Leftism and the Gospel: How Wide the Divide?

[_Runtu]

You called?

Since 1947 too!

Reminds me of my next-door neighbor, an English guy who has been through some rough times. He injured his back and was unable to work, and thus lost his health insurance. To help make ends meet, he rented out a room to a couple of twentysomething boys, who turned out to be heavily into drugs. Before he could get them out of the house, the police raided the place, and he was arrested, along with the druggies. While at the jail, they drew blood with an infected needle, so he ended up in the ER a few days later and spent 3 days in the hospital.

So, he's going home to England so he can have surgery on his back, but in the meantime, he has thousands of dollars of medical bills from the bad needle. Is health care free in Britain? Depends on how you look at it, I suppose. As I recall, radical leftist Harry Truman tried to pass a national healthcare bill in 1949, but couldn't. The funny thing is that the system we have now isn't free-market-based, either.

[_Droopy]

I just want to make one point here.

Droopy thinks I am criticizing the Church because I view the communal system...

Jason, let's stop here for a second and I'll ask you to be intellectually honest with your description of the UO. Once and for all, let's get it right, and by "get it right" I mean align your own claims of what the UO is with what the leaders of the Church itself has said about it. Joseph Smith himself was asked whether the church believed in "having all things common," and replied with a simple and straightforward "No." Several General Authorities during the 20th century, in clear language, made plain that the UO is not "communal" or "communitarian" in nature.

It would be well for future discussions if you and others would correctly describe the system as the church itself understands it, and not as you would rather have it for purposes of debate or polemic.

of The Law of Consecration as more similar to a socialistic or communistic society.

See above.

But this is simply false. And note that he claims the same of David Bokyov or whatever his last name is. Droopy thinks that those who do not agree that the ideals promoted in a City of Zion are conservative free market economics are criticizing the Church.

David Bokovoy is, in my view, in a form of personal apostasy, as far as I'm concerned, in relation to this. I don't say this because he interprets it specifically in this way, although there is plenty to disagree with him here on. I say this because of his aggressive, public position, taken time and again, that those who disagree with him, including those who write official church publications and manuals, and any number of 20th century General Authorities, including Presidents of the Church, do not understand the scriptures, do not understand the doctrines of their own church, and are, in some very salient sense, inauthentic or less than valiant Latter day Saints for not accepting his own doctrines of, as he put it, the abolition of poverty through the redistribution of wealth and the total equality of income among a Zion people.

None of that is gospel doctrine, none of it can be found in the D&C verses relevant to the rules, regulations, and nature of a Zion community, and none of it is remotely compatible with anything that has been said during the 20th century by living prophets who have spoken to and taught relative to the subject.

Were it just a matter of a private theoretical leaning, that would be one thing, but the manner in which he (and others at the MADboards and at ZLMB in times past) came bounding into discussions with an air of Olympian moral self congratulation and began browbeating other faithful LDS for not accepting their iconoclastic and ideologically tinged interpretations of certain scriptural verses and social practices, crossed the line from mere iconoclastic theorizing into ark steadying.

What they are criticizing is Droopy's spin. That is all.

No, they're criticizing the fact that conservative/libertarian ideas, across an imperfect but clearly relevant spectrum of human problems, is a much better fit with the gospel than leftist ideas, which as squares, simply cannot be pounded into the gospel's round holes, no matter how much force is applied.

Personally I think the idea of a City of Zion where all things are in common, where there is no poor or rich, where there are not "ites" is Democrats or republicans or whatever to be a beautiful concept if it could work. It would be a lovely place to live.

The only problem here is the stubborn "all things in common" point, which you have still failed to understand (no matter how many times its been explained).

But it based on what I understand about it it certainly is not free market conservative economics. It is more socialistic.

Since you are not listening, and apparently have no intention of doing so, I see little point in carrying on the debate much past this point.

[_Droopy]

No, many patently do not. All I need do here is point you to Melchett's claim, previously, the health care in Britain is "free."

You called?

Since 1947 too!

Melchett, I'm sure your an intelligent person, overall, but reveling in economic or any other kind of intellectual illiteracy is not becoming.

[_Droopy]

I almost hate to admit this, but some of the start-up capital for my company came from the US Department of Energy. We're making pretty good money, and I've been told the DOE money was crucial to making our technology into the useful and valuable products we have today. No one else does what we do, and the oil industry has only reluctantly adopted our technology (at least until they realized that some companies were saving millions of dollars using our stuff). Without government help, the wealth we have created may never have happened.

It is a huge oversimplification to say that the government creates no wealth.

1. Where did the DOE funding you used come from, Runtu? How and where was in generated?

2. If the stuff you make was economically viable in the first place, why did you need government subsidy to enter into its production? Why weren't private investors interested in your ideas?

[_EAllusion]

Droopy, when you say "X is widely understood to be..." you are using passive voice to imply that either the general population believes X or that this is X is the received opinion of experts. It does not mean that X is believed by a group of people at right-wing think tanks or a collection of voices in your head. I'm sorry your education has failed you.

I don't have much positive to say about American public education, but one positive thing we can say is that it is better than it was in decades past as measured by performance outcomes like literacy rates. Yes, the level of knowledge about American history is appalling in your average student, but here's a secret for you: 1950's Appalachia wasn't exactly professorville. This should be intuitive to you as both the US economy and academic knowledge has matured over time, which leads to a trickle-down effect on k-12 education. You ever read textbooks from the '60's? Quality isn't the first word that comes to my mind. But comparisons against our own history probably aren't as instructive as comparisons against our peers in the world. That's where the news isn't as positive.

No, not concentrated there.

Well, concentrated there if you care about things like actual evidence rather than the rantings of an old man going on about video games these days. The US performs relatively decent, though not great, in other subjects, but is abysmal on science and math.

e.g. : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40544897/ns ... upPHNWjNBk

I suspect that the kind of politicization that has taken place is pretty much the kind you like, so no doubt, you would have little criticism on that wise.

It kinda sucks that religious lunatics like yourself are able to place pressure on school boards to neuter the quality of our science education. And when China is out R&Ding the bejessus out of us because of their vastly superior science resources, some of the blame is going to fall squarely on your shoulders.

[_Melchett]

Melchett, I'm sure your an intelligent person, overall, but reveling in economic or any other kind of intellectual illiteracy is not becoming.

Suit yourself.

In the case of the NHS, I will agree that all in the garden is not rosy. Like any welfare schemes, there are those who take advantage and abuse it. There is also the fact that Thatcherism came in and buggered up the system, trying to make it into something that could make a few quid. In came management committees who demanded lots of money to play with the money and make a lot for themselves. Still, the NHS is the responsibility of the UK government, who answer to the people.

I've told of my experiences with the NHS, and they have all been positive. It does work. You think that my personal testimony is worth less that the literature produced by self interest groups. The testimony of a witness is worth far less than what your self interest groups have to say.

I've also seen the US medical system at work where those without health insurance suffer, and even those who have had medical insurance reduced to their knees because their insurance provider has deemed the treatment required by the medical profession to be a result of a 'pre-existing condition'. The insurance providers aren't in it for anything else but the money they deliver to their shareholders, and the nice bonuses the management get. People who have paid into these insurance schemes for years, and handed over thousands of Dollars in the hope that they never have to use it, and that get turned away based on economics is wrong.

If anything, God forbid, happens with my kidneys again, there is a high probability that I will be refused to make a claim on the insurance I pay into.

If I had a choice here, I would be more than happy to pay into a system where everyone can have an opportunity to get the treatment they need, without having to worry that they might have to sell everything they have worked hard for, or even what they don't have. Having a government managed system where the pharmaceutical and medical care providers are regulated, and the profiting on the backs of sickness is limited.

[_Runtu]

1. Where did the DOE funding you used come from, Runtu? How and where was in generated?

From taxes and other sources of revenue.

2. If the stuff you make was economically viable in the first place, why did you need government subsidy to enter into its production? Why weren't private investors interested in your ideas?

Probably because most oil industry people wouldn't give the time of day to a small businessman in Provo, Utah. Also, two huge multinational corporations were attempting (and failing) to develop the same kind of system at the same time. Who do you think the industry was going to back?

The interesting thing is that, once the technology took off, thanks to DOE seed money, the two large multinational corporations gave up on the technology and instead bought our company, which is now a joint venture between the two. The technology has always been viable (and it will mean huge changes to the oil industry's costs and safety), but because it came from an unknown source with no ties to the industry, it did not get industry acceptance.

I for one am quite happy that the DOE believed in us when the market didn't. Markets don't always make wise decisions.

[_DarkHelmet]

1. Where did the DOE funding you used come from, Runtu? How and where was in generated?

From taxes and other sources of revenue.

2. If the stuff you make was economically viable in the first place, why did you need government subsidy to enter into its production? Why weren't private investors interested in your ideas?

Probably because most oil industry people wouldn't give the time of day to a small businessman in Provo, Utah. Also, two huge multinational corporations were attempting (and failing) to develop the same kind of system at the same time. Who do you think the industry was going to back?

The interesting thing is that, once the technology took off, thanks to DOE seed money, the two large multinational corporations gave up on the technology and instead bought our company, which is now a joint venture between the two. The technology has always been viable (and it will mean huge changes to the oil industry's costs and safety), but because it came from an unknown source with no ties to the industry, it did not get industry acceptance.

I for one am quite happy that the DOE believed in us when the market didn't. Markets don't always make wise decisions.

^^ This. I'm a huge supporter of the capitalist system. It has spread more wealth to more people than any other economic system. However, there are some things that free market capitalism isn't good at. For example, why did the founding fathers create a national military funded by tax dollars? Were they a bunch of commies? Why not use private armies? National infrastructure is another thing i don't want in the hands of private companies. Can you imagine privately owned highways? There are some things that we all need to chip in and pay for.

[_Jason Bourne]

Since you are not listening, and apparently have no intention of doing so, I see little point in carrying on the debate much past this point.

Well I must say I agree with you here.

Carry on with your favorite gospel hobby.

[_Jason Bourne]

1. Where did the DOE funding you used come from, Runtu? How and where was in generated?

2. If the stuff you make was economically viable in the first place, why did you need government subsidy to enter into its production? Why weren't private investors interested in your ideas?

1: Obviously it came from the tax payer

2: The fact that you think everything has to be market driven in order to be viable is silliness. There is nothing innately wrong with the government encouraging and targeting certian industries and activities. It happens all the time and has for a long, long time and many good things have come from it. Do they always get it right? No. Nor does the free market.
We have reaped many benefits it real life from things such as the space program, defense spending, government launched satellites, tax credits that are granted to encourage research and development and so on.