Korihor was not a Leftist

[_EAllusion]

Even if Korihor was meant to be a caricature of the doctrine of individualism expressly to charge secular "enlightened self interest" with the eventual undermining of society

Yeah, uh, if the author were going after that, I don't think he quite successfully hit his mark. My argument is that Korihor ends up advocating something so minimal that it goes beyond the bare minimum rules need to be in place for something to fit within a fair description of a free market economy. It's just chaotic anarchism. It's like saying Somalia represents what anarcho-capitalists want. The "If Christ isn't real, then what's to stop me from raping everything in sight?" argument just isn't enough to get you to Adam Smith, even if pointy headed humanist types most likely to be fans of Adam Smith are the target.

[_bcspace]

I have to agree that Korihor is an archtype for today's leftists. The manual is not speaking about laissez-faire economics.

[_Gadianton]

Hi BC,

Just wanted to let you know that you are the second most intelligent poster on this forum save Droopy -- according to Droopy.

Also, it must really irk you, though not as much as it does Droopy, that the Church teaches Korihor is a laissez-faire economist.

Read it and weep.

[_Droopy]

Indeed. Which is why all the metaphysical and moral qualms you have with Korihor do not subtract from the fact that he taught free market economics.

Let's take one point at at time and see if we can make some headway here. First, please show me where the Book of Mormon - anywhere - sallies into economic theory or mentions free market economics, or any kind of economics, other than general observations of buying and selling and economic activity among a people.

Korihor taught a form of radical, atomistic individualism and atheistic materialism that is quite hamonious with long lived trends in leftist social and political thought over some two centuries. It is not compatiblie with modern conservatism.

However, there is a strain of what I would term "strong" libertarianism, including libertarian anarchism, with which Korihor might find common cause in some salient matters.

Keep in mind, however, that the radical, atomistic individualism of the late 60s and 70s, including the sexual revolution and other forms of antinomian social radicalism, were, while celebrated by some in the more militantly secularistic wings of the libertarian movement, the creations of the sociopolitical Left.


That, however, goes back well before the sixties, to Shelly, Beauvoir, Sanger, Kinsey, and other notable figures among the early Left.

The simultaneous and seemingly schizophrenic focus of the modern Left upon, on one hand and in certain venues, intense, atomistic personal autonomy, and collectivist regimentation and social control on the other, in other venues, has been noted by other thinkers, and I'll just note it again here.

[_Droopy]

I don't think that's what the free market is, my respected Dean. Although political science is slightly outside my field, I have always understood a free market to mean a condition where actors are free to conduct business and transactions without the tool of initiated coercion being applied. In other words a person is free to choose what to do with himself and his property, so long as he does not infringe on that equal right of others.

I think that's a fair, concise thumbnail sketch of the general contemporary conservative/libertarian perspective.

[_Kishkumen]

It seems to me that Korihor's ideas about men prospering according to their genius would be most welcome among many Libertarians, tea party members, and devotees of Ayn Rand.

What's not to like?

[_Droopy]

A text I consulted this morning defines the word to mean that market forces make decisions with minimal government intervention, leaving a high degree of subjectivity to determine what constitutes "minimal." Ultimately, the word is most useful to represent one end of a spectrum with considerations made for the context of the discussion.

Modern conservatives, mainstream libertarians, and the more radical libertarians, including the anarchist segment, would indeed differ on the definition of "minimal."

I think we must be careful not to impregnate the word with padding such that it becomes a doctrine of rationality by definition. I imagine any free-market economist believes that markets can break down in some way; if one believes that government is needed to deter the creation of cartels and therefore, "laissez-faire economics" can be inclusive of this policy, then this doesn't directly imply that one who worries about said policy is an anarchist or believes that might makes right even when the doctrine becomes self-stultifying.

Interesting statement, as one of the defining features of government in the 20th century, especially since the 30s, is its complicity in the creation of cartels and protected monopolies.

Even if Korihor was meant to be a caricature of the doctrine of individualism expressly to charge secular "enlightened self interest" with the eventual undermining of society and I do concede that he is no Adam Smith or Paul Samuelson, he's certainly no "leftist" in any sense at all. I do think it's entertaining, however, to see the Church's official commentary on the Book of Mormon consider the words of Korihor, the most wicked philosopher to ever live, to be laissez-faire, which represents the core of Droopy's religion.

This washes out the various differences of thought between competing schools of thought on the Right, in which only one, the more militant form of libertarianism (within which I would include Rand and many Objectivists) is compatable with what Korihor is arguing.

As to the rest of his philosophy, its nothing more than warmed over secularist social liberalism dressed up as an ideology of "freedom" of the kind that has become the default position of much of academia, public education, the media, and the arts since the sixties. Its just a little Nietzsche sprinkled with a bit of Hefner's "playboy philosophy" mixed with a little Sagan, and little Dawkins, and a dash of John Galt just to give it that all important appearance of hard realism.

[Guest]

You mean, the author of the commentary published by the official arm of church education?

Yes, I mean the author. That paragraph should have been run by someone with a serious intellectual background in the relevant subjects before publication. How someone could be John Dewey or Karl Marx and be a rock ribbed free market capitalist at the same time I'm not yet quite sure I "get."

There are other options besides his confusion. It's your assumption, Droopy, that Korihor must have preached a ubiquitous gospel of the left. The author may not actually be confused, his concern may not be to neatly tie Korihor together, but rather discuss various strains of thought at work that he sees. Korihor may have been "confused."

His atheism, secularism, atomistic self focused individualism and antinomian disdain for the rule of law and moral boundaries to human relations are all central ideological tenets of the Left and have a long intellectual pedigree.

Are some people not on the Left also secular atheists and sociopaths who believe that the ends justifies the means and that whatever they do is OK? Sure. But ideologically, and as a matter of a coherent, systematic worldview, moral relativism of Korihor's kind is a central feature of the Left, and pivotal to its view of the world, especially in cultural and social areas.

Personally, I think the author likely was trying to cover all modern godless thinking, be it from the right or left, within Korihor's gospel.

Perhaps he was, but if so, a much better and more coherent attempt is called for.

To Droopy, this is unthinkable, as the left defines all that is bad and the right all that is good

The "Left" is simply all that which stands in opposition to the gospel of Christ and certain truths of that gospel as they pertain to mortality (political, moral, social dynamics).

It is, in other words, the philosophy (or allied philosophies) of Babylon, or The Great and Abominable Church of the Devil, as forseen would be dominant in the last days in a sociopolitical context.

[_Kishkumen]

Its just a little Nietzsche sprinkled with a bit of Hefner's "playboy philosophy" mixed with a little Sagan, and little Dawkins, and a dash of John Galt just to give it that all important appearance of hard realism.

What an odd person you are.

[_Gadianton]

The simultaneous and seemingly schizophrenic focus of the modern Left upon, on one hand and in certain venues, intense, atomistic personal autonomy, and collectivist regimentation and social control on the other, in other venues, has been noted by other thinkers, and I'll just note it again here.

that's a long list of things to be simultaneously, no wonder you see the Left everywhere!