#56108 Government programs to help the poor

[Groucho, Harpo, and Karl]

There's way too much to reply to here, but I hope to clear the air around the satan/welfare question so you can see where I was coming from.

VB says I "changed the reader’s argument in a way to trivialize it." I disagree that I changed it, but I agree that I trivialized it. While I will respectfully note that many, including church leaders, have accepted and even taught it, I think this argument is absolute nonsense. I strictly believe that we should keep our doctrinal basis in the scriptures, and consult outside sources—official or unofficial—insofar as they supplement the canonical record. But, as Harold B. Lee taught, "If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion." I do not believe that any speculation about the mechanism by which Lucifer sought to take away agency (and thus save all men), is doctrinally supported.

Thus when the question asker specifically said that Lucifer sought to use the power of government, I was quick to point out that this claim was, like similar claims I had heard in similar arguments, entirely unsupported by the standard works.

President Faust's suggestion that Satan sought to use force in his plan is plausible, but doesn't tell us much. It would take force to make us mindless automatons, as W&S speculate. It would take force if Satan were to use some sort of governmental hierarchy as others speculate. Or there might be a third option, I don't know.

To the quotes Vorpal provides suggesting we preserve agency at all costs I add Elder Oaks balancing take on the subject (source):

"Few concepts have more potential to mislead us than the idea that choice or agency is an ultimate goal. For Latter-day Saints, this potential confusion is partly a product of the fact that moral agency--the right to choose--is a fundamental condition of mortal life. ... But our war to secure agency was won. The test in this postwar mortal estate is not to secure choice but to use it--to choose good instead of evil so that we can achieve our eternal goals. In mortality, choice is a method, not a goal.

Of course, mortals must still resolve many questions concerning what restrictions or consequences should be placed upon choices. But those questions come under the heading of freedom, not agency. ... We are responsible to use our agency in a world of choices. It will not do to pretend that our agency has been taken away when we are not free to exercise it without unwelcome consequences.

Because choice is a method, choices can be exercised either way on any matter, and our choices can serve any goal. Therefore, those who consider freedom of choice as a goal can easily slip into the position of trying to justify any choice that is made."

And I'm going to appropriate the conclusion of Elder Oaks point (in the context of abortion) as my own point in the argument of welfare: "My young brothers and sisters, in today's world we are not true to our teachings if we are merely pro-choice. We must stand up for the right choice." Similarly, it's not enough to stand up for the right to choose whether or not to take care of the poor. We must stand up for the right choice: making sure there are no poor among us. We will disagree on how to do that, but some of us try to do that through legislation, we are not taking away agency.

On Ludlow: That satan currently tries to destroy our agency through any means possible is beyond dispute. Of course he does. But Ludlow's question doesn't address satan's premortal plan, which makes it irrelevant. As far as I know, satan's premortal plan and current plan must be entirely different since they are to opposite ends. Remember, Satan doesn't want to save anybody anymore. One thing the two plans obviously have in common is the destruction of agency, but I was careful to address at length why I didn't feel compulsory welfare to be a destruction of agency any more than any other government act—or especially compared to the agency-limiting effects of poverty.

The problem, VB, is that you seem to be asking me to do something that's rather hard to do: respond to arguments that weren't provided by the questioner. I tried to make my answer broad enough to address the many different forms of that argument I had heard. I don't believe I erected any "straw man"—if there was a straw man, it was the one erected by the questioner's poorly-argued query. I tried to deal straightforwardly with the argument as presented. I could have taken another approach, but hey, I don't get paid. Good idea for a future draft of my rant, though.

[Marduk]

Nice response, Marx. I give you high marks for it. (Ugh, that pun just made me gag a little. I need to stop doing that.)

(mostly) Tangential to this thread, I've heard another explanation about satan's premortal plan, that, while also speculation, has made more sense to me than suggesting that satan would force us to do right. The suggestion is that he would simply take away the negative consequences. He would make his "eat, drink and be merry" argument actually true. Something along the lines of "Come down here, do whatever you want, live the way you want to, and in the end, I'll save everyone." This certainly sounds more appealing, and it is easier for me to believe that a third part of the hosts of heaven would be led away by this argument than "come down here and I'll force you to do good, so that way, you'll be saved." The end point with either is the same; take away the method, or take away the results, either way, you've destroyed agency.

[vorpal blade]

They are accustomed to having to regularly defend their opinions from megaconservatives that don't know why they have the political opinions they do (whereas you do, vorpal).

I forgot to mention; thanks for the compliment. I also forgot to say that I thought your response to why you call yourself "Gimgimno" (#55998) was brilliant.

[vorpal blade]

First of all, this is my first time posting on here! So exciting!

Vorpal, while I was at work I had some thoughts I wanted to share with you:

You talk about capitalism like it aligns perfectly with God’s gift of agency, but capitalism is inherently coercive, not agentic. Pure, unbridled capitalism is SLAVERY. The only reason capitalism is palatable today is all the reforms that the progressive movement has brought to our country since the Industrial Revolution. Imagine if all these progressive reforms were repealed: no universal education, no healthcare spending, no social security, no labor laws, no environmental protections, no minimum wage, no civil rights movement, and no progressive income tax. We justified slavery by saying that black people were savage, so people thought there was no reason to liberate them, and I think similar things happen today with the lower class. Basically, pure capitalism is just as flawed as pure socialism. We need something in the middle where everyone has access to critical things, but you don’t want to put control completely in the hands of government and abandon the free market either. We also need fiscal responsibility, which currently cannot be found in the Democratic Party leadership (or the Republican Party leadership for that matter). If you support welfare or war, you have to pay for it, and I think we need a constitutional amendment that requires balanced budgets.

I used to be a really hardcore libertarian, but over the last couple years I have gradually become much more progressive. So I think I have some understanding of where you’re coming from.

First, welcome to this forum, cheesecake ice cream. Cheesecake ice cream is really good, isn’t it?

Well, shall we agree first on a definition of capitalism? I take the dictionary definition of capitalism, “an economic system based on private ownership of capital.” To me a system which is based on private ownership of capital is just the opposite of slavery, unless you think capitalism gives a person the right to own another person. I do not. I do not see that capitalism is inherently coercive. It is the lack of coercion.

You list a number of progressive reforms. I would like to see all of these reforms repealed, with the exception of some environmental protections. I think we would be freer, wealthier, better educated, and healthier people with more security in our old age, a better labor force, have more respect for the rights of all--including minorities, and have a fairer tax system without the progressive reforms. That’s what I imagine the world to be without progressivism.

Now, you can point to countries with some amount of capitalism and point to shortcomings in the society. No doubt they are in need of better laws and customs, but the problems they have are not the result of capitalism. I think you are giving capitalism a bum rap here.

I don’t think it is fair to liken oppression of black people with capitalism. I know of no capitalist who thinks of poor people as a “lower class” that deserves to be exploited. The capitalist is just as interested in raising the level of income of the poor as any Marxist or liberal. Maybe more so, if only for the self interest of having the poor better able to buy the goods and services the capitalist wishes to sell.

A system “of private ownership” is just as flawed as a system where the state owns the means of production? I don’t think so. We do need a system where everyone has an opportunity to earn what he needs and wants, based solely on his talents and determination to do what it takes to get those things. We also need a system which encourages individuals to give voluntarily to others in need. But we don’t need a system which empowers a third party to take something by force from someone who has legitimately earned it and give it to another, simply because the unfortunate one doesn’t also have it, and the third party thinks they should.

I agree we don’t want to put control in the hands of the government and abandon free market principles. We certainly agree that we need fiscal responsibility and we aren’t seeing it from either Republicans or Democrats. We do need to pay for government expenses. A constitutional amendment to balance the budget sounds like a good idea to me.

I don’t think I qualify as a libertarian since I think there are a lot of areas where the government has a moral responsibility to control the behavior of others. I would like to see that control limited to a minimum where it is necessary.

Good to hear from you. A diversity of opinion sharpens my own viewpoint.

[vorpal blade]

Welcome to this forum, Groucho, Harpo, and Karl. I’m a fan of the Groucho and Harpo Marx movies. I feel you have addressed me in a respectful and civil manner, and I appreciate it. I hope to do the same here. I frequently feel my weaknesses as a writer, but I thought I should attempt a reply.

I feel that you changed the reader’s argument because the reader didn’t say Lucifer’s pre-mortal plan. The reader didn’t say when Lucifer sought to use government to create utopia. Lucifer’s plan can refer to any time period. I think the reader was referring to Lucifer’s plan to obtain power, glory, and dominion by force. By focusing narrowly on a single verse regarding what we know of the pre-mortal war in heaven you have changed the reader’s argument to one you can more easily argue against.

I am glad that you have acknowledged that many church leaders have accepted and taught the doctrine I refer to. Don’t you think it is presumptuous of you to use only your own knowledge and thinking to dismiss as “absolute nonsense” what the leaders of the Church have taught? I would think that humility would require that you accept what the Church leaders have said unless God personally reveals to you otherwise.

I’m sorry to say that your claim that “To the quotes Vorpal provides suggesting we preserve agency at all costs” distorts my view well beyond my recognition. It is certainly not making the strongest case for me, contrary to Elder Wood’s principle. Here is what I said:

Anything that restricts our choices, or compels us to do certain things, diminishes our agency. Granted, some of that is necessary when we live in any society, but a lot of these “innovations” are not necessary, and comes from a desire to force others to contribute to their social causes – usually with the intent to equalize outcomes.

Emphasis added.

Distorting my view does allow you to score some debate points when you select some statements from Elder Oaks excellent talk. I found nothing to disagree with in his talk. I’m glad you provided the source for the whole talk, so I could read it for myself, otherwise I would have been completely mislead on what Elder Oaks was talking about. Rather than providing balance on the subject, Elder Oaks was talking about one half of the equation I gave. That we must protect and cherish agency is the part I focused on, but Elder Oaks’s point about not using agency as an excuse to disparage the BYU honor code, or to excuse abortion is just the other part of the equation I previously gave. Of course moral agency is a means to an end, and not an end in itself. But that means we should not give it up unless it is necessary, as it also means we should use it wisely.

I think Elder Oaks would be greatly displeased to see how you have appropriated his conclusion. Clearly the “right choice” is to oppose abortion, except in a few special and rare circumstances. Sometimes laws are needed to restrict people from exercising their freedom of choice. And clearly we have an individual moral responsibility to care for the poor. However, it is one thing to restrict people from hurting others in the exercise of their freedom of choice, and it is another thing to force people to support the poor. Government is required to prevent people from abusing their choices, but government is not required to support the poor. Whatever the government takes from us to provide for the poor could have been voluntarily given and done even more good. More good, because it would be more efficient, and it would bless the life of the giver, and would bless the life of the receiver, who understands that this gift of welfare is not a right, but a sacrifice on the part of the giver. When we give up some of our agency, so that the government has power to make people do something, it comes at a cost. That cost is justified in regards to abortion, because there isn’t another way. That cost is not justified when it comes to welfare, because there is another way, the Lord’s way.

Many of us feel that forcing a woman to refrain from taking the life of a fetus is moral, but taking money from your neighbor against his will to support another neighbor is immoral. A good result does not come from immoral methods. There are many other important moral differences. In short, there is no comparison between laws to restrict abortion and laws to force us to give to the poor.

On Ludlow you again assume that the issue is Satan’s premortal plan, as narrowly interpreted by you, so you claim it is irrelevant. If you think about it, Satan’s premortal plan is not that different from his current plan. His plan then was to obtain power and glory and subject others to his will using force. As President Faust taught “Satan became the devil by seeking glory, power, and dominion by force.” That plan is the same as his current plan. He never really wanted to save anyone, just have power over them. That’s what the scriptures say to me and to our Church leaders.

Anyway, thanks for the challenge to think on this for my next rant.

[cheesecake ice cream]

Thanks for the warm welcome.

I am a little stunned, to say the least, and I don’t think I’m giving capitalism a bum rap at all. I’m telling it like it is.

Pure capitalism is inherently coercive because it gives people the de facto right to own other people. Technically, under your hypothetical world, all citizens may still have the right to vote, but they are still de facto slaves. Before the various suffrage movements, many American workers were disenfranchised (that’s an understatement if I ever saw one). Capitalism lets people own other people because it inherently offers no social mobility and because it inherently exploits people. There is no social mobility because there is no opportunity in pure capitalism for the proletariat to become the capitalist. In the absence of a minimum wage, people are forced to work for practically nothing, so just to live you have to work non-stop. Because the capitalist values profit above all else, the workers are forced to endure hazardous working conditions. To compete with other capitalists, he has to minimize the cost of labor, and the free market doesn’t recognize national borders, so he has to compete with other capitalists from countries around the world that don’t respect labor laws and environmental protections. To compete in the face of union demands for humane treatment, the capitalist relocates to somewhere where he can compete (not because he is necessarily evil, but because he has to compete). This is why I oppose states’ rights and support international cooperation through the United Nations on various issues. It also costs something to educate people, and the poor can’t afford it themselves. Without universal education, you lack the knowledge and skills to become the capitalist. Even with universal education, there is a lack of equal opportunity. Thus, the capitalist owns people, regardless of whether they have voting rights.

I sympathize a lot with FDR’s Second Bill of Rights. In the absence of government intervention to guarantee these rights, these rights will not be met. People can debate about how nice of a home, how extensive the medical care, etc, but the point is, that in the absence of government intervention, the free market doesn’t treat humans like humans. The free market treats humans like cattle. I know you like exclusively charity to meet human needs (and I think charity would work a little better nowadays than back then, and only because the progressive reforms have changed society), but like I said in my first post, in the 1800s people saw the harsh life of the workers and justified things by calling them savages. So there was no reason for charity.

Read American history, from colonization to the present. We’re capitalists who exploited black people, and we still do, although the reforms I listed have improved things. Now we exploit illegal immigrants too because they have no protections. I think it’s hypocritical to allow the movement of capital across borders, but not the movement of labor, and I think that while they are currently in the US, illegal workers deserve the same access to social welfare as Americans do. We should also have some kind of easily accessible permission for them to work here legally.

Capitalism has been an immense force for both good and bad in the world. Under pure socialism, you would never see the prosperity and technological advances that capitalism has brought us, but pure capitalism is inherently the ownership of human beings. Progressivism is a middle route between these two extremes in which we retain the free market (at least mostly, because we do have government-run education, among other things) but simultaneously respect humanity.

[vorpal blade]

It appears we have very different views of the world, cheesecake ice cream. You see a lack of mobility while I see opportunities for everyone to become a capitalist and create wealth. You see people owning other people while I see people helping other people to succeed. You see selfish people using other people, I see mutually agreeable arrangements for the benefit of both. You see people without protections, and I see poor people or illegal immigrants exploiting the system.

As far as a minimum wage is concerned, why not make it $100/hr? Wouldn’t it be great if everyone earned at least $100/hr.?

Capitalism is merely an economic system based on the private ownership of capital. Unlike progressivism, socialism, communism, and other degrees of totalitarianism, capitalism is not a political philosophy. It is not a social structure. It is not a body of laws or customs to control the behavior of others. It is not a religion, secular or otherwise. So any society using capitalism as the economic basis needs other laws and customs to control the behavior of men. Not to regulate or control capitalism, but to control individuals in the society from destructive behavior of individuals.

In many things there is a happy median between extremes, in other things there is not. The ideal position is not half way between God and the devil. It is not somewhere in the middle of good and evil. It is not half way between freedom and slavery, or capitalism and totalitarianism.

Capitalism--and not socialism--is the economic basis of the law of consecration and stewardship. Property used to create wealth will still be privately owned and operated under that law. Individuals will still go to work for other individuals. Individual behavior will be governed by the laws of the gospel, with a covenant to give to your bishop what is over and above your wants and needs.

Allow me to give you a hypothetical example of how capitalism may be unfairly blamed for problems in society. Suppose there is a large corporation, owned and run by Mr. Big B. Mr. Big B is very successful, employees a lot of people who are successful as a result of Mr. Big B’s business. He makes a number of useful products which help the lives of millions of customers. Along comes a potential competitor who envies the success of Mr. Big B. He has figured out some ways to make products made by Mr. Big B, and sell them for less money. So far, this is capitalism and there is no problem. But Mr. Big B makes a personal mistake. He decides that in order to keep his comfortable position as virtually the sole supplier of his goods he will use unfair, illegal, or unethical tactics. He hires some goons to beat up the workers of his competitors, thus intimating them from competing against him.

Is this an inherent flaw in capitalism, or even an inevitable consequence of the free market system? I would say the fault lies with Mr. Big B, and not capitalism. But if you are prejudiced against capitalism, or you have a vested interest in bringing down Mr. Big B’s business, or you want the power that comes from controlling Mr. Big B’s business, you might think that the only way to reign in capitalism in this instance is for the government to take control of the business. You might think that was the only fair, democratic, and just way to handle things.

In my mind Mr. Big B should be punished, but not capitalism. Mr. Big B should perhaps serve some time in jail and make reasonable restitution to his competitor. There is no need for a government takeover, or increased government regulations of his business. While we might (or might not) see a short term improvement in Mr. Big B’s business (no more illegal goon activity), the net result will be long term, diffuse, and secondary negative ramifications to the government’s take-over, because of the unwarranted loss of freedom.

Another way capitalism gets an undeserved bad reputation is through rhetoric which mischaracterizes capitalism. Take this statement in GH&K’s answer:

Now, in regards to government redistribution of wealth, let's get theoretical and talk in terms of value. Value is created through work. When a laborer is hired, it's with the understanding that that laborer will create value. The employer then siphons off some of that value and keeps it. For example, I just got a job offer for $17 an hour. I will be working with 3 people at a time, each of whom is paying around $20 per hour. Thus, I am creating $60 of value, and receiving $17 of it. Employers, of course, depend on profitable employees to bring them money. Therefore, chances are if you have a job, much of the value you create is being withheld from you. This form of wealth redistribution is the basis of capitalism.

There are a number of incorrect statements about capitalism made here, but let me concentrate on one of them. GH&K does not create $60 of value. The value of his services is $17/hour, as determined by what a buyer of his services (GH&K’s employer) is willing to pay, and what GH&K is willing to work for. The business for which GH&K works may receive $60/hr for each hour of GH&K’s time, but most of that money rightly belongs to the others in the company who contribute their labor, goods, or services (i.e. the company’s name, reputation, advertising, client base, buildings, capital, telephones, electricity, and on and on). It is not the employer who is siphoning off some of the value, it is GH&K who is siphoning off some of the money as is his complete and total share of what the company has earned with $17/hr worth of help from GH&K. GH&K’s value added of $17/hr went to the customers, not to the employer. In exchange for that value, and other indirect but important services rendered by the company the customers pay GH&K’s employer the $60/hr, as an equal exchange of value.

The idea that GH&K is creating $60/hr of wealth no doubt makes GH&K feel good about himself, but it is not correct. It may make for effective rhetoric to unite the “workers” of the world, as if they are the only ones “creating” wealth, and ignores the even more important contribution of the labor and capital accumulation of the capitalist. Without the assistance of the capitalist GH&K’s labor is not worth even $17/hr, and GH&K ought to feel grateful to his employer. If he truly feels he is creating more that $17/hr let him find someone else to pay him more for his services. Let him see how much harder he must work to earn the rest of the $60/hr. In a free market, capitalist system GH&K is free to do so. Certainly it is not the government which is holding GH&K back, or “propping up” the system.

There is no “redistribution of wealth” here. Each person receives his just portion for the services rendered. But this kind of verbal sleight of hand and misrepresentation of capitalism then allows GH&K to go on to make claims such as “you can't turn your head away when it comes to the fact that the rich have the money in the first place because they've extracted value from the poor.” No, the rich capitalists have not]/i] extracted wealth from the poor. The capitalists are paid by their customers for the valuable service of enabling workers to “create” wealth through their labor. In most cases, without the help of the capitalists (whether state or private), people can create little or no wealth. This has been proven time after time in the history of the world.

[Marduk]

Capitalism, by its very nature, must be checked. I'd be curious to know, Vorpal, your take on monopolies, which is what unfettered capitalism must inevitably create. It would be nice if capitalism existed as your starry eyed idealism would suggest, but we have seen time and again that this isn't the case. Let me be more specific.

Take a look at specific examples in South America. American companies go in, and have been for about 100 years, and make deals with the government for use of particular parcels of land. They then proceed to use this land for unsustainable farming practices, strip mining, or other industries that cannot possibly be sustained long term. The government, not the people, make a small amount of money on this deal, and the base level employees make a small amount as well. These employees are locals, hired for poor wages by these companies. They have little to no alternative for employment, since these American companies own almost all the means for producing wealth. They also, no matter how hard they work, will always make that small amount, since the American company will only hire Americans for anything besides that base level employment. These are all qualified individuals, and the company will say "we want these jobs for Americans" and it brings out nationalistic pride, and they are cheered for their efforts.
You may suggest that the government made these deals, therefore they are legitimate. However, it is not representative of the people's will. Hence, revolutionaries rise up, talking of a better way. They garner the people's will. Before they can overthrow that illegitimate government, however, because they are using words like "communism" and "socialism", the U.S. cries of "social injustice" and the erroneous notion that these kinds of economies are "morally wrong", so the U.S. military and CIA come in, arm the current "capitalist" government, because the people could not possibly want anything else, and assassinate those revolutionary leaders, and heavily arm that government to prevent any other coups. So, this system continually oppresses the local populace, all in the name of capitalism. Why doesn't another company come in and compete? Well, one, these companies have deals with the government to be sole distributors (a notion that could theoretically be solved with "more capitalism", however, see 2 and 3). Two, they already own all or almost all the land that is profitable for whatever industry they are currently in. Three, they are the only companies with the capital to set up such a large venture.
As far as minimum wage is concerned, we can certainly see this as trying to accomplish what God talks about. After all, "the laborer is worthy of his hire" D&C 84:79. Certainly even you can imagine a situation where an employee is being paid less, even far less, than he is worth, who because of indigence or other reasons, cannot get another job.
This post is getting long, and with the issues of posting lately, I'm going to cut it short, and talk about money next post.

[Marduk]

Now we know that money is relative. An item is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Also, $17 an hour is not the same everywhere in the U.S., and obviously not the same throughout history. It makes sense to talk about value in terms of dollar amounts, but it is very frequently inaccurate, or at least insufficient, to do so. I would suggest discussing things in terms of their "use value", since, in an ideal world, that is the only value that matters. Let me explain what I'm talking about.
A computer is worth how much you use it, and what you can use it for. In a video card, for example, it has value depending on how much faster it can display that information, and how brilliantly and vibrantly it does so. I might buy one, for say, $150, or I might buy one for $300. The second is certainly not twice as fast, nor does it display twice as much. Consider also, a diamond. A diamond has some use, it can be used for cutting things, and it is nice to look at. But the main value is sentimentality or social status, at least the latter of which, but probably both, would not exist if it were not so expensive to acquire. These are not defined as "use value", since it is not value created, but rather assigned by the price which we assign to it.
The second term that has meaning in this case is "production cost". I am defining this simply as the labor it costs to produce something, since any product in industry can be defined in terms of this, whether it is the labor to extract raw materials, or to produce the factory setting in which it can be refined, or to sell it, etc.
It would take a lot more information to redefine Marx's situation, so I won't attempt to, I'm just trying to put things in more static terms than what dollar amounts will allow us to do.

Just one last tangential note: the law of consecrating absolutely does not include private property. It does include stewardships, but remember that everything belongs to the Lord under that law. This is a very important distinction.

[vorpal blade]

I disagree that capitalism by its nature must be checked. Human nature, by its nature, may need to be checked. I see no reason to check the private ownership of capital.

I have no problem with monopolies, per se. They can be very good and efficient. The problem with monopolies is that they can become complacent and unresponsive to the needs or feelings of the customers. They can temporally give people little alternative if they increase prices irresponsibly. There is a self-correcting mechanism in capitalism for that. A competitor has an opportunity to provide the same good or service as the monopoly and win over customers. I have a problem in the owners of the monopoly keep out competition by immoral means, such as using force, intimidation, bribery, political influence, blackmail, false advertizing, or other clearly evil methods. There should be laws regarding the immoral means a business might employ, but not necessarily a restriction on capitalism. Unfettered capitalism inevitably creates competition.

That is your version of the South American scenario, here is mine. At the invitation of the South American government, and with the consent of the people, an American business goes in to assist the locals in the development of their industry. They do this in a responsible, sustainable manner. Any wealth created by privately owned resources is shared with the owners and the government. Unless you are talking about a communist or socialist nation the resources are not owned by the government, and they are not owned by the American companies either. Most of the nation’s resources are not controlled by Americans.

There is a problem in that most of the resources are owned by a minority of the people. With that wealth comes power. Nevertheless the presence of American capital and American know-how is a great boon to the people. Thousands of the local people find work there and that greatly lifts them out of poverty. They could not make use of the local resources without the help of the American capitalists, so this help enriches everybody. With the Americans they have many more alternatives for employment than they had before. They could still use the many resources untouched by the Americans, but lack of knowledge and capital prevents from turning it into wealth. The Americans would love to hire local people, but unfortunately there are not enough trained and experienced local people to hire. The Americans assist the locals in providing scholarships, training, and experience, and as soon as the locals are capable they replace American workers. Unfortunately at this point many of the educated, trained, experienced workers see that they could now live much better in America, and leave the country.

Often the government has to consider the wealthy and powerful minority in the country, and things aren’t always fair and as they should be. Revolutionaries rise up, inciting the people to envy and class hatred, and pointing out some legitimate social injustices. The revolutionaries also win converts using terrorism and fear tactics, and they no more represent the will of the people than do the wealthy landowners. Because these revolutionaries would only bring chaos, death, poverty, suffering, dictatorships, and reactionary Anti-American fanaticism the U.S. government sees fit to support the conservative government. It has nothing to do with supporting capitalism.

The laborer is indeed worthy of his hire, but the question is, who or what determines the value of that labor. I think it should be in accordance with free market principles.

I remember seeing the anti-capitalist movie “How green was my valley.” Based on the book It was the sort of social propaganda that Hollywood loves and rewards. I remember how sad it was when a couple of the men had to move to America to find work, where they probably made much more than the would have made had they stayed in Wales.

It is in the best interests of an employer to pay his employees as much as he can. This encourages loyalty in the employees, discourages turnover which can be costly, makes them healthier and more productive, improves their attitude and hence performance. On the other hand, there is a limit to how much he can afford to pay. It comes down to a trade-off, which the employer is better able to make than other people not familiar with his business. Make the minimum wage too high and you reduce the employment rate. You make it hard for young people just starting out to gain experience.

Most of the time a person has other choices; he doesn’t have to work in a certain place. He just doesn’t want to be inconvenienced to look for another job. The government also makes it hard to change jobs by all the restrictions placed on the businesses. Actually, I don’t think there are any instances in America where a person earns far less than he is worth, and I don’t think this would be the case even if we had no minimum wage laws.

[vorpal blade]

Just one last tangential note: the law of consecrating absolutely does not include private property. It does include stewardships, but remember that everything belongs to the Lord under that law. This is a very important distinction.

In the law of consecration and stewardship you give everything you have to the Church. The Church then deeds to the individual the property that the individual needs and wants for his family and his business. This property is private and belongs solely to the individual. No power on earth can legally or morally take it away from him or tell him what he must do with it. That is what I mean by private property. True, all property belongs to the Lord, and He can take it any time He wants. We only have it on terms of stewardship, regardless of the economic basis of the society in which we live. It belonged to the Lord before we gave it to the Church. It always has belonged to the Lord, and always will, despite what man does or thinks or governs or under whatever law he lives. But in the sense I am talking about here, the property owned by the individual under the law of consecration and stewardship is not under the control, stewardship, responsibility, right to use, guidance, jurisdiction, or shared ownership of any other individual, organization, church, government, or society on earth. He does not need to listen to the bishop about how he uses his property, and he can take it with him if he leaves the Church. And that is quite good enough for me. This is the important distinction to be made.

[Marduk]

I'll look back at this and provide a firmer response in time, but I just wanted to link this article, where I get some of my ideas regarding moral agency. I'm sure you'll interpret it differently than I have, and such is your right.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?h ... 82620aRCRD

[vorpal blade]

I am totally in agreement with Elder Packer's talk on our moral environment. It makes me wonder how you interpreted it. You know, we do not have a right to intepret it in a manner contrary to the way Elder Packer intended it.

[Marduk]

No, but everyone is entitled to the whisperings of the spirit. Remember that the only spiritual learning that can occur takes place through this channel. For the record, I also agree with the article, paying particular attention to talking about "unenforcable" laws. as well as "the right to speak out". We would do well to pay attention to what the church as a whole has taken an issue on, and those things have been few and far between.

Vorpal, I think you and I are fairly close as far as non-economic questions are concerned, perhaps closer than you think. Any other differences are further along those economic boundaries, where again, the church has remained largely silent. (Again, we would do well here to try our best to seperate economic and political policies of the various instantiated examples we have, rather than suggest a particular government is all good or all bad)

[vorpal blade]

Regarding the “unenforceable” I’d like to clear up something. I agree that there are limits to what a government can do. But evidently there are no limits to what men promise government can do.

Satan promised to redeem all mankind, but his plan could not have succeeded in making men good, or exalted. As Elder L. Lionel Kendrick of the Seventy said (Ensign March 1996)

After the plan of salvation was presented for a sustaining vote, Heavenly Father inquired as to whom He should send to put the plan into effect in mortality. Satan responded with an alteration of the plan, a version conceived with an evil intent. He said: “I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost … ; wherefore give me thine honor.” Satan’s plan would indeed “destroy the agency of man.” Selfish and senseless, his plan defied eternal law. It was an impossible plan, for without moral agency no one could become exalted. Today he continues to activate parts of his evil plan, appealing to the carnal tendencies of man through temptations. If we are not aware, we may find ourselves being lured by Satan’s temptations, and if we follow his plan we will become like him.

In regard to “the right to speak out” the church is indeed limited in what it can legally say over the pulpit, and what is should say so as give men correct principles and let them govern themselves. We, however, are free to discuss it here. I do not represent the Church.

The church is careful to not give too much direction, but I do not believe that the Lord is indifferent to political issues that have social and moral consequences. We are entitled to the promptings of the spirit, and we may use any gospel principle which has been revealed. To me it is clear that the church has warned against the evils of socialism and communism, in terms of negative influences on our path to exaltation.

I don’t say that any particular government is all bad or all good. I say that the government as outlined in the Constitution of the United States is much, much better than any other government in the world, or any government designed by men. I also say that communism and socialism have a governmental aspect to them, but pure capitalism is an economic system without governmental interference. I believe that individual ownership of property is never bad in and of itself, but people can and do use property for evil purposes. It is the use of property that we sometimes need to restrict, not the ownership itself.

[Marduk]

We certainly are free to discuss it here, and I hope we continue to do so. As much as you and I may disagree, it is key to any intellectual or political discourse that we do so cordially. (This has been the case for the most part, but it is of sufficient importance to bear repeating.)

As far as the church being limited legally, I don't think that is the case, at least in this country. It may upset many individuals, but there is no constitutional or legal prohibition preventing it. They can do just about anything they want short of financially backing a specific canditate. I think the reason they show discretion is far more for the latter reason you provided; it certainly isn't the place of the church to dictate every activity of its members, nor should it. I would agree that the Lord is not indifferent to political issues that have social and moral consequences, however, I think that issues in which there are clearly morally superior choices are few and far between. Almost always, it is choosing between two (or more) imperfect solutions, and it is left to us to decide which will be more effective (or less harmful, as the case may be.)

The constitution and subsequent government of this country were designed by men. They were inspired by God, and insofar as they are and were inspired, they are good. But it is certainly far from perfect, as I'm sure you'd agree. I also don't think that it is much better than any other government in the world; the path that the constitution paved has been emulated to much success by many countries around the world. The concept of capitalism is not necessarily found in that constitution, by the way, except with a large amount of contriving. As you've pointed out, capitalism is what naturally falls out of a state of nature; until men and government alter it, it exists.

As far as aspects of government in communism and socialism, there have been a lot of different government structures that have practiced both. In fact, Marx suggested (albeit not explicitly) that the less governmental interference, the more likely a true Marxist revolution could occur. (Granted, this is Marxism, not communism, but communism in the terminology as you've established it bears far more resemblance to socialism.) Capitalism, on the other hand, requires governmental enforcement, otherwise, the strongest would simply take by force what was not theirs. Government must intervene to uphold the notion of private property, contractual agreements, and all the other litany of "rule of law" concepts necessary for capitalism to operate.

[vorpal blade]

For the sake of moving the discussion along, let’s suppose your South American scenario is basically historically correct. There are always two sides to any story, I don’t know for a fact much of what happens around the world, and I suppose that what you say could have happened.

To analyze the situation let’s identify the bad things that happened, assuming your side of the story is correct. Then let’s examine who or what was at fault. Let’s discuss whether capitalism was responsible. The corollary to that is whether it would have been different had we been dealing with socialist or communist governments. Let us discuss what the economic, social, political, and human nature conditions were that contributed to the problems.

Okay, first, what were the possibly bad things that happened according to you?
1. Unsustainable farming practices, strip mining, or other industries that cannot possibly be sustained long term.
2. The locals were hired for poor wages.
3. The American companies deprived the locals of alternatives by owning almost all the means for producing wealth.
4. The American companies refused to advance the locals to position of higher pay, preferring to give these jobs only to Americans because of nationalistic pride, despite the qualifications of the locals.
5. The local governments were not representative of the people’s will.
6. The U.S. government arms the current “capitalist” government to help them remain in power and defeat the revolutionaries.
7. The U.S. government and the local government assassinate the revolutionary leaders.
8. The American companies have deals with the government to be sole distributers.
9. The American companies own all or almost all the land
10. Only the American companies have the capital to set up such a large venture.

Did I include everything? Was I fair?

1. Certainly the local government is at least partly to blame for allowing any company to rape the resources of that country. And capitalists are morally responsible for any harm done to the environment. This seems to me to be a problem with the morality of the company owners. There is nothing which says that capitalism forces these individuals to behave in such a high-handed and irresponsible manner. Unless, economic factors dictate that the resources cannot be economically utilized without in some degree using the resources in an unsustainable manner. If that is the economic reality then it becomes a trade-off of values. Does the value of utilizing the resources outweigh the damage done? If not then the capitalists should not have been allowed to operate in this manner. Much of the blame lies with those who did not stop them when they had the legal power to do so.

Under socialism or communism would the result have been any different? Unfortunately history says that such nations have been just as guilty or more so of these practices. It is human nature to want the resources more than care about the consequences. Not everyone feels that way, of course, but a sufficient number to make it a problem. A change of economic or governmental systems won’t magically change that aspect of human nature.

2. “Poor wages” is a relative term. Poor in comparison with what they could earn in America? Is that a fair comparison? Who determines what “poor” wages are and what are “good” wages? Could the company have paid the workers higher wages? It seems possible, but there are certain economic laws in play, which are oblivious to our social structures, that have to be considered. At some point of higher pay the business will no longer be profitable, no matter how you define money or value. It cost money to build the railroads, roads, ports, ships, schools for the children of the laborers, housing for the laborers, advertizing for customers, borrowing the money to accumulate the capital in order to get the venture off the ground, and so forth. Few people are going to want to invest time and money in this business if it just means losing money. The capitalist is morally at fault if he takes advantage of a hopeless situation, but he is not at fault if he is merely acting in accordance with fundamental laws of economics.

Now, is capitalism at fault here? Well, what would have been the situation if America had been a socialist or communist nation? It still would have cost labor and value to make the commerce possible. Many people would have had to donate their time, talents, and efforts to make the ships, railroad, docks, and so forth. These people should be compensated for their efforts, shouldn’t they? Someone has to plan the whole thing. Someone has to educate and inform others of the availability of the items so that customers will be willing to give up their resources and labor to obtain the goods from South America. Sacrifices have to be made of resources and things of value in order to have the commerce with South America. In other words, there are the same costs associated with running the business under socialism or communism as there are under capitalism. And that limits the amount of compensation that can be given to the local laborers. If that amount is a “poor” wage than there is no solution. The workers must accept the “poor” wages or nothing, because a socialist or communist nation cannot afford to operate at a loss with no gain. They have other priorities. If it is simply a matter of charity for the poor in South America, then that can be accomplished by charitable contributions voluntarily given in any system. If that is insufficient then it means that people don’t want to or can’t give more, and it would be forcing them against the general will to make them contribute. I doubt socialism or communism could have given them higher wages.

3. Who is at fault if the American companies wished to buy the means of producing wealth, and the local people sold it to them? Or if the local government gave the Americans the right to use the resources? If there was not an equal exchange of value, a willing buyer and a willing seller, is it the fault of the Americans if the people later regret it? Wouldn’t the fault lie with the people or the government? If the situation was that the people had no means of producing wealth before the American companies came in, and the American companies came in and enabled the people to produce wealth through the American company, then it seems wrong to fault capitalism or the American companies with providing the local people the sole means of producing wealth.

But really, the greatest resource a nation has in producing wealth is its people. The American companies did not buy the people. Even assuming that the Americans owned all their raw resources the local people were still free to create wealth in all the millions of other ways Americans create wealth without raw resources. The claim that they had no alternatives is to admit that they needed the help of Americans before they could produce any wealth.

Would the situation have been any different if the Americans had been socialist or communist? It still would make economic sense to control as much of the resources in the South American country as possible. Had the South American country been socialist or communist they would probably have made a deal with another country for assistance in developing their resources, in exchange they would have given resources to that other nation. The people would still have no alternatives because the local government would own all the means of producing wealth.

4. It makes no sense in capitalism to prefer someone from America simply because he is an American, and disregard who would make the most money for the company. Clearly these nationalist feelings are not the fault of capitalism, but the personal fault of the nationalists running the company.

Would socialist or communists have acted the same way? Yes, if they had the same nationalist pride. Such pride does not disappear when one becomes a socialist or communist.

5. It is not the fault of capitalism or the American companies if the local government does not represent the general will. It would not be right to interfere with the government by advocating the violent overthrow of that government. To the extent “capitalist” governments have done that it is reprehensible. It is also reprehensible when socialist or communist governments have worked to support the violent overthrow of a local government.

If the revolutionaries we are talking about here are harmless intellectuals or kindly laborers who are only trying to make their voices heard in peaceful changes they would like to see in the country, then helping the current “capitalist” country to murder or suppress these people is immoral. Capitalism does not require support of repressive regimes. If, however, the revolutionaries are using murder, kidnapping, intimidation, theft of property, extortion, drug smuggling, trade in human beings, and so forth to support their attempt to violently overthrow the government, then I think the government has a moral and legal right to obtain arms from countries such as the United States. They have a right to hunt down and bring to justice—kill if necessary—these modern Gadianton robbers.

6. I can see how a company would feel threatened if some people wished to take over the government and forcibly deprive the company of its assets in the country. It would be morally wrong for company officials to give support to an evil regime simply because they have a sweetheart deal with the government. Greed and the desire for profits might put pressure on a company to lobby the U.S. government to support an illegitimate government solely because that government is beneficial to the company. It would be a test of the integrity or moral responsibility of the company.

It would also be a test for a socialist or communist country if they had important businesses in a South American country threatened by capitalist revolutionaries who wished to overthrow a socialist or communist regime and kick out the foreigners. I think what we have seen is massive arms movements to such countries so the socialists or communists can remain in power and continue to provide raw materials and wealth to the communist or socialist foreign power. I have seen no evidence that virtue in this matter is more prevalent in socialist or communist countries.

7. It would be wrong for a company to support or encourage the assassination of peaceful revolutionaries as I have said, but right to bring to justice, or kill in warfare modern Gadianton robbers. This is a personal moral decision of the companies leaders, and applies whether the company exists on capitalist terms or socialist terms.

8. I don’t think you can fault capitalism for wanting to make deals to be the sole distributor. The fault, if there is a fault, lies with the country that makes the deal. If the country decides it wants to suspend competition they need to have a good reason for it, and as you imply, it does limit the operation of capitalism. Would a socialist or communist country pass up the opportunity to be the sole distributor? Actually, isn’t this what they always want?

9. How is the American company owning all or almost all the land any different from a socialist or communist government owning all or almost all the land? Both are going to use their resources for the benefit of its “stockholders.” Neither the capitalist situation nor the socialist or communist situation allows competition in this situation. And again, who is responsible for selling the land to the Americans? Those that owned the land to begin with. You can argue whether they had a legitimate right to the land, and I can argue whether someone has a legitimate right to forcibly take that land away from them. The American company had a right to buy the land. And this is only a bad thing for the local people if the American company uses the land contrary to the best interests of the people, which is a personal moral question.

10. If an enterprise is guaranteed profitable then anyone can raise the capital to set up the venture. Otherwise the Americans are doing the country a favor by bringing so much capital to set up the company, employ the people, and create wealth. A socialist or communist country could accumulate the capital if the people in those countries thought it was a worthwhile venture. If this is not the case then it is still not the fault of capitalism if only the capitalists can set up such a large venture, it is the strength of capitalism.

[bismark]

move to page 3 already you piece of junk

[bismark]

page 3?!?!?

[bismark]

argh1!!!!