The Economics of Zion.

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: The Economics of Zion.

Post by _Droopy »

The Nehor wrote:Just so many people are aware many LDS are convinced that Droopy and BcSpace are almost always wrong about virtually everything they ever say about economics.


There are, fundamentally, as I've discovered over about a fifteen year period online (and a lifetime in the Church) three classes of LDS who think that I and bcspace, or those who hold similar views (such as the the Brethren) are always wrong about economics (political economy, would probably be a better fit):

1. NOMs, or New Order Mormons (also termed "Reform" or "neo-orthodox," a term not much used anymore), who are, in essence, secularized, progressive LDS (or what would be in mainstream Protestantism, "social gospel" oriented Christians) who's primary objective in much of their thought and understanding of the Church and its relationship to its members (and to the world at large) is to domesticate any number of fashionable contemporary leftist beliefs, values, and ideological concerns within the Church such that the Church absorbs, assimilates, and fuses them with Church teachings.

2. Outright apostates from the Church, usually unalloyed leftists/secular humanists/progressives who have broken from the Church due to core ideological worldview differences but who do not (accurately) see any change of the Church ever accommodating that worldview and its various doctrines regarding the mortal probation.

3. Low-information LDS citizens given to the Occupy Wall street kind of politics and emotional commitments that form the democratic mobs/masses whipped into a frenzy by the intellectuals and activists of the Left and who (as with the OWM and homosexual marriage movement), seeing an approaching bus, will, in all likelihood, throw the Church under it before their passionate commitment to a "better world" and "economic justice."
Last edited by Guest on Fri Aug 22, 2014 2:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: The Economics of Zion.

Post by _Gadianton »

Why would an omniscient being need an "economic system?"

How stupid.

If you're all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing, then, whether you set prices in advance or let them be determined through a series of predicted buys and sells, it doesn't matter at all. If a perfect society "Zion" sets prices in advance, then they'd set the perfect price. If they pretend they don't know what the right price is, then they'll trade until the same price is reached. It doesn't matter.

As far as what works best for mortals, even Droopy has admitted a "mixed economy" is necessary. Droopy at one time even said government was necessary for mail delivery, even though Milton Friedman was an ardent critic of the US mail system and believed the Pony Express was pushed out of business by the government.

The problem with these two and other right wingers is they argue from sound-bytes and slogans rather than understanding the material. Hey, can't say it isn't entertaining though.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_SteelHead
_Emeritus
Posts: 8261
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 1:40 am

Re: The Economics of Zion.

Post by _SteelHead »

John 15:!3
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.


Seems a far cry from Ayn Rand.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: The Economics of Zion.

Post by _Droopy »

You are quite mistaken. You are simply repeating the slogans of the far right, which emphasizes the need for private property.


1. No, my philosophy here comes from an adult lifetime of study and reflection on this subject.

2. I have no idea what the "far right" is. Perhaps you do, but I suspect its really nothing more than a repetition of the slogans of the far left.

"Communism is not the same thing as Soviet or Chinese or Cuban Communism or Lenin Communism."


Correct. Soviet, Chinese, or Cuban communism is socialism, and socialism is what Marx and his disciples taught and propounded all their lives. Communism and socialism have always been used interchangeably within the Left and the communist world to mean essentially the same thing in the Communist Manifesto sense: the dictatorship of the proletariat - a totalitarian police state and party operating in the interests of and embodying the aspirations, feelings, hopes and dreams of the proletarians and the poor.

The other meaning of communism, which is the future anarchic utopia Marx believed would be created as socialism faded into a fully mature communist society, has no clear relevance due to the fact that it was and remains nothing more than a pure utopian fantasy that could never exist or function as a social and economic system and in relation to which Marx never worked out a coherent theoretical framework.

Soviet Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, North Vietnam, Cambodia, Nicaragua in the eighties, and the Eastern European nations within the Soviet Bloc during the Cold War are all examples of the inevitable effects of taking the crackpot theories of Karl Marx seriously and actually attempting to govern a society based upon them. Those nations, and the 140,000,000 (and climbing) human beings who died for the revolution in the 20th century were not glitches or mistakes in the socialist crucible of human redemption but fundamental features of that system, grounded in the core assumptions and premises of socialist theory.

The gulags, the dungeons, the mass executions, the midnight knocks at the door, the mass poverty, the economic rape of entire nations and continents, and the brutal repression of virtually all fundamental individual liberties, freedoms, and unalienable rights inhering in human beings qua human beings are the inherent, necessary, and inevitable consequences of driving socialist theory to actual policy. Each and every time it has been attempted, the consequences have been the same.

We understand why from the gospel: wickedness cannot produce happiness. Falsehood cannot generate truth. False principles cannot bring forth anything but failure.

"Communism is simply the absence of private ownership coupled with a pure democracy."


Yes, the worst possible form of human government and human social interaction: grinding poverty governed by mob rule in a world in which the law can change every day. Isn't it delightful?

The proletariat then assigns a stewardship


I.e., the state.

"(like, to be a house painter or a musician) to each participant, but in a true communistic society the participant has the freedom to choose his stewardship so long as the proletariat agrees that it is productive. But, to some degree, a participant will be required to bear the burdens of society, such as police protection, road improvement and the like."


This exercise in pure, head-in-the-clouds utopian navel gazing is quite instructive as to what this kind of thinking can do to the human mind once its fibrous roots wrap themselves tightly enough around the human soul. There is no such thing as "true communism," Yahoo, because "true communism" is an ideological fantasy that exists only in the world of pure utopian theoretical abstraction (which is why modern leftists still romantically wedded to socialist theory can talk of communism "never having been tried") and a fantasy that has, at least, achieved one thing, and that is a world-historical record as to the digging of graves and the destroying of economies (and the starting of wars, its other major legacy).

"I must modify my statement about 4th Nephi and Acts communism; it was communism as governed by a theocracy. Instead of the proletariat making decisions, it would be the priesthood. That is the Lord's way."



Nothing
in the scriptures or the teachings of the prophets since Joseph mentions anything about the Church determining for anyone what their trade, profession, or entrepreneurial calling shall be.

Utterly astounding.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: The Economics of Zion.

Post by _Droopy »

SteelHead wrote:John 15:!3
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.


Seems a far cry from Ayn Rand.



I've had my say for today, and this kind and degree of intellectual vacancy is my cue to depart, before clinical brain damage ensues.

The Trailerpark at the End of the Universe can only be taken in very small doses, and at long intervals.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_SteelHead
_Emeritus
Posts: 8261
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 1:40 am

Re: The Economics of Zion.

Post by _SteelHead »

Whatever Droop. I would be willing to bet dinner that my participation in capitalism is paying me far better than your participation. I just don't have to try to reconcile the philosophic dipole of Jesus's message with Randian Objectivism. I'm not the guy that is trying to conflate the message of Jesus Christ with an economic system. Fortunately I get to pick and choose.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Re: The Economics of Zion.

Post by _The Nehor »

Droopy wrote:
The Nehor wrote:Just so many people are aware many LDS are convinced that Droopy and BcSpace are almost always wrong about virtually everything they ever say about economics.


There are, fundamentally, as I've discovered over about a fifteen year period online (and a lifetime in the Church) three classes of LDS who think that I and bcspace, or those who hold similar views (such as the the Brethren) are always wrong about economics (political economy, would probably be a better fit):

1. NOMs, or New Order Mormons (also termed "Reform" or "neo-orthodox," a term not much used anymore), who are, in essence, secularized, progressive LDS (or what would be in mainstream Protestantism, "social gospel" oriented Christians) who's primary objective in much of their thought and understanding of the Church and its relationship to its members (and to the world at large) is to domesticate any number of fashionable contemporary leftist beliefs, values, and ideological concerns within the Church such that the Church absorbs, assimilates, and fuses them with Church teachings.

2. Outright apostates from the Church, usually unalloyed leftists/secular humanists/progressives who have broken from the Church due to core ideological worldview differences but who do not (accurately) see any change of the Church ever accommodating that worldview and its various doctrines regarding the mortal probation.

3. Low-information LDS citizens given to the Occupy Wall street kind of politics and emotional commitments that form the democratic mobs/masses whipped into a frenzy by the intellectuals and activists of the Left and who (as with the OWM and homosexual marriage movement), seeing an approaching bus, will, in all likelihood, throw the Church under it before their passionate commitment to a "better world" and "economic justice."


Since we are being insulting I see you as the kind of right-wing nut who has made God into his own image and have overlaid his political philosophies over his God to give support to the cause. In biblical term, an idolater which means you are probably going to hell unless you repent. At least most of the people on this board will be going with you so you can continue to have these conversations through the Millenium. Enjoy.

Anyways, just doing my yearly check in and realized they still haven't deleted my account as I requested. Bye.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: The Economics of Zion.

Post by _sock puppet »

Well, thanks, Droopy. Not for your misguided economics. But for drawing The Nehor back to MDB posting.
_Yahoo Bot
_Emeritus
Posts: 3219
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:37 pm

Re: The Economics of Zion.

Post by _Yahoo Bot »

bcspace wrote:
He is absolutely correct. Those philosophies are the continuation of the war in heaven here on earth. Coercion vs Agency. The Left itself considers taxation, for example, as "the coercive force that binds us together".


You are just inventing new definitions for pure communism, trying to equate it with Leninism, so as to champion free market capitalism. Christian communism does not depend upon coercion; anybody can opt out at any time. I wonder if you have any citation from the Brethren claiming that there will be private property in the hereafter. "Stewardship" is not private property, as the very notion of "steward" is that you are entrusted with somebody else's property -- in pure communism that is the property of the community.

In Christian communism, as described in Acts and 4th Nephi, there is no private property. People work not to better themselves but the Christian community. Christian communism is, practically speaking, not an economic system at all but a collective of believers, voluntarily bound to each other to improve the common weal rather than individual wealth. (Marx taught that pure communism was basically the same as anarchy, but everybody working together in happiness.)

It is true that the law of consecration has some slight elements of personal property, and the United Order had personal property. But those economic systems are not Christian (or theocratic) communism, as the very definition of communism is "no private property."

Droopy: Nothing in the scriptures or the teachings of the prophets since Joseph mentions anything about the Church determining for anyone what their trade, profession, or entrepreneurial calling shall be.


Hmm. I don't know what to make of that; Brigham Young called hundreds of men on work missions; mining, coal mining, salt gathering, retailing, and many more. See Leonard Arrington, Great Basin Kingdom. I know several men who gave up their professions when the Church central called them to work for the Church. My step-father was a well-known physicist employed by a defense contractor who gave up his pension rights to serve as a mission president. My own grandfather received a calling to become the BYU Academic VP when he was happily doing quite well, for a higher salary, in a similar position at a far more prestigious university. Unlike Leninism, a person could say "no." Church callings themselves are an example of being asked to do something to advance the community and not one's self. I was once asked to be the ward organist and had to say "no" because I could not play.
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Re: The Economics of Zion.

Post by _moksha »

The Nehor wrote:
Furthermore they are objectively wrong when they try to determine God's voting habits. They are the equivalent of ticks imagining they can tell the way a human would vote by sucking a small quantity of blood from him.



They make it sound like God is a disciple of Ayn Rand. Still, it makes me wonder how many at MD&D would embrace the ideas of our most conservative duo.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
Post Reply