I have not read all of your arguments with David, so forgive me if I have covered something you have already addressed.
What are your thoughts on the United Order? My understanding is that the United Order was basically a theocratic redistribution of wealth.
This is really not the understanding of the UO found in our modern scriptures (the D&C) or in any clarifications and explications of it by the modern Brethren Liz, which is at the bottom of my problem with the Bokovoy eradication-of-poverty-through-wealth-redistribution school. The UO is the mature application of the LofC within a social and political system oriented solely to the preparation of its people for the Second Coming of Christ. The LoC, upon which the UO is based is a celestial law of which there is
an economic component.Thinking of the UO as primarily an economic system who's primary justification is the eradication of poverty, or the equalization of socioeconomic class, will lead precisely to the kinds of mistaken assumptions and ideas about "Zion" as David has been expressing for quite sometime.
The United Order involves a number of social and cultural elements who's purpose is to foster the kind of spiritual, psychological and attitudinal characteristics required of a society prepared to meet Christ and his coming and inaugurate the Millennium.
This set of social attributes includes an economic component involving the eradication of poverty and the elimination of radical disparities in wealth accumulation (I will not use the term "distribution," as that carries, itself, ideological weight and only encourages the very ideas I"m trying to avoid here).
Wealth distribution for the alleviation of intermittent poverty and for the maintenance of the poor who are permanently poor due to circumstances, such as age, disability, or other factors that make productive contribution to Zion impossible or minimal, is an important and integral aspect of the economic portion of the UO. But the UO is not, in and of itself, about economics, and this is where David and others with similar views have lost track of the UO's essence, in my view.
Even the LoC itself is not strictly about material wealth, but about the consecration of our time, talents, skills, knowledge, experience, "know-how," and gifts to the building of Zion, of which economic considerations are but a facet.
The basis of the eradication of poverty in Zion is not the Bishop's storehouse and distribution (re-distribution, in the anti-capitalist mindset) of wealth. That component is present in the UO as a means of providing for the maintenance, at above living standards we would consider "poor," for those who cannot maintain themselves or who find themselves, for a season, unable to contribute productively. The major component of Zion, in an economic sense, which is really no different than the traditional welfare principles of the Church, is
productive economic activity (the productive, economically creative, wealth generating activities made possible by the use of our stewardships), the goal of which is economic self sufficiency and independence for the vast majority who are able to contribute economically, in Zion. Work, production, and industry, or, in other words, wealth creation, is the core of the economics of Zion
This must be the case, both doctrinally, and for the reason that the reverse simply cannot be true, in an economic sense. Without wealth creation individually and across the society, broadly speaking ("capitalism," in other words), the Bishop's storehouse does not exist and there is no welfare. To eradicate poverty, in other words, vast amounts of wealth must be created that includes not only that portion given to the Church for the maintaining of Zion's infrastructure and the support of the poor, but an adequate living standard for the non-poor (the vast majority who work, employ, are employed, and who finance, run, and manage various kinds of businesses) and profit capable of being plowed back into productive activity for the expansion of existing business ventures, and the hiring of employees (the
real way to eradicate poverty, by the way, without impoverishing the entire society in the process).
The core, of the UO, economically, in other words, is thrift, industry, work, and productive labor - the traditional gospel teachings regarding provident living.
The effect and social effects this allows, effects that will allow poverty as we know it to be eliminated as an aspect of the human condition, but without the corrupting incentives and economic/social hazards of all secular systems attempting the same feat, is the Bishop's storehouse and having "no poor" among us.
In other words, what I foresee in the future UO is a
very free market "capitalist" economic groundwork, indeed, much freer than it is at present, mediated by an absence of greed, lust for wealth, political interference in market processes by equally greedy and power seeking Kingmen and Gaddianton Robbers (much of the present political, bureaucratic and special interest classes) through oppressive taxation, regulation, graft and corruption, and who's primary purpose is not the accumulation of private wealth, but preparation for the return of the Savior. In that preparation to which our wealth will be wholly consecrated by covenant, support of the poor is only one facet of a multitude of preparatory projects toward which or excess wealth will be utilized.
For example, in today's society, it is common for a wealthy socialite who is single to buy a 20 room mansion, and live in it by him/herself.
While a number of questions could be asked by any of us of such a person as to what her need of, or purpose in having, a 20 room mansion as living space for just one person may be (and legitimately so), my view is that this is not a question that can legitimately be asked of such a person, in an economically free, growth oriented market society, in a moral sense.
The reason Liz, and this is absolutely central to my philosophical views of economics, politics, and ethics, at least in our present non-Zion societal situation, is that that twenty room mansion, though perhaps representing a magnificent sense of social status preoccupation by the socialite, and a waste of resources in the sense that much of the living space there will never be used, has no causal relation to the poverty of others around her.
Her twenty room mansion does not represent any loss for the poor, and does not represent something the poor would have had in their pockets had the 20 room mansion not been constructed, no matter for what purpose.
In a socialist society, or any kind of non-market and property rights based society in which people struggle for portions of a static or diminishing piece of economic pie, this has some value. In an unhampered, or relatively unhampered market economy in which the pie always keeps growing and net wealth continues to be generated and accumulated, the use of private wealth by one, and even vast wealth, does not represent the removal of wealth from the poor, or represent something that would have gone to them had it not been used in the construction of the mansion (indeed, some of the poor were surely employed in its construction, either at the entry level or as general labor, for some months).
The "poor" may also be among those who cut its lawns, weed its gardens, dig up broken sewer pipes, and clean its upholstery.
The thing is, building and maintaining such a mansion is a net gain to the economy (even it terribly wasteful from the perspective of the lone soul inhabiting its vast bulk) and creates further wealth, both for the poor and for others who will permanently be involved in its maintenance and upkeep.
That mansion does not represent a piece of the economic pie that would have made the poor richer, but a bud on an ever growing economic tree, so long as it is allowed to keep growing.
If this same person was living under the United Order, he/she would give his/her proceeds to the Church. The Church would then purchase a modest home for him/her. Another person who has a large family would be more likely to live in a 20 room mansion.
I think this is a bit of a mischaraterization. In the UO, at it has been described, the person would give all of her excess wealth, above that as determined by here individual covenant made with her local Priesthood leader and the Church, based in individual needs and wants, on an individual and family basis, to the Church. With the income that remained as income, she would be able to purchase a house herself that she could afford.
Not being indigent, the Church would have no reason to buy her a house. I have no idea how inheritances will be handled in the UO. Much of it would be transferred to the Church, no doubt, but there is no way the Church would make a rich person indigent, and dependent upon the Church. I do imagine her remaining wealth might be invested in a new business venture, and the "socialite" required to become employed for her own maintenance, if capable.