Trajectory of Danger: Becoming a Political Organization

[_mikwut]

Hello BCspace,

Socialism and the welfare state.

What do you mean by "socialism", in some sense we do live in a socialist state republican or democrat - how you defining what that means?

And "welfare state" what does that mean? Certainly all democrats and all republicans are against the entire union being on welfare?

Support for alternative lifestyles (such as homosexuality) and other immoral behaviors and beliefs (such as third wave feminism and above).

What do you mean by support for? How would you differentiate "support for" a specific 'x' you disagree with and libertarian idea that we can choose for ourselves and not be told by government or dissuaded economically by government? It seems to me to have to contradict a Mormon doctrine either way from you way of looking and defining these things (it seems as of now anyway). For example you decry homosexual relationships being supported but don't you also recognize free agency as a fundamental Mormon doctrine?

Opposition to the death penalty is also contrary to LDS doctrine

How is the death penalty clearly LDS doctrine? Scriptures?

support for abortion as a general method of birth control.

Can you support your claim that the democratic party has a principled belief and supports abortion as a "general method of birth control" - I have never met one.

regards, mikwut

[_moksha]

As for the Republicans, it's simpler to say there is virtually nothing they stand for that is doctrinally opposed to the LDS Church. The same seems to apply to other conservative parties.

Out of curiosity, has the Church's fourth mission statement of helping the poor and needy been abandoned? If so, that may place them squarely in agreement with the conservative agenda.

If not abandoned, has it been amended to include the phrases, "at your largess" or "if your tax attorney deems it a sufficient write-off".

[_Kishkumen]

Wouldn't think so neho, I never saw you.

Nice comeback.

[_bcspace]

Socialism and the welfare state.

What do you mean by "socialism", in some sense we do live in a socialist state republican or democrat - how you defining what that means?

And "welfare state" what does that mean? Certainly all democrats and all republicans are against the entire union being on welfare?

As you well know, Socialism requires common ownership and production and consumption to be driven by factors other than free will. This is in direct opposition to the LDS doctrine of agency and the higher law of Consecration whose fundamental principles are private ownership of property and capital and owner's free will decision on how said property and capital are to be used. Socialism always requires a dictatorship of one form or another.

Support for alternative lifestyles (such as homosexuality) and other immoral behaviors and beliefs (such as third wave feminism and above).

What do you mean by support for?

Vocal, voting, monetary, political capital, etc.

How would you differentiate "support for" a specific 'x' you disagree with and libertarian idea that we can choose for ourselves and not be told by government or dissuaded economically by government?

Because "support for x" for the Democrats invariably means being told by the government or dissuaded by other means. Often, x, impedes on and affects the public with or without their consent.

It seems to me to have to contradict a Mormon doctrine either way from you way of looking and defining these things (it seems as of now anyway). For example you decry homosexual relationships being supported but don't you also recognize free agency as a fundamental Mormon doctrine?

Gays already are able to freely exercise their agency. Granting them additional rights often infirnges on the rights of others or have no basis other than to support the lifestyle. Promoting the notion that stated beliefs agianst homosexuality is "hatespeech" also infringes on the rights of others and the Book of Mormon teaching is wholly against the notion of "hatespeech" as a crimein the first place.

Opposition to the death penalty is also contrary to LDS doctrine

How is the death penalty clearly LDS doctrine? Scriptures?

Genesis 9:6

support for abortion as a general method of birth control.

Can you support your claim that the democratic party has a principled belief and supports abortion as a "general method of birth control" - I have never met one.

A woman's unlimited "right" to an abortion is evidence in and of itself.

[_bcspace]

As for the Republicans, it's simpler to say there is virtually nothing they stand for that is doctrinally opposed to the LDS Church. The same seems to apply to other conservative parties.

Out of curiosity, has the Church's fourth mission statement of helping the poor and needy been abandoned? If so, that may place them squarely in agreement with the conservative agenda.

If not abandoned, has it been amended to include the phrases, "at your largess" or "if your tax attorney deems it a sufficient write-off".

It's telling that you do not mention how the poor are to be taken care of. So no, the Republicans, or any other conservatives are not in opposition to the LDS Church in this matter whereas Democrats and all other liberals are.

[_mikwut]

Hello BCSpace,

Thanks for the discussion, just trying to get a grip on your perspective.

As you well know, Socialism requires common ownership and production and consumption to be driven by factors other than free will.

Why do you use the phrase "free will"? And your definition is a rigid definition that doesn't allow for the nuances of political thought regarding socialism. For example, democratic socialism which would be more relevant for the US works within a capitalistic paradigm. I think you often comingle economic socialism, political socialism, philosophical socialism with your theology and confusion is often the result, even if your right - it gets lost in that mess. Ideally, socialism is concerned with sharing, cooperation, social service certainly Mormon principles. There are manifold theories on how that gets implemented. Surely you don't believe the democratic party wants to turn over all production and consumption past free will do you? Surely you don't believe capitalism in all its red tooth and claw exemplifies your ideal or that or the Mormon church of a theological vision of spread of goods and services and political power, do you?

This is in direct opposition to the LDS doctrine of agency and the higher law of Consecration whose fundamental principles are private ownership of property and capital and owner's free will decision on how said property and capital are to be used. Socialism always requires a dictatorship of one form or another.

No it doesn't. There are many forms of socialism, in fact the U.S. has many socialistic parts within its greater whole. My HOA for example would impugn your idealistic idea of "private ownership of property" and "owner's free will decision on how said property and capital are to be used" - so are extensive laws I argue in Court all the time, zoning, condemnation, eminent domain are also closer to philosophical socialist principles than pure capitalism. Socialism doesn't always require a dictatorship unless your being fast and loose with those meanings. Mormon democrats are certainly not advocated socialism as your defining it, nor the vast majority of democrats.

Genesis 9:6

You find that to be applicable law theologically today - thousands of years and culture and history removed from that simple truism of a scripture? Are you familiar with the innocence project?

A woman's unlimited "right" to an abortion is evidence in and of itself.

Not unless you remove yourself from the concrete existential experience and decision of it and look at the world and your fellow man, as well as women with most vile of intents. It's a fictional issue it doesn't really exist in the way your passionate about.

my regards, mikwut

[_moksha]

It's telling that you do not mention how the poor are to be taken care of.

Not sure which conservative plan you mean. Are you referring to the plan involving ice floes or the one involving Haliburton's Soylent Green production facilities?

[_bcspace]

Why do you use the phrase "free will"? And your definition is a rigid definition that doesn't allow for the nuances of political thought regarding socialism.

Actually, being familiar with all the nuances, I more generally worded my response to fit the common denominator in all of them. For example, in a "self-managed" socialist economy, the free will removing dictator might be a computer program or a group of software engineers.

For example, democratic socialism which would be more relevant for the US works within a capitalistic paradigm.

Socialism does not work anywhere and is diametrically opposed to a "capitialist pardigm". Democratioc Socialism or social democracy has the ultimatel goal of installing socialism whenever the people can be convinced to vote for it and calls for vote after vote until they do; tryannizing the minority.

I think you often comingle economic socialism, political socialism, philosophical socialism with your theology

I do. They are ultimately one and the same.

and confusion is often the result, even if your right - it gets lost in that mess.

Only one who doesn't understand socialism could say that.

Ideally, socialism is concerned with sharing, cooperation, social service certainly Mormon principles.

By force, not by free will. So no, any version of socialism you care to put forward is not akin to any LDS principle.

There are manifold theories on how that gets implemented. Surely you don't believe the democratic party wants to turn over all production and consumption past free will do you?

Yes, they do. That is the direction they are going and the architects of such are who their leadership beds with.

Surely you don't believe capitalism in all its red tooth and claw exemplifies your ideal or that or the Mormon church of a theological vision of spread of goods and services and political power, do you?

I do. Free market capitalism represents LDS doctrine. As an economic system, it is completely neutral, evil and good are the responsibility of the indiviudal who bring such with them into the system. In terms of salvation, the Lord plainly operates based on productivity and investment.

You''ll find I am in agreement with the Church in, for example, it's teachings on the Law of Consecration in which, among other things, it admonishes us not to mistake it for some sort of "Christian socialism".

Genesis 9:6

You find that to be applicable law theologically today - thousands of years and culture and history removed from that simple truism of a scripture?

Sure do. It's not the only verse on the subject by the way. Since when does age preclude an eternal truth?

Are you familiar with the innocence project?

Yes. I have no problem with reforming the system.
A woman's unlimited "right" to an abortion is evidence in and of itself.

A woman's unlimited "right" to an abortion is evidence in and of itself.

Not unless you remove yourself from the concrete existential experience and decision of it and look at the world and your fellow man, as well as women with most vile of intents. It's a fictional issue it doesn't really exist in the way your passionate about.

Completely false. The top three reasons given for abortion are:

•negative impact on the mother's life
•financial instability
•relationship problems /unwillingness to be a single mother
http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/a/AbortionReasons.htm

All of these are mostly dictated by choice, not force. In other words, no responsibility was taken for the act of sex itself and the child killed as a general method of birth control.

It's telling that you do not mention how the poor are to be taken care of.

Not sure which conservative plan you mean. Are you referring to the plan involving ice floes or the one involving Haliburton's Soylent Green production facilities?

Abortion as a general method of birth control actually akin to the production of Soylent Green....an excellent metaphor for abortion moksha.

The Lord's economic system is neutral (see above) which means capitalism and the free market. The Lord's method for taking care of the poor can only work under the Lord's economic system according to LDS doctrine.

So once again we see Democrats and any other liberals in diametric opposition to Godas taught by the LDS Church.

[_mikwut]

Hello BC,

You said,

Actually, being familiar with all the nuances, I more generally worded my response to fit the common denominator in all of them. For example, in a "self-managed" socialist economy, the free will removing dictator might be a computer program or a group of software engineers.

Or God. Or his prophet, or his church, right?

Socialism does not work anywhere and is diametrically opposed to a "capitialist pardigm". Democratioc Socialism or social democracy has the ultimatel goal of installing socialism whenever the people can be convinced to vote for it and calls for vote after vote until they do; tryannizing the minority.

The more salient point that your not addressing is pure capitalism doesn't work or we at least don't have a historical example of that to support that possibility on. That is what I was saying to you previously, when you base your terms on the "pure" forms and "ideals" of the words there isn't left any meaning for the real world and the real world (democrats in this instance) is where your throwing down your theological hammer. When we discuss these things in practice, for example in the US, we use the terms in practical ways. It is leaning towards socialism to have the government involved in competition (anti-trust laws), ownership (zoning, eminent domain, etc.), certain areas of the market (health care, roads and infrastructure, etc...) and capitalism in a practical sense when referring to those areas that aren't inhibited by governmment influence. This is why I said you are confusing, the ideals that you promote are no more tested than those that you decry. We see positive examples of the free market bringing wonderful goods and lower prices but also the detrimental abuse that can happen when the free market goes without restraint - migrant workers, third world factories etc.. We see positive influences from a goverment (in the form of administrative bodies synonomous with your use of the word "dictators") owning and implementing the supply of certain things, like water - and the mess that can happen when private companies via capitalism do this.

Only one who doesn't understand socialism could say that.

Your confusing idealistic definitions with application in the real world.

I will await your response here before attempting to tackle the other issues raised.

regards, mikwut

[_Droopy]

The more salient point that your not addressing is pure capitalism doesn't work or we at least don't have a historical example of that to support that possibility on.

This concept is in dire need of definition before we can proceed much father. Further, it must be remembered again that the concept "capitalism" was coined by its enemies, not by the classical liberals for whom free markets and politically unhampered economic activity were far preferable to any other known form of economic relations.

It is leaning towards socialism to have the government involved in competition (anti-trust laws), ownership (zoning, eminent domain, etc.), certain areas of the market

How are zoning laws and eminent domain leaning towards socialism? Anti-trust law is interventionist, to be sure, and much abused, and could be a tool in the socialists little black bag, but by itself, I'm not sure I see socialism here.

(health care, roads and infrastructure, etc...)

The comparison of health care with roads and infrastructure is an apples and oranges one.

This is why I said you are confusing, the ideals that you promote are no more tested than those that you decry.

No, just two hundred years worth, and the Asian Tigers, Germany after the war, Japan etc.

We see positive examples of the free market bringing wonderful goods and lower prices but also the detrimental abuse that can happen when the free market goes without restraint - migrant workers, third world factories etc..

Mexican migrant workers are fleeing their own basket case of a country where free markets have not been allowed to work by its political class to a nation where it is, to one extent or another. Third world factories in which abuses occur would most properly be addressed by people in those countries, as that is where those abuses originate and are maintained.

Believe me, working in a sweatshop making shoes for westerners is far preferable to digging for tubers in order to survive to the next day and being broke.

We see positive influences from a goverment (in the form of administrative bodies synonomous with your use of the word "dictators") owning and implementing the supply of certain things, like water - and the mess that can happen when private companies via capitalism do this.

Oh, so the federal government didn't make an utter mess of things when it shut off water to farmers in the Klamath Valley in Oregon and destroyed thousands of acres of seabird habitat (not to mention hundreds of farms and thousands of lives) to save an "endangered" salmon?

Would the free market have allowed the destruction of some 30,000 timber jobs and the economic devastation of entire towns in the Pacific Northwest to save a subspecies of spotted owl that was neither endangered nor even a separate species from other spotted owls so similar they could not be told apart at first glance?

Would the free market ever go forward with boondoggles like light rail? Would it create an ethanol industry of the size and scope of the one just (thank heavens!) abandoned by Congress, and using the worst of all materials for making it, corn?

The free market comes up with things, some short lived, like pet rocks and cabbage patch dolls, but it would never create a British Leland or thermostats that spy on your energy use and shut it down or off if a government agency thinks your carbon footprint is too great that day.

It would never create a Volt for a market as minor and fragile as the market for that particular vehicle unless the state transferred wealth to such a corporation as a form of life support, and pandered to the public with subsidies and other gimmicks in order to cajole them into buying and driving something they otherwise would keep well away from.

Your confusing idealistic definitions with application in the real world.

Socialism as academic theory would be harmless, head-in-the-clouds play at hubris were it not for the fact that certain people begin to take it seriously. Socialism in practice is Hell in session.