put Congress in the role of promoting the general welfare according to its whims in these words:

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasure; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor. . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for [and it was an issue then], it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America. [quoted in Donald L. Newquist, Prophets, Principles, and National Survival, p. 342]

That statement, given as a warning, has proved prophetic. Today Congress is doing what Madison warned about. Many are now advocating that which has become a general practice since the early 1930s: a redistribution of wealth through the federal tax system. That, by definition, is socialism!

Americans have always been committed to taking care of the poor, aged, and unemployed. We have done this on the basis of Judaic-Christian beliefs and humanitarian principles. It has been fundamental to our way of life that charity must be voluntary if it is to be charity. Compulsory benevolence is not charity. Today's socialists--who call themselves egalitarians--are using the federal government to redistribute wealth in our society, not as a matter of voluntary charity, but as a so-called matter of right. One HEW official said recently, "In this country, welfare is no longer charity, it is a right. More and more Americans feel that their government owes them something" (U.S. News and World Report, April 21, 1975, p. 49). President Grover Cleveland said--and we believe as a people--that though the people support the government the government should not support the people.

The chief weapon used by the federal government to achieve this "equality" is the system of transfer payments. This means that the federal governments collects from one income group and transfer payments to another by the tax system. These payments are made in the form of social security benefits, Medicare and Medicaid, and food stamps, to name a few. Today the cost of such programs has been going in the hole at the rate of 12 billion dollars a year; and, with increased benefits and greater numbers of recipients, even though the tax base has been increased we will have larger deficits in the future.

Today the party now in power is advocating and has support, apparently in both major parties, for a comprehensive national health insurance program--a euphemism for socialized medicine. Our major danger is that we are currently (and have been for forty years) transferring responsibility from the individual, local, and state governments to the federal government--precisely the same course that led to the economic collapse in Great Britain and New York City. We cannot long pursue the present trend without its bringing us to national insolvency.

I encourage everyone to read it all in context.
http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6162

[vorpal blade]

So, the public plan currently being debated isn't socialist. It doesn't constitute a complete government takeover of healthcare. A socialist plan is a single-payer system, and that sort of system isn't even on the table. Some fear that the limited public health insurance option will become a universal health care option as more and more people enroll in it, and thus it'll become a single-payer system. The idea is that Obama (who supports a single-payer system but thinks we have to start with the infrastructure we already have in place) has picked a strategy that will lead us toward a single-payer system in future years. Of course, this argument supposes that people will overwhelmingly choose the public option, which would only happen if the public option isn't the apocalypse that the right depicts. Honestly, if the public option is really as bad as they say, people will leave it in droves for the private insurance companies and we'll never get to a socialist system.

Well, not quite. The fear is not that people will enroll in the public health insurance option because it is so popular, but that after a little while they will not have any other choice. When we know longer have a choice it will be truly socialist - which is a hallmark of socialism.

Let me explain what many people seem to fear, from the point of view of one who shares that view. There are at least three plans being discussed that have come out of various committees, so it is a little hard to be definite while so much keeps shifting around. It is kind of like watching that con game where they put a pea under one of three little cups and keep moving the cups around, then ask you to guess which cup has the pea. The main idea is that there will be a government health insurance option, but you will be required to choose between the government plan and one of the other government-approved health care options. You have to enroll in some plan. Then the government will simply run the other approved private insurance companies out of business.

We hear rhetoric that the government health care option will have to stand on its own two feet, but there is good reason to believe that that will never be the case. The government plan is going to have to take all those with expensive health problems, without discriminating against pre-existing conditions. It is going to have to take people who are otherwise too poor to afford health insurance. As a result, it is going to take a lot of your tax dollars to support it, as has been documented.

Obama is not going to let his health care plan fail; the government will keep subsidizing it. And while the rhetoric will be about showing private health insurance companies how greedy they are, in reality the government doesn’t have to show a profit. It doesn’t have to account for a lot of the fixed overhead expenses. With the government funneling trillions of dollars into it no private insurance company – which meets government approved standards – is going to be able to compete. The opposition will fold, and everyone will be then be required to take the government option.

So, it is a deceptive “camel nose under the tent” plan. Incremental socialism. Introduced step by step. Once we begin it will be extremely hard, politically, to turn back. Too many people will have a vested interest in keeping it. Too much rhetoric will be spouted about those who want to do away with the system are killing the poor babies and throwing the uninsurable out into the streets to get run over and killed. The proponents of Pres. Obama’s plan are counting on it. It’s a sneaky end run around our personal freedoms.

[vorpal blade]

And I've complained about Ryan Decker's lack of citations before (see http://theboard.byu.edu/index.php?area=viewall&id=50207, and actually, I have sent him a personal email criticizing the article for that reason.) However, he does give a (weak) bibliography in the comments.

As for the Brethren's stance on socialism, you might be interested in a quote from Brigham Young and the twelve. I don't mean this to back up my own point of view, only to display some of the variations in political perspective throughout church history:

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 beget vice.

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.

(Card has an article about its context here; it's been circulated, erroneously, as a "Proclamation on the Economy".)

You're right that none of the brethren supported communism. But, they did disagree with how the Church should react against it, and whether the Church needed to be outspokenly anti-communist at all. And their disagreements illustrate that Elder Benson's political viewpoint—however much they may personally agree with parts of it—was not an official position of the Church.

Sorry I haven't had time to reply to many of the threads, but I'm having too much fun with my family on vacation

I also am having too much fun with my family on their vacation to spend much time on this at present. Just a few points to think about. The lack of citations is probably the least of Ryan Decker's problems. He is biased, he misrepresents his sources to some extent, and his conclusions do not follow from his supposed facts. But he has company. I read a chapter or so in the book Decker likes so much and found it had the same problems. More citations, to be sure, but often from interviews and other sources not readily verifiable. That book "David O, McKay and the rise of Modern Mormonism" is full of the author's political point of view, which is very much anti Benson.

I haven't read the Brigham Young quote in context, but I did read Card's review. Very interesting. Actually, I don't have a problem with Brigham Young's statements as they are. I agree with them. The problem is when you use the power of the state to try to force people to share the wealth that you get socialism, which is worse than the problem of inequality of wealth.

Not only did they not support communism, they didn't support socialism. But don't confuse a difference of opinion regarding the John Birch Society with a difference of opinion on the things Benson was teaching, with the full approval of David O. McKay.

So, what is the official position of the Church? If you narrowly define that as the four standard works, then I might agree with you using that definition. But if we mean what the President of the Church was teaching, and all of the General Authorities supported, then Benson was teaching the official position of the Church.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

I encourage everyone to read it all in context.

Ah, that's one thing I hadn't done--I had skimmed it and recognized plenty of excerpts I had read elsewhere, but you're right; the talk is more directly related than I thought and I should have read it. I still disagree with it, though, and don't feel like my church membership or faith is in jeopardy.

The fear is not that people will enroll in the public health insurance option because it is so popular, but that after a little while they will not have any other choice. When we know longer have a choice it will be truly socialist - which is a hallmark of socialism.

I rushed through a complicated argument here. My point is, how will it ever become mandatory if it's extremely unpopular among those who use it? If it's really as bad as people claim it will be, how will it ever become popular enough for it to be feasible to make it mandatory?

Also, I know what you meant, but what you actually said here made me laugh: "...it will be truly socialist - which is a hallmark of socialism." Indeed.

I see your fear that the government run system will put the others out of business, but how exactly is this different from other sectors of the economy where both public and private options flourish? Public universities haven't put private ones out of business. Fed-ex and UPS compete fine with USPS, despite the latter's tremendous and perpetual government subsidies. Bookstores exist side-by-side with libraries. All of the government versions of these institutions are heavily subsidized, yet the private options still exist. I can see it becoming <i>harder</i> for insurance companies to compete (they may have to pare down their 20% profit margins) but I'm confident that both can exist side-by-side, as long as the private insurers can offer something the government plan can't.

I don't think the end goal is total socialism—socialized medicine, okay, I can see that—but not total socialism. Total socialism and socialized (no-choice) medicine is not the goal for me, at least. I support the free market in most cases, but I do believe that in certain situations, the free market economy is inherently unable to provide the desired ends. None of us are trying to take away your private insurance—that's not our goal! Whether that's a consequence is a different story, but when you say it's a deceptive trick to increment socialism and destroy personal freedoms, I don't buy that. Obama doesn't want to socialize america and abolish private property and have the state run everything. He wants to insure everybody and stop the trainwreck that is the status quo. I think we do need to be wary and critical of the consequences of those actions, but I disagree that there's an ulterior motive.

I think there's more going on here than the John Birch Society, but the issue does warrant more research than Decker has given. I'll take a look at a few of his sources when I get back. maybe.

But if we mean what the President of the Church was teaching, and all of the General Authorities supported, then Benson was teaching the official position of the Church.

I searched in vain for a quote on socialism from Ezra Taft Benson acting as the President of the Church. The talk in question was given as an apostle, while Spencer W. Kimball was President of the Church—I can't find anything from President Kimball on socialism either. I've seen a few talks on socialism by general authorities over the decades, but I'd like to see something—anything—from an acting President of the Church on the subject.

[Portia]

I think health care for all in a post-industrial society is a clear moral imperative, good public policy, and a publich health necessity. For instance, I am all for preventive care/vaccinations for, say, illegal immigrants, because these measures are only fully successful if everyone participates. I think there's room for debate about the best route to take, but when people spout off that the USA has the "best health care system in the world," it wearies me, because we don't, not by life expectancy, outcomes, or cost efficiency. Calling health care reform "socialistic" is a red herring, and is the rallying cry of libertarians who simply don't want any government involvement in their lives. To them I say, go to the Isle of Man or Turks & Caicos and stop socialistic-ly taking a majority share in banks under the guise of "free market capitalism." Obama is not some far-left Maoist; if anything, as a liberal myself, I think he's pandering to the Republican minority far too much.

[vorpal blade]

Also, I know what you meant, but what you actually said here made me laugh: "...it will be truly socialist - which is a hallmark of socialism." Indeed.

I'm glad you knew what I meant.

I don't think the end goal is total socialism—socialized medicine, okay, I can see that—but not total socialism.

I believe that total socialism is President Obama's ultimate goal. I believe he does want to socialize America and abolish private property.

But if we mean what the President of the Church was teaching, and all of the General Authorities supported, then Benson was teaching the official position of the Church.

I searched in vain for a quote on socialism from Ezra Taft Benson acting as the President of the Church. The talk in question was given as an apostle, while Spencer W. Kimball was President of the Church—I can't find anything from President Kimball on socialism either. I've seen a few talks on socialism by general authorities over the decades, but I'd like to see something—anything—from an acting President of the Church on the subject.

As you know the President of the Church has to be very careful when he talks about something that could be construed to be about politics. Look at all the flak the Church got when it spoke out in favor of Prop 8. So, I'm not surprised that you couldn't find something Ezra Taft Benson said about socialism while he was the President of the Church. Not only does the Church have to remain politically neutral, but it isn't good to put members of the Church in jeopardy of losing their "church membership or faith" by being explicit in what the Church teaches on all matters. Wisdom seems to be saying that we teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves. But how we govern is not a matter of indifference to the Lord.

One of the things I learned reading the book Decker used as his source of authority was that President David O. McKay was encouraging Ezra Taft Benson to speak out against communism and socialism. The President of the Church could not publicly say the things Ezra Taft Benson was saying, but everything Ezra Taft Benson said publicly had the blessing and support of the Brethren. Benson would frequently check to make sure he wasn't stepping out of line, but President McKay was fully behind Benson. Had Benson, as an apostle, said anything contrary to Church teachings in a public meeting, such as an address to students at BYU, you can bet that the President of the Church would have taken steps to correct that. It is clearly a responsibility of the presiding authority to correct false doctrine. I haven't seen any evidence of any correction made to Benson's repeated remarks.

[vorpal blade]

I think health care for all in a post-industrial society is a clear moral imperative, good public policy, and a publich health necessity. For instance, I am all for preventive care/vaccinations for, say, illegal immigrants, because these measures are only fully successful if everyone participates. I think there's room for debate about the best route to take, but when people spout off that the USA has the "best health care system in the world," it wearies me, because we don't, not by life expectancy, outcomes, or cost efficiency. Calling health care reform "socialistic" is a red herring, and is the rallying cry of libertarians who simply don't want any government involvement in their lives. To them I say, go to the Isle of Man or Turks & Caicos and stop socialistic-ly taking a majority share in banks under the guise of "free market capitalism." Obama is not some far-left Maoist; if anything, as a liberal myself, I think he's pandering to the Republican minority far too much.

The difference between liberals and conservatives is not whether something like "health care for all" is considered a moral imperative. The difference is that liberals are willing to violate your agency to achieve their ends. If a conservative sees a person who lacks a couple of hundred dollars for some needed medicine, he gives the needy the money, or works to get volunteers to help the needy. The conservatives work to reduce the price of medicine using free market principles. They make it possible for the person to earn his own income and be self-sufficient.

Liberals, on the other hand, get together in a gang and go to someone's house and pull out a gun and demand a couple of hundred dollars. They then take the money and give it to the needy person saying it is his right to receive it. They then pat themselves on the back and talk about how morally superior they are, and how much they really care about the needy. [I heard this analogy this morning, given by Dr. Walter Williams, former university department head of economics.]

If you are referring to Obama's socialist attempts to take over the banks, I agree. I disagree with just about everything else you say. But...it's nice to hear from you!

[dzhonatan]

(Greetings all, I've been lurking around for a while but never found a particularly good reason to post until now)...

and that reason is this: I absolutely detest the suggestion that taxation, except perhaps in a most extreme sense which we do not begin to approach (as no democratic government of which I am aware--including Sweden, where I lived--ever has), is a violation of agency. It may be a violation of sound principles of governance, or of economics, or of what-you-like, but not of your agency. You will never make me believe that agency is connected with the amount of money (much less the percentage of your paycheck!) you have and are able to spend freely. What possibilities and privileges you have, yes. But agency--no. Making that argument is implying that everybody who is born poor is somehow being short-changed on agency (by whom?), which I simply cannot believe.

I'm not a socialist. I believe in the free-market economy, and I'm wary of too much government intervention. I haven't looked into Obama's healthcare plan enough to know whether or not I like it. I do know one thing I don't like, though, and that is all the scare-tactics being used to fight it. It's shameful.

I'm sure we all remember the story of how, after suffering defeat in three battles in which many of the able-bodied men were killed, King Limhi gave some money himself, went out asking for volunteers to help the widows and orphans, and worked to reduce the price of food using free market principles. Right?

Er, whoops, must have gotten my scripture stories mixed up. What he actually did (King Limhi, remember, was a "just man" (Mosiah 19:17), and he and his people were at this points particularly humble and religiously inclined) was "command[] that every man should impart to the support of the widows and their children, that they might not perish with hunger" (Mosiah 21:17). A command. From the King. In modern terms, we would call that taxation. Or you might call it getting a gang together and showing up on someone's doorstep with a gun (sword) and demanding a couple hundred dollars (shiblons).

That same "gun" of yours is metaphorically pointed a hundred different ways--it's pointed everywhere the government enacts prescriptive laws. I can make the exact same argument as you, except that instead of taxes it could be about anti-discrimination laws--the government got a gang together to show up on the doorstep of Little Rock Central High School with some guns and force the Governor of Arkansas to let black students in. And I don't hear many people complaining about that, even though in that case the government really did, literally, get a gang (well, the 101st Airborne Division) with some guns. (Incidentally, I've never heard of an airborne division showing up on some guy's doorstep because he didn't pay taxes). It's pointed at all the people who have to buy licenses to sell liquor (haven't heard much complaining about that one among Utah conservatives). It's pointed at all the people who have to buy licenses to hunt. It's pointed at all the people who aren't allowed into top-secret government facilities without appropriate clearance (are you going to start complaining about that one anytime soon?).

Your ability to buy yourself a new car, a new computer, an airplane ticket to Hawaii, etc. is not a question of agency. Until taxation is taking away the basic ability to live--and, as I said before, to the extent of my knowledge that has never happened in a democratic (or representative) government--I do not believe it is taking away your agency. Representing it as such is, I believe, a fundamental misunderstanding of what agency means.

That's the end of my rant. Have a nice day!

[vorpal blade]

Hello, dzhonatan. Welcome to the discussion.

I'm frequently surprised when I see someone post after me, and they evidently are responding to what I say, because I can scarcely see the connection between what I said and what they say. I guess I need to continue to work on my communication skills.

I'm not against all taxation, just taxation that can't be supported by the U.S. Constitution. I, like Ezra Taft Benson, am against taxation that seeks to take from one income group and transfers payments to another by the tax system. You don't think Ezra Taft Benson was ignorant of the Book of Mormon, do you? As Elder Benson said

Many are now advocating that which has become a general practice since the early 1930s: a redistribution of wealth through the federal tax system. That, by definition, is socialism!

Americans have always been committed to taking care of the poor, aged, and unemployed. We have done this on the basis of Judaic-Christian beliefs and humanitarian principles. It has been fundamental to our way of life that charity must be voluntary if it is to be charity. Compulsory benevolence is not charity. Today's socialists--who call themselves egalitarians--are using the federal government to redistribute wealth in our society, not as a matter of voluntary charity, but as a so-called matter of right.

Taxation of that kind does violate our agency because it forces us to contribute to a system of compulsory benevolence, which was Satan's plan for saving all of us. A plan that denied our agency. When something should be done voluntarily, and is forced upon us by the power of the state, it goes against our agency.

It is not about the amount of money you have and are able to spend, it is about the government using force to compel us to give money to the government, so that they can then give it to other individuals for no other reason than some bureaucrat determines that they need government help.

I don't need King Limhi to command me to contribute to the support of the widows and their children, that they might not perish with hunger, the Lord has already commanded me. There is no evidence in the Book of Mormon to support the idea that the command of King Limhi was taxation; the people gave directly to the needy, and not to King Limhi who would then give to the people. It appears to be a command that was not enforced, whereas in our system of taxation they will throw you in jail if you refuse to pay. At least, that's how I read it, and apparently how Ezra Taft Benson read it. But, it isn't a big point with me. Even if it had been taxes I certainly wouldn't look to King Limhi for enlightenment on the way government should be run. King Limhi was ready to execute Ammon without a trial, but only King Limhi's curiosity saved Ammon. (see Mosiah 7:10-11)

I also am not opposed to the use of state power. But it has to be done according to the Constitution. The use of state power to transfer wealth from one individual to another is just legal theft, unless we are talking about Constitutional responsibilities to support the state in the lawful exercise of it's powers.

Thanks for the opportunity to (hopefully) clarify my position. I wish I could explain myself better.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

So much to respond to... and little time. So I'll bite off a little.

Many are now advocating that which has become a general practice since the early 1930s: a redistribution of wealth through the federal tax system. That, by definition, is socialism!

Americans have always been committed to taking care of the poor, aged, and unemployed. We have done this on the basis of Judaic-Christian beliefs and humanitarian principles. It has been fundamental to our way of life that charity must be voluntary if it is to be charity. Compulsory benevolence is not charity. Today's socialists--who call themselves egalitarians--are using the federal government to redistribute wealth in our society, not as a matter of voluntary charity, but as a so-called matter of right.

This argument, that legislating good is wrong because it violates agency, is incomplete. I think we can see that in a wider context: we have all sorts of laws of "compulsory benevolence," and well we ought to. Take the issue of abortion (which, Vorpal Blade, I think you and I see completely eye-to-eye on): don't we believe that the law ought to require the "good" choice? If a pregnant teenager has no (legal) choice to abort a child, has she failed to do good? No, in fact, she has done good. And though "giving a gift grudgingly" is not counted for righteousness, it is still the best choice overall since it takes into account the good of the "other," namely the child. We can find many such examples. Furthermore, a law does not take away agency; it simply assigns different consequences to the possible decisions. You can still choose not to pay your taxes—but you have to face the consequences, and that is inherently part of our agency. I can choose not to pay my tithing, but I would lose my good standing in the church... yet I still have agency. I agree that charity has less an effect on the giver when more-or-less compulsory, but when voluntary charity is insufficient, we have to figure out what's best overall, and in many cases, like abortion, the right to life trumps the right to choose. (Pro-life, pro-choice, eh, eh?)

Furthermore, I don't know that we can quite call it involuntary when our elected government is "for the people, by the people." Our governmental system is set up to carry out the wishes of the people—more complex than simple majority, as you know, but it nevertheless comes from the people in a legislative process that the people consent to. When the people set up a system of mandated charity in a country of participatory political process, couldn't it be said that the people have, as a whole, committed a charitable act? If the people have elected representatives who pass a plan of charity, does anybody get credit for that charitable act?

You know a lot of liberals ARE rich people who will knowingly be taxed more? They're not just poor people, self-righteously taking from the rich republicans. Obama did make almost twice as much money for his campaign as McCain...

[vorpal blade]

I wouldn't say that a law providing penalties for committing an evil act, like abortion (in most cases) is much like tax laws redistributing wealth. Laws against murder, theft, and so forth don't try to make men do the right thing, only punish them for doing the wrong thing. Laws that allow the government to rob from the rich to give to the poor doesn't legislate good, it makes legal something that is evil (theft). I'm not impressed that the supposed purpose or ends of the law are considered good, and therefore the "ends justify the means." Government handouts are not a good thing for the beneficiary as well as not being a good thing for the person forced to pay. Such "charity," given the way it is, corrupts the receiver.

There are many problems in America such as poverty, sickness, immorality, crime, unemployment, poor education, dishonesty, corruption, greed, selfishness, laziness, and a lack of responsibility. Government programs ostensibly created to fight these problems always make the problems worse. That's because compulsory benevolence doesn't work. Satan's plan was doomed to failure, but it still found acceptance in one third the hosts of heaven.

If I refuse to pay my taxes the government will seize my property and sell it, if they somehow fail to get it by garnishing my wages. I literally do not have a choice. One way or the other the government will get it.

As you know, we have a form of government where the government's powers are limited by the Constitution. There are procedures to change the Constitution. When those procedures are not followed then the laws enacted contrary to the Constitution are not valid. In my opinion the laws giving the government the right to set up mandated charity are not constitutional, because the Constitution doesn't authorize such laws. A simple majority in Congress cannot override the Constitution. This is to prevent the kind of abuses we see, where our Constitutional rights are not protected. It isn't right, it isn't fair that Congress should pass a law requiring anyone to give the government money that they can hand out for essentially a charitable purpose.

If you want to propose that our tax forms include some lines where you can make some voluntary contributions, which will increase the tax you owe, to support social programs such as a public option for health insurance, I won't object, as long as you don't have to contribute. If it is such a good idea, and the people, by the people really support this mandated charity and wish to commit a charitable act, let them do so democratically, when they file their taxes. Then I will believe it is a charitable act.

A lot of rich people are liberals. Apparently, from what I hear on the news, several in the Obama administration aren't too good at paying their taxes. Anyway, let them be generous with their own money, not the money of other people. Unfortunately we will soon be at the point where half the people in the United States don't pay federal income taxes, and to them the question of whether they believe in charity or not is boiled down to "giving or receiving?"

I sometimes wish I could see just how much taxes certain rich liberals actually pay....

[dzhonatan]

Waldorf and Sauron correctly, I believe, argue that agency is not affected by laws. Since this seems to be a sticking point, I think it's worthwhile to define what we mean by agency.

Agency is the ability and privilege God gives us to choose and to act for ourselves.

It seems clear to me that "choose" and "act" are general here. That is, we are, in general, allowed to choose and act for ourselves. Agency does not mean that we can at any time choose whatever we want and do whatever we want. There are constraints, but the presence or absence of agency is measured by the ability to choose and act, not by the number of choices (possible actions) we have.

Let me give you an example. As I mentioned in my previous post, I lived in Sweden. The Swedes are lovely people, and more than anywhere else (even my mission, though probably just because the latter was more recent) Sweden is the place I want to go back and visit (I've lived in a few other places, too). As you doubtless know, Sweden is a very socialist (in the modern sense of the term, not the original sense) country--taxes are just above 50%. Because of this, when one of the auxiliary organizations in our ward was looking for a service project, they sometimes had trouble--volunteer to take care of old people? No, they pay people to do that. Clean up a park? I never saw a dirty park the entire time I was there--they pay plenty of people to do that, too. Indeed, doing one of those things might have been publicly frowned upon as "taking away people's jobs."

Now, did that somehow violate the agency of the members of the church? It severely narrowed the practical alternatives, but did it violate their ability to choose and to act? Of course not! They just had to use other opportunities to serve. I promise you, there are always plenty to choose among and act on.

The examples of other prescriptive laws which I gave, and which you did not respond to (evidently they were part of my post which seemed unrelated to the prior discussion, for which I apologize. There was a reason I called it a rant--it was written quickly, and could have been better structured and explained) are examples of other laws enacted which demand that you do certain things in exactly the same way tax laws do. If the problem with tax laws is not about money but fundamental to the nature of the law itself, i.e. all prescriptive laws take away agency (indeed, it would seem that under this logic all proscriptive laws violate agency as well), then each of these laws also takes away agency. Why, then, is there no uproar about anti-segregation laws denying agency? Why aren't those so concerned with preserving agency marching against laws which require a license to sell alcohol? If the issue with agency is about the nature of prescriptive laws, then should we not be protesting these other prescriptive laws?

I find this point of view untenable, because it ends up holding that practically every law enacted by government is a removal of the agency of the governed, which, as you aptly note, is Satan's plan. And yet D&C 134:1 states: "We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society." Obviously, governments and laws are good. It cannot be, therefore, that every law is a violation of agency. Removal of agency is removal of the ability to choose and act, which is a rather more serious (and, fortunately, rather more difficult!) operation than simply limiting possibilities. That ability really can be lost, for example, to chemical addictions, and Huxley's Brave New World presents a government which truly violates its citizens' agency by this means. But I've yet to see a realization of such a scheme in the USA.

I see only those two possibilities: either taxation is a violation of agency because it involves money (which I attempted to rebut in my first post, and which you denounced) or it is a violation of agency because that is a fundamental characteristic of prescriptive laws (which I have attempted to rebut in this post). If you see other possibilities, please explain, and I will consider them seriously.

Regarding King Limhi, there's absolutely no evidence that it was or was not enforced, nor as to how the command was carried out. Asserting that the people gave directly to the poor is absolutely baseless, as is saying that it appears not to have been enforced. And as for examples of how government should be run--no, Limhi was not a perfect man, nor a perfect governor (surprise!). To the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been a perfect earthly king, president, ruler, or magistrate on the face of this earth since, oh, forever. So maybe we should never look to anyone for an example? That's a weak argument.

Constitutionality is a serious issue, but completely unrelated to whether or not taxation violates agency, and so I will not go into it right now.

This is the end of my response of vorpal blade's first post.

In response to his second post:

As far as I can tell, the only reason for calling taxation theft (seeing as theft is taking money in violation of laws) is the assertion that taxation is unconstitutional. Again, this is not related to whether or not it is a violation of agency, and so I'll decline to take it up at this point. Whether it corrupts the receiver, whether it works, and so on are questions which should certainly be taken into account when setting policy, but, again, I see no relation to the question of violation of agency of those who are taxed, so I'll pass. If you feel that these issues do somehow have a bearing on the question of agency, please explain how.

If I refuse to pay my taxes the government will seize my property and sell it, if they somehow fail to get it by garnishing my wages. I literally do not have a choice. One way or the other the government will get it.

But you do have a choice. Your options are limited, but your ability to choose and to act is not removed. The option to live in America and not pay taxes is off-limits (unless you want to completely cut yourself off from the rest of society, but that would probably be counterproductive), but there are still hundreds of tax-related decisions you can make--your ability to choose remains! You can choose which state you live in. If you want to go extreme, you can move to any of the following countries which have no income tax:

Andorra
Bahamas
Brunei
Kuwait
Maldives
Monaco
Nauru
Oman
Qatar
United Arab Emirates
Vanuatu

You might not like the climates of most of them (Monaco's not bad), but your ability to choose and to act remains absolutely untouched! Your options are limited, and you may not have the option you would like, but your agency remains! I don't know how to make that point any more strongly.

The rest of your second post again turns to issues of constitutionality, what is right and fair, and so on, but does not seem to deal directly with the question of agency, so I'll close here.

All the best,
dzhonatan

[Edited at 12:19 PM for style and clarity in several places: "choose between" -> "choose among"; "ends up being that every practical law" -> "ends up holding ... "; "violates peoples agency" -> "violates its citizens' agency".]

[krebscout]

"Government handouts are not a good thing for the beneficiary as well as not being a good thing for the person forced to pay. Such "charity," given the way it is, corrupts the receiver."

I'd like to see this point elaborated. And I know you know our son is on Medicaid, but don't worry - he's not offended.

-Waldorf

[krebscout]

Vorpal, I see your point, I really do, and I think that the big hang-up here is the core belief about what Medicaid/socialized healthcare/etc. really is. You see it as compulsory charity. We see it as regulated charity. We both agree that charity is good and necessary.

You happily pay tithing and fast offerings. You do not view that as compulsory, do you? Yet there are consequences if you don't pay. If you don't pay your taxes, you get your property seized; if you don't pay your tithing, you don't get a temple recommend. Now imagine that tithing was not regulated. Sure, some good people would still pay ten percent regularly, and some would pay more and some would pay less and some would pay none at all. The way tithing is set up and regulated makes for a very smooth, fair, and successful process, and most members of the church are happy to do it because of their attitude about it.

Do you see my point? We just see it very differently.

[krebscout]

Apparently I just repeated some things my husband said. Sorry. Clearly we think alike.

[vorpal blade]

dzhonatan, I believe you are missing my point. I'll have to think about how I can explain it better for you. Perhaps you could explain to me exactly how Satan's plan would destroy the agency of man.

In the meantime I'll try to respond to Waldorf and Sauron in the time I have today.

I like this quote from the Leader's Guide to Welfare, "Providing In The Lord's Way." This comes from Part 1, page 3.

The Lord has established a way for his Saints to care for the poor and needy and thereby bring blessings into their own lives. Providing for the poor and needy in the Lord's way means that the giver helps those who are less fortunate by giving according to what he has received from God. He gives freely and with a true spirit of love, recognizing that his Heavenly Father is the source of all his blessings and that he is responsible to use those blessings in the service of others.

The receiver accepts the offered help with gratitude. He uses it to release himself from the bondage and limitations of his need and become more able to rise to his full potential, both temporally and spiritually. He then reaches out to help others.

Providing in the Lord's way humbles the rich, exalts the poor, and sanctifies both [see D&C 104:15-18]. Both are blessed as they keep the Lord's commandments (see D&C 130:20-21). Both become more able to give as Christ gives.

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.

Now, the way I see it, welfare must be done in the Lord's way, or as the Lord said in regard to another matter (3 Nephi 18:13)

But whoso among you shall do more or less than these are not built upon my rock, but are built upon a sandy foundation; and when the rain descends, and the floods come, and the winds blow, and beat upon them, they shall fall, and the gates of hell are ready open to receive them.

Also we read in 3 Nephi 11:40

And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.

In other words, I believe that trying to implement a welfare plan that is more or less than the Lord's way leads to evil. It also indicates a lack of faith and trust in the Lord. Sort of like steadying the arc, while done with good intentions, was not pleasing to God.

Government welfare plans are not the Lord's way. The giver does not give freely and with a true spirit of love. The receiver is lead to believe that what he is receiving is his right, not because someone felt love and compassion for him, and out of the goodness of his heart helped the needy. The feeling fostered in the heart of the receiver is not gratitude, but rather resentment that more was not given him, or that he had to wait in some long line and had to fill out a bunch of forms, or any number of other complaints and resentments. How can he feel gratitude for what he is duly owed? The poor is not exalted, and he is not sanctified. A spirit of dependency is fostered, rather than a desire to become independent. The individual looks to the government for even more benefits as "his just rights." It is an entirely different system from the Lord's system, and is spiritually damaging to the receiver, and is not uplifting to the giver. It is not charity at all, regulated or compulsory, but Satan's cheap substitute, to put it bluntly.

Tithing is paid voluntarily. Sure there are consequences when we disobey any commandment of God, but God does not exhibit any degree of compulsion, because he respects our agency. This is fundamental to the gospel. Communism is nothing like the United Order, because communism was forced on the people. Of course, you could say that slaves could always commit suicide to escape slavery, so they had a choice, but I think that is stretching the idea of freedom and agency. I find it strange to justify slavery on the basis that the slaves still have their agency, they can just accept the beatings and whatever. Are you going to call slavery "regulated work?" Even though work is good and necessary. When the government uses any degree of compulsion it is taking away our freedom and agency. There are situations when the government is justified in taking away some degree of freedom, but there are other cases where the government is not justified. To redistribute wealth is not a justified excuse to use compulsion to "regulate" wealth.

That's the way I see it anyway. Hope that helps.

[dzhonatan]

dzhonatan, I believe you are missing my point. I'll have to think about how I can explain it better for you. Perhaps you could explain to me exactly how Satan's plan would destroy the agency of man.

Certainly. From Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: David O. McKay, Chapter 22: Agency and Responsibility

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

Satan's plan would have destroyed agency by not giving us the ability to choose or act for ourselves. We would, in the words of President McKay, simply have been puppets. Very simple and straightforward.

Looking forward to your explanation,
dzhonatan

[vorpal blade]

Okay, then as Ezra Taft Benson said, the road to socialism is the path by which nations become enslaved. In other words, socialism leads us to become mere puppets in the hands of a dictator. Very simply, socialism ultimately destroys our agency, as David O. McKay implies.