Leftism: How Wide the Divide Continued.

[_Gadianton]

Hi Droopy,

Some of these questions are hard to answer because you load so much into words like "socialist" throughout your many posts on economic subjects, that even though you think your questions may be clear, they aren't.

The poverty you want to solve for exists in some context. What is the existing economic regime where our hypothetical "poverty" exists? What are the assumptions about how the poverty came to exist in the first place?

Assume the society at t-naught began as an ideal market nation of shopkeepers where equality of opportunity prevails, where brains and hard work explain the rich, and the poor creep up for a variety of reasons - bad luck, bad habits, falling through the cracks of a good system that has made a few mistakes. Are you asking in this scenario, if we should solve the poverty by tweaking a system that is more or less functional in the smallest way possible to bring the suffering level down to acceptable levels, or we should overhaul the entire system by confiscating the wealth of everyone and implementing a command regime where the state owns everything and assigns stewardships until an equality of result of some fashion is realized?

hmmm. what should we do?

Assume the society at t-naught began as a command economy with little concept of private ownership and the moral and material calculus of the planners and their horde of mathematicians has been just a bit off, resulting in not only some "inequality" but poverty. Should the central planners take a second look at their equations that have been running pretty well in keeping results equal, and work on adjusting the math until the poverty disappears and results are within expected errors, or should it abolish the central planning committee, divide up all the wealth of the country and hand it over to individuals based on guesses about who works the hardest and then pray that the new wealth owners will battle it out in the open market in just the right way such that the poor eventually get jobs that make them not poor?

I think this is pretty clear too.

Assume the society at t-naught began as some kind of resource-rich mixed economy where everyone is the color blue with relatively good living standards and a bit of poverty. The society is invaded by another mixed-economy society of green people with superior technology, but lack raw resources and cheap labor. The greens confiscate all the wealth of the blues, enslave them, kill the resistance, and then a hundred years later after things have settled down, slavery is abolished, and the society of the great grandchildren affirm their values are equality of opportunity and hard work, but where the blues have been put to such a disadvantage that as a whole, have and extremely difficult time escaping their circumstance. what kind of measures should be instituted to resolve the poverty of the blues?

This one might be less clear. It's not clear the problem is fixable to me by pure market incentive, whatever that is, or by pure redistribution of wealth.

[_moksha]

Droopy, you make it sound like the Church is an advocate for an upper class and that it bends the will of the majority to that purpose. The Church is not an ogre in this regard.

[_ajax18]

What are the assumptions about how the poverty came to exist in the first place?

From a Democrats perspective?

1. That all nonwhite people once had everything and the only reason they don't have what white people have now is because white people stole it all from them.

2. That the differences in cultural, genetic, and morality between the cultures has nothing to do with the disparity in economic result we see now.

3. That before the white man came, the African and American continents were some kind of utopia complete with all the developments and advantages of modern technology. All technological contribution in the world came from Egypt rather than Europe.

4. That the culture of overpopulation and having children you cannot afford has nothing to do with keeping those that participate in that culture at a disadvantage economically for generations.

Is the percentage of "poverty," in America now more or less than when Lyndon Johnson declared a war on poverty and implemented all these beneficial socialist programs we now enjoy paying for? It seems to me like all his policies did was create more poverty.

[_Droopy]

Droopy, you make it sound like the Church is an advocate for an upper class...

I've never made it sound like any such thing.

[_subgenius]

If it were possible to abolish poverty from the human condition utilizing either a free market capitalist economic order, or a socialist economic order, which would be preferred, assuming, for all intents and purposes, the same outcome?

one should first learn to distinguish the slight, but often overlooked, difference between a hypothetical proposition and an absurd one.

Secondly, this resolves itself into a further question: If the abolition of human poverty could be achieved in either a free market capitalist, or highly controlled socialist society, and the outcomes would be ostensibly the same, what aspects of either would make one or the other preferable, if you still preferred one over the other? That is, this is a question of the ethical/moral aspects of the means.

one should first learn to distinguish the slight, but often overlooked, difference between a hypothetical proposition and an absurd one.

However, the blatantly and glaringly obvious answer to your question lies in the 2 keywords used to describe each system...."free" vs. "highly-controlled"
and by that gauge, how do you prefer to live you life?


remind me again how this thread is about Mormonism?

[_bcspace]

remind me again how this thread is about Mormonism?

Well, it could be because left-wing philosophy and modus operandii are in all ways contrary to very specific LDS doctrines. I'm sure you are aware of the moral issues so let's look at economics. Take the Law of Consecration for example. It's fundamental principle of operation is private property. It's definition of equal is in terms of each individual's wants and needs. The surrounding doctrine as taught in the manual is clear that socialism and even entitlement programs are not of God. The overall implication is that the United Order can't function unless it's within a free market capitalist economy.

Consider also how the Gospel teaches salvation. We lay up treasures in store (capital investment). We are rewarded according to merit (parable of the talents). etc. God is a free market capitalist.

The bottom line is that socialists and any and all left-wingers are in direct and total opposition to Jesus Christ and his Gospel. The divide between them and God is as wide as it gets because by taking away agency and personal responsibility, they replicate Satan's plan. This is a topic very relevant to Mormonism.

[_Droopy]

If it were possible to abolish poverty from the human condition utilizing either a free market capitalist economic order, or a socialist economic order, which would be preferred, assuming, for all intents and purposes, the same outcome?

one should first learn to distinguish the slight, but often overlooked, difference between a hypothetical proposition and an absurd one.

Apparently you either haven't read my other threads on this issue, or simply don't "get it" as a matter of psychological obstinacy. The purpose of this thought experiment has been clearly elucidated, as far as I'm concerned.

However, the blatantly and glaringly obvious answer to your question lies in the 2 keywords used to describe each system...."free" vs. "highly-controlled"
and by that gauge, how do you prefer to live you life?

Then why, pray tell me, are socialist/collectivist systems of social and economic organization and the acceptance and desire for a "caregiver state" (as Kenneth Minogue has termed it) that does not guarantee the unalienable rights and liberties of a people, but provides for them as parents provide for their children, so popular among so many and clung to so intensely by so much of the Western intelligentsia?

Might you be able to answer your own question with a little critical thought and reflection? Why would, after all, many human beings desire to be taken care of at the expense of their fellow citizens? Why would many support a guaranteed annual income regardless of whether one works or contributes to the productive processes of society at all? who wouldn't want "free" healthcare, "free" education, "free" housing, "free" daycare, "free" abortions, "free" breakfast, lunch, and dinner at the local public school, a house one cannot possibly really afford at near zero percent interest rates etc., etc.

And why not free food, free clothing, free gas, electric, water, phone service, etc.? The point is that socialism is always a trade-off between freedom and security, and history and a substantive understanding of human nature (from an LDS standpoint a "fallen" human nature) shows quite clearly that many human beings, given the option (and depending upon the manner in which those options are "packaged" politically and philosophically), will frequently choose security over their own free agency, and will gladly give away, not only their own, but that of others so that the overall loss of liberty will be "fair."

How would I rather live? I would rather have liberty and its attendant risks than a guarantee of security from a state with the powers allowing it the capability to attempt such. Many others, however, fear both the personal responsibilities and risks that are an inherent and innate reciprocal aspect of any social environment that in which free agency is given a high degree of unhampered opportunity for expression.

The one third of the Father's children who refused their own mortal probation and supported Lucifer's plan, in which no one would "fall through the cracks" of his cosmic "safety net" (either all are eventually saved, or no one is saved, the price being the abolition of free will. There would be no "disparate outcomes" in Satan's "plan of salvation") is instructive.

[_Runtu]

Now, here is the question: if poverty could be abolished in this manner, under these economic conditions, would this be preferable, or not preferable, to a socialist system in which the central focus was on, not necessarily making the poor that much less poor, but on making them equal in their claim on the available resources and wealth of the society?

In other words, is economic equality as an ideal and societal goal of more importance than the actual abolition of poverty? Is equality of income distribution of greater importance, in the overall scheme of things, than the creation of wealth by the poor themselves and the addition of that wealth to, not only their own temporal condition, but to the net wealth of the entire society?

If it were possible to abolish poverty from the human condition utilizing either a free market capitalist economic order, or a socialist economic order, which would be preferred, assuming, for all intents and purposes, the same outcome?

First of all, I cannot think of a single time in human history where there was total income equality. As a conservative, I believe that Western liberal democracy and capitalism have the best track record of eliminating poverty, but most people in Western countries believe that the free market alone will not guarantee the lack of poverty.

If free markets (which I think at this point are hypothetical) were capable of eliminating poverty, then, yes, that would be the way to go. Attempting equality of outcomes has, in my view, ended badly in every society that has ever attempted it. To my mind, there are two beliefs involved in your choice above:

1. There is a fixed amount of wealth, and therefore, the poor can only be enriched by taking from the wealthier.

2. The amount of wealth is always increasing, so we should enact policies that give the best chance of increasing wealth in general and eliminating poverty.

[_Droopy]

First of all, I cannot think of a single time in human history where there was total income equality.

There never was, but as I've made explicityly clear several times, this is a thought experiment designed to get at the deeper psychological motives or animating mental set behind either hypothetical outcomes.

As a conservative, I believe that Western liberal democracy and capitalism have the best track record of eliminating poverty, but most people in Western countries believe that the free market alone will not guarantee the lack of poverty.

And it can't. It can only create conditions of relative affluence for the vast majority.

To my mind, there are two beliefs involved in your choice above:

1. There is a fixed amount of wealth, and therefore, the poor can only be enriched by taking from the wealthier.

Yes. This is the core assumption, if not psychological sentiment, behind most socialist initiatives.

2. The amount of wealth is always increasing, so we should enact policies that give the best chance of increasing wealth in general and eliminating poverty.

In an unhampered, rule of law based,, free market democratic capitalist society, this should be the normal state of affairs.