Politicization of the Church

I do fear that too many members think conservative ideas are the “doctrinally superior” ones. (However, I would be just as concerned if the tables were turned and liberal ideas were largely viewed as doctrinally superior.)My stake president has told me he has tried as hard as possible to be completely politically neutral. I wish all members would have this attitude.

I’ve been told when you go to the temple leave the world and focus on spiritual things. This seems to be fairly well observed in my experience. I wish when we went to church services politics could similarly be left behind.

Prop 8 seemed to me to mark an especially big change in this arena. Before the Church got involved in this, we were specifically counseled NOT to use the Church facilities, rosters, etc. for any political purpose. Suddenly this was all changed. And with official support coming down on a conservative stance, it gave the nod to the politically conservative in our Wards, while de-legitimizing the rest.

Politics should be left out of the church, as Christ taught. Although history has shown the church will push politics like when President Grant pushed for prohibition. But that doesn’t mean that you can’t disagree since, even though Grant pushed for prohibition, it was still defeated.

The writer of this blog should have let his politics stay out of this post if he really wanted to make people agree with him. It added nothing to the post, but do what you will, I’m fine with that.

BTW, I’m a minarchist. AKA, I believe the government should get out of our lives except for the protecting individual rights and and the nation as a whole (granted the current government hasn’t done a good job of that for well over 150 years).

Jon, say what? Christ wasn’t political? When was the last time you took a New Testament class? The whole Jew/Roman thing was as hot back then as Arizona immigration is today.

And that minarchical government did a great job regulating Wall Street. Government is created to protect individual property rights. Laws are all about defining the rules of the game. The better the rules, the better the game — and the more fair for everyone. It isn’t a matter of less or more government, but of better government and a better game on a level playing field. The job of the government is to get the field ready to play on, provide the referees and enforce the rules. Unfortunately, the playing field is a wee bit un-level and the referees need glasses and the players keep playing even though they have six fouls.

I also disagree about religion and government. While the First Amendment proscribes the government from establishing and incorporating religion, it isn’t a two-way prohibition. There is no reason religion shouldn’t be a fundamental part of political discourse and religious ideals should be subjected to political dissection, but religious ideals are not sacrosanct in the political realm. You can’t introduce them and then refuse to discuss them because they come from upon high. That isn’t playing the political game and failing to engage means that you will eventually be defeated. If you don’t want your religious ideals ridiculed, challenged or discussed, only then should you keep them out of political discourse. If you enter the fray, then you should plan on having all of the weaknesses exposed. This is the nature of politics. Staying out because your position is weak, racist or homophobic? That is a whole different matter, but ultimately the religious/moral discourse in the political realm will show that the anti-military industrial complex, anti-exploitative Capitalist and environmental side of politics would be exposed as the more religious compatible political ideology, rather than a conservative capitulation by the religion to the status quo. Do what is correct, let the consequences follow.

Interestingly where I live, other political parties are in the churches of the inner city all the time, promoting candidates, and the churches enjoy their seat at the political table.

That said, I also don’t enjoy mixing politics with gospel doctrine, and I don’t appreciate it when Sunday School lessons are used to promote particular views. It’s true that some political issues find their way in (as noted above, Prop 8, the MX missle question, and of course the ERA).

It’s interesting to me that no where else in the world I’ve lived (Europe, Asia, Latin America) have I felt such political vitriol as here in the US.

I haven’t had a presidential candidate in the pew of my sacramement meeting ever.

The country (and the world?) seem to be increasingly divided into political worldviews that in America have polarized within particular, mutually repelling political movements. Polls show this increasing polarization over time. Opinions toward Obama are more polarized than they were over Bush; they were more polarized toward Bush than toward Clinton, and so on.

I’ve suggested in an earlier thread “Wired Worldviews” that political conservatism or progressivism reflect fundamental differences in personality type in which it is terribly hard to see ANY validity in the other type’s argument. If you look at sources like the Pew Survey of Religious Preferences, you’ll see that religious traditions are also splitting along these worldview lines even if the traditions themselves were originally formed over schisms of doctrine. A very conservative tradition like the LDS or the Southern Baptists will have a related denomination like the Community of Christ on the progressive side that cooperates with the liberal Baptist analogue better than with the LDS. A progressive Anglican tradition immediately generates its conservative wing, which uses overseas Anglican communions to widwife its formation as a separate denomination.

Having a worldview that doesn’t match that of your denominational tribe is painful whether the mismatch is left-right OR right-left. I can assure you that the experience of being insulted for supporting Democratic policies in LDS wards and stakes can be matched in intensity by insults for supporting Republican policies in CofChrist congregations and mission centers.

We all have a lot of work to do over the next few years to keep our differences in worldviews nationally and internationally from spiraling beyong “warm contention”.

I am appalled by the hate-filled right-wing rhetoric that so many Church members espouse and support. Glenn’s doom and gloom philosophy is depressing at best and fear-mongering at worst. I am disappointed that church-run bookstore carry and support his books, that many Church members believe everything he says without doing any fact-checking, and that the church is verifiably one of the most right-wing churches in the United States. I cannot imagine the Savior turning his back on the sick, poor, elderly, mentally ill, and physically- and mentally-challenged, yet the extremist wing of the Republican party does just that. Although both parties have plenty of flaws–especially with their ties to corrupt and powerful corporations which donate heavily to the campaigns of both Republicans and Democrats, I am disappointed that the Church seems to be taking a radical approach to politics and that many of the members are following suit.

That picture is crying out for a caption! How about this:

“Church leaders present President Obama a schematic of the Plan of Salvation, and point out where unrepentant Democrats go.”

But I am concerned that an unwritten law is emerging that only a very conservative point of view is welcome in the LDS Church…

Well yeah. Duh.

This is an issue that tends to arise naturally in any voluntary association like a church. I once attended a few Unitarian Universalist meetings, and the prevailing politics there were much more in evidence than would be typical at an LDS meeting, in my experience.

But with the UU, if you don’t fit in politically, you can simply part ways and go somewhere else. For faithful Mormons, that option is not simple. The Church teaches that leaving puts your salvation at risk. One could argue that this imposes a greater obligation on the Church to remain apolitical, so that no souls are lost from taking offense over politics. I’m not sure how strongly such an obligation is felt within the Church; it probably depends in part on individual experience, with more politically liberal members more likely to feel its importance.

Joseph Smidt said in the first comment that he would be equally concerned by a conservative or a liberal political orthodoxy. This is consistent with the argument I just outlined, and with principles of impartiality and reciprocity. It’s cause for concern if prevailing political view X becomes a stumbling block to members inclined to view Y, and it’s of equal concern however you fill in the blanks; therefore, to the extent possible, a political orthodoxy should be avoided. However, there is another way of looking at it: if political view X is “true”, then there’s a problem only if there is a prevailing view that is different from X.

There’s a famous TED talk, which I’m too lazy to look up and credit properly, in which–my interpretation–it is suggested that to a political liberal the first way of thinking is far more persuasive than the second. Thus a liberal will be more strongly inclined to think the Church should be apolitical than a conservative, other things being equal. And the conservative can more easily adopt the view that a liberal orthodoxy–a sort of false doctrine–would be a problem, but a conservative orthodoxy, being “true”, is not. So the prediction is that liberals almost all want (in theory) an apolitical church, while only some conservatives do, with the others seeing no problem provided the prevailing politics is conservative.

That prediction doesn’t strike me as obviously wrong, but I’m not sure if I believe it, either. Of course, it’s just based on my (over-)interpretation of research I’m barely familiar with.

Western Europe is all socialist/liberal. The countries doing the best–Denmark, Norway–are the most socialist; and let’s not forget aout our neighbor to the north, Canada; also significantly to the left of the US. Were are those conservative havens?

“I was supportive of the health care initiative — it was a huge shame for the U.S. to be the only nation in the top 25 industrial powers not to provide some health care program for its citizens.”

Yeap, but still this new so called US-socialized medicine still falls short of what those other countries have.

FireTag @22, thanks for pointing out the ambiguity in my use of language. I was trying to apply the talk I had heard to the LDS situation, and as I understood the talk, “liberal” referred to those who identify themselves as being toward the left side of the current US political spectrum. In other words, it’s a sociological group rather than a specific political point of view, although obviously there is a strong correlation. The speaker’s point (my version) was that certain values such as tradition and purity are very important to some personalities and not to others, and that at the moment in the US those who attach importance to those values tend to be politically conservative. With gay marriage as an example, the argument that it introduces an impure or immoral “contaminant” into traditional marriage is, to a conservative, (1) obvious, and (2) often decisive, while to a liberal it is (1) obvious, although they would describe it differently, and (2) completely irrelevant as a moral argument. The liberal says “well, yes, that’s the whole point of gay marriage”, asks “how does it harm my marriage?”, and in general has no idea why anyone would take the argument seriously when there is an issue of reciprocity to consider. The speaker was arguing that to a conservative, liberals appear to be sort of morally color-blind; they see some distinctions but not others.

So I was trying to apply this to the subject of this post. I think the speaker would probably not say that he would expect the same association between moral outlook and political conservatism to hold at all times and all places; it’s an analysis of the current US situation.

I certainly agree that rigid left-wing orthodoxies exist. I think the strongest examples are found outside the US, but even the UU congregation I mentioned had taken a step in that direction, much as I think it would have pained them to acknowledge it.

I think the talk I remember is by Jonathan Haidt, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc.

26, “This all comes down to perspective. If you believe that the free market is the best way to help the most people get out of poverty then it is not being cruel to say the least, but to the contrary, it is the best way to help people. The free market also relies on the free will of the people to help their neighbors. So looking at it that way it seems to be the most caring way to help others”

The USA over the past 3 or 4 decades proves that these ideas don’t work. The problem with that philosophy is that it has no no incentive and offers no real benefit for the free market to help or service those who can not pay enough.

There will always be poor in any society for many different reasons, the question is who helps them. When one goes to Scandinavia or Britain or most western countries where governments help the poor one doesn’t see many people homeless on the streets. But in any US city it is easy to see them, living in their cars or plaza or under bridges. Actually the only other place I’ve seen people living that way is in latin america. Seems to me, at times, that the US, and especially the extreme right (ie most US Mormons) are doing the best they can to have an only rich-poor society a la latin america. Just my feel for the situation though, not an academic study off course.

@CarlosJC,

As I wrote earlier the US hasn’t seen a truly free market for a very long time. We live under a mercantilist system. There’s a big difference. I would like to see you argue the points I made on coercion vs persuasion though. That’s the big kicker for me, in order for socialism to exist you need coercion.

If you would like to learn more about free markets and history on economics I would suggests you read mises.org where you can challenge your ideas. A good, but hard to read, read would be Human Action by Ludvig von Mises. After you read that we can banter about which system is the best economically speaking.

@FireTag:

You sound pretty level headed. I’ll have to keep reading you. I was telling my wife the other day how the more I learn about politics and economics the more extreme I move. I wouldn’t doubt my politically persuasion one day will lead me to agree with the anarchists. I read how the people of Adam treated Cain after he killed Abel and I just love it. The people didn’t directly punish him but used the shaming principle (as I like to call it) and then God was left to do the punishing. I wish we could apply that to gays etc. I think it would work a lot better than making laws that hurt us all. I don’t even marriage should be done by the government, I won’t go into the details here. I know the Cain story is hard to extrapolate since there is so little detail so I try to leave my mind open to other ideas but it seems nice to me.

I should also note that there are serious inequality issues that also have to be addressed between countries. A person who is relatively poor in the US may still be rich on an international scale. So, does a religious community concerned with building a world-wide Zionic society invest more on eliminating inequality within nations, or among them?

@FireTag,

Just read your other article. Although I agree with most of the idea that people have a genetic tendency towards a certain ideology I do think people can change their minds with persuasion over time. I’ve been married to my wife for 4 1/2 years now so for about 5 years I’ve been trying to convince my in-laws that the Republican party isn’t good (over all). Now they believe me on that but that’s not really changing ideology. What is amazing is I’ve convinced my mother-in-law that the drug war is worthless and we should legalize drugs, prescription and illegal drugs, except for minors. That’s a big step in my mind. I just see all the death and destruction from the drug war and how it really hasn’t changed how easy it is to access drugs (just makes them more expensive).

Any ways, I think the big thing is talking to people in a persuasive manner vs arguments. Which is hard to do over these blogs, so really it is much more difficult to do online but still possible as Lew Rockwell has been told by many people. It’s just easier in person. Just like sharing the gospel, bible bashing doesn’t work but gentle persuasion does.

BTW, sorry for rambling!

Forgive me for the way I’m citing to these two articles, but I don’t want my post eaten by the spam filter:

bycommonconsent.com/2010/05/23/can-a-good-mormon-make-over-100000-a year/

timesandseasons.org/index.php/2004/11/can-a-good-mormon-be-a-meritocrat/

Worth reading and then revisiting the debate here (which is an interesting extension of the post).

@Stephen M (Ethesis)

bycommonconsent.com/2010/05/23/can-a-good-mormon-make-over-100000-a year/ ===> Page not found

Albania as it is today –> Do you have a link to that…it would be interesting to see what they’re doing and how it is working out.

Hawkgrrrl:

I generally agree with you — especially in religions where you can leave easily and don’t feel like you are losing salvation in the process.

In the LDS, the trapped minority tends to be the liberal, but it can and does work the other way in the modern CofChrist in the last forty or so years.

Having lived in the SF Bay Area for 24 years, I didn’t really notice overt conservatism at church since the Silicon Valley is such a bastion of liberal politics. Clearly, members were more conservative, but it wasn’t that noticeable. When Prop 22 came around, we were asked to support it and, as far as I can tell, most did. They was not the level of acrimony and harsh rhetoric as with Prop 8.

When we moved to ultra-conservative Colorado Springs, everything changed. The members are most outspoken even in a Church setting and level of discourse is pretty harsh. As I’ve mentioned before, in teaching situations, I generally steer the conversation away from politics. They are more conservative than conservatives. We are also a strong military town and that adds to it especially during this endless war situation.

I never will understand the member’s embrace of ultra-conservative politics because it seems to fly in the face of what the Savior tuaght and admonished us to be and certainly does not mirror the teachings of Joseph Smith.

I can only assume the move to conservative politics was a move members made to be more accepted in their communities as “real Americans since there was some much doubt at one time whether Mormons were really American enough for America.

One other thing, I am caring less and less about same sex marriage and more and more about why 2/3 of the church is inactive.

SSM, while we may not agree with it, will not bring down the Church. Lack of activity and falling away of its members will.

RE: #43

“I can only assume the move to conservative politics was a move members made to be more accepted in their communities as “real Americans since there was some much doubt at one time whether Mormons were really American enough for America”

Armand Mauss’ “The Angel and the Beehive” talks about this in detail. The whole problem of assimilating and holding yourself apart and special is really interesting.

I agree with jmb: “For me personally, this is why I support a limited government, and libertarianism. I think libertarianism (and anarchism) are the only forms of gov’t that can be concluded based on a very few basic axioms that virtually everyone would agree with. Other political ideologies universally use force to obtain their desired moral outcome.” But I am independent (not Independent party – just declared neither party) because my preferred method is to keep government hamstrung. If they want to get anything done, they should have to cross party lines and come up with something that pleases neither extreme but that the moderates can all live with.

Fair point re: #1, and conservative Mormons need to be constantly on their guard about this. Ditto — in part — #3; Mormons had no business threatening to disrupt a fireside scheduled by a bishop. (However, there were no threats of violence. That, in itself, is part of an illegitimate, McCarthy-like left-wing campaign to smear limited-government types as violent extremists.)

I feel the same way. Which is why I look forward to the time when Democratic party-line orthodoxy becomes sufficiently open for people with reasonable, intelligent views to get their voices heard from that direction. Having Mickey Kaus beat Barbara Boxer (/= “reasonable, intelligent”) in the CA Senate primary would be a great start.

Jeff, I think you’re painting with too broad a brush: “legalized bribery in the form of campaign contributions.” My cousin is running for Congress. If I give his campaign $25, is that “bribery”? What influence am I supposed to be getting?

Influence-buying rises in direct proportion to the value of political influence. So limit the influence of politics, and you’ll get less “legalized bribery.” Also, I subscribe to the Catholic political theme of subsidiarity — the making of decisions on as close a level to the individual as possible. One thing we ought to do, is return to something closer to the voter/representative ratio (about 50,000 voters per Congressman) of the Founding era. That would give candidates a greater chance to get their positions and qualifications out to the voters — and even discuss the issues with large numbers of them in real depth, not just sound bites — without having to use expensive mass media communication.

The downside is that Congress would consist of about 2,500 people, which collection of human vanity, lechery, domineering and deceit in one building would radically increase the chance of divine lightning strikes in central D.C. — but nothing a decent Doppler radar and better lightning rods couldn’t handle, and overall worth the risk.

“Are you aware that the military gets a lot more of the money the government steals from you than poor people?” Ah, but in investing in the military, the government IS investing in the lower economic classes who constitute the majority of the rank & file of the military. Right? (just paraphrasing something Stephen Colbert observed – don’t lynch me!)

Thomas,

“My cousin is running for Congress. If I give his campaign $25, is that “bribery”? What influence am I supposed to be getting?” Maybe, you get a chance to sit in the Speaker’s chair? Seriously, you know what I am talking about here. Corporations and Special Interests who do expect something in return. When was the last time you sat with your Congressperson (PC) and helped draft a bill? Or block a bill? Well BP, GM, the AMA, Pharma, Big Oil, etc, do it every day.

“Free markets, even with imperfect information, get you the occasional recession.” And just where is there a free market?

Guest,

Prop 8 is a moral issue, not a political issue. The reason the most of the LDS people are conservative is due to the fact that most of the principles of the church are conservative in nature.

#58 — No argument here.

“The church’s stance on polygamy was absolutely not conservative.”

Well, polygamy does seem to be older than monogamy. By that standard, the LDS polygamists weren’t just conservative, they were ultraconservative.

“And it’s political, not moral, because morality is what you as an individual choose to do. The political issue is enforcing your individual definition of morality on other people.”

A decent description of the political/moral spheres, although reality invariably gets messy. The twist here is not so much “wanting to control others’ behavior” — most Mormon Prop. 8 supporters aren’t clamoring for the reinstitution of sodomy laws. Nor (as far as I can tell from my California perch) is anyone suggesting that gays ought not to be able to have ceremonies and consider themselves married. Rather, the argument is about what kinds of arrangements government will officially classify as “marriages,” and compel everyone to honor as such.

In other words, the “Prop. 8 = controlling others’ behavior” narrative isn’t a perfect fit for the specific circumstance.

From my way of thinking, “social conservatism” is no longer so much about “enforcing” morality, as about trying to avoid government from actively countering traditional morality.

@kristine N
“Sigh. I can’t imagine why you equate taxation with theft and bribery. Do you have a problem with the government spending money on roads or on the military? Are you aware that the military gets a lot more of the money the government steals from you than poor people?”

-Yes, I do have problems with that. There are whole books written about how the private sector can take care of those things. But, I don’t mind a very limited government that could do that function, very limited though, we don’t need our military in 157 (147 countries and 10 territories) regions of the world. Visit cato.org, mises.org, and lewrockwell.com and you can learn all about limited government and find entire books on the subject.

In post #26 I talked about how the government acts as the mafia. Remember you’re writing to a libertarian here, socially liberal and fiscally conservative, or you can just say classically liberal.

“I am always amazed that people who have no problem paying tithing to support the LDS religious community take such issue with paying the taxes that support our larger national community.”

- Umm, my contributions to the church our entirely voluntary. Is someone using coercion to get you to pay yours? Is someone holding a gun to your head and threatening your family?

@Stephen M (Ethesis)

Yes, it did work, what did you want to discuss on that?

firetag, #32

“Whether you DISTRIBUTE wealth to the poor through the public or private sector, you CREATE wealth through the voluntary actions of private individuals. There is nothing to distribute unless it is created first. Self interest as motivator doesn’t become less in a socialist system. If it is not gain, the self-interest will be prevention of pain”

but self interest is what overwhelmingly motivates private enterprise; true on the distribution, wealth will come from someone else then onto the poor. the issue is who handles that distribution and how much is handed out and where the funding comes for it, ie the amount of taxes that funds it. if you do it the way greece has, dificits over decades, well you eventually go broke but if done the way sweeden does or canada which is within a budget surplus environment (most years) then there isn’t a problem.

“you CREATE wealth through the voluntary actions of private individuals” but government has also created wealth over and over in history -nuclear industry, pioneering aviation and civil works, military/industrial complex etc- but private sector is usually more efficient at wealth creation than the state is; almost a universal law.

“Where do the people of the developed countries think their entitlements are coming from? ” other citizens taxes; i thought that was clear?

#33 the US poor? no, they are just as poor as India’s poor are today. You are probably thinking of US working class vs third world working class. there there is a huge difference.

problem i find when talking about these issues with right wing US citizens (not saying you are) is that they inevitably turn on the ‘danger-socialist’ rhetoric, the socialism which proceeds communism, which died back in the ’80′s. western europe/canadian ‘socialism’ is not running down the communist road, its something totally different: safety nets, general basic health care with private health care for those who can afford it, basic social justice, no death penalties, no guns for any nutcase etc all within budget surpluses, something the US hasn’t achieved for some time now and only manages to keeps its currency strong based on the backbone of its military might -as england, spain, france, holland and others did centuries before.!!

interesting topic though..

Re Jeff

Not sure about this. First you have to agree on what a limited government would look like. I suspect there are many opinions on that one.

Why do we have to agree on what a limited gov’t would look like? I’m talking about a few basic axioms.
1. People do stuff and act as individual actors consciously using scarce goods.
2. When actors act they are seeking happiness (whatever that means)
3. There is no non-arbitrary way to compare the happiness of one actor with that of another.
4. Goods that are used in action are scarce, meaning they’re limited in number and are not infinitely reusable.
5. Motivated by 5, an actor’s “private property” are those good which are allocated to him by whatever economic system we use. These are the goods he/she can use without having to obtain permission from any other.

Now if we agree on these basic axioms (and assume everyone does) what political/economic system should we design? My claim is that a very limited gov’t (protecting basic rights) or no government (employing markets, insurance, etc.) are the major systems possible from logical deductions made from these axioms. Today’s Rebublicans and Democrats have added about 50 other axioms to this list from which they derive their ideals. And again (I feel like we’re beating a dead horse) all other systems use force (i.e. violence) to obtain their desired morality.

And yes, re Kristine, taxation is theft. Whether we decide, in our case, that the “ends justify the means” in this case is one issue, but it is most definitely theft. As for me, I do actually support some taxation for a few basic services.

Thomas,

“Even if a “free market” is a kind of Platonic ideal, never to be reached, wouldn’t you agree that it’s possible to move towards, or away from, that pole?”

Totally agree. I’d love to see that. but, I suppose we’re talking “chicken and egg somewhat.”

If we accept the premise that the country was founded on the principle of free enterprise and free markets and the law of supply and demand, (of course that can be debated as well since it was essentially the well-to-do that made all the rules), then when did things start to go off the rails?

I suspect the quote/unquote government stepped in when someone did something that was either dishonest or taking advantage of the system. So, a law was created to prevent it. As people found ways around that law, another law was created. Then an agency to enforce those laws. and so on. And government grew.

The size of our federal government mainly grew in relation to major events in this country. West migration, industrialization, The depression, WWII, the Great Society. By and large, the people wanted it. They asked for it and they voted for it.

Every step along the way, more and more manipulation of the so-called free market system was made and politicians realized that could buy votes with their actions.

I probably don’t even need to mention this. However, my overall observation is that the American people are generally apathetic and not interested in what goes on around them unless it affects them personally. We sit here, mostly fat, dumb and happy. So long as the government does not intrude on our daily lives that much, we do not rock the boat. And we’ve allowed Washington and our local governments to get way out of hand.

The other issue is that we are an arrogant people. Mostly because we’ve taken the best arrogance from around the world and concentrated it here. With that arrogance, we also allow things to happen because we a have a great country and that is it. no need to watch out for what is happening to it.

We do have a great country but not nearly as great as it could or should be.

RE: #70 JMB

“The gist is, history has taught us, over and over and over again, ad nauseum, that a central planner model will fail and ultimately its citizens will revolt to regain their liberty. It’s just a matter of when.”

While we’re waiting for the revolution, who or how will we, the people. pay for public safety, roads, water and sewer, schools, etc.. Take up a collection, bake sales, theft?

@JMB,

“While we’re waiting for the revolution, who or how will we, the people. pay for public safety, roads, water and sewer, schools, etc.. Take up a collection, bake sales, theft?”

-We already use theft so what about the alternative?

Here’s some reading for you if you would like to understand how it would all work:

The Privatization of Roads And Highways: Human And Economic Factors
Gridlock: Why We’re Stuck in Traffic and What to Do About It
The Beautiful Tree: A Personal Journey Into How the World’s Poorest People Are Educating Themselves

Also, read cato.org, mises.org, and lewrockwell.com. They have many research papers that they have done to figure out how to do all this. Also, you can have a voluntary tax scheme to pay for police and judges…granted you wouldn’t need so many taxes if you everyone learned self defense and carried weapons (granted that’s a whole other topic).

Like I said before too, if everyone were righteous it wouldn’t matter what sort of government we would have. Any of them would work. But since we don’t the one that produces the greatest free market seems like the one that would work best. This would bring the greatest amount of prosperity to the people and would produce a people that would be willing to help the poor and have the poor help themselves.

Many people talk about the homeless. When you talk about this you have to remember, who are most of the homeless? People with mental problems that don’t trust institutions. People with drug addictions, etc. What’s the best way to help these people? I don’t know. But I bet if you have a bunch of different people all over the nation working “independently” you would find ways to solve, or at least alleviate these problems. I bet if you looked into it too, you would find government regulations make it more difficult for these people to help (like having to have a food license to distribute food you made in your house).

Check out the research of Elinor Ostrom has done on the subject of not having a grand central authority:
http://azdistrict1.blogspot.com/2010/04/collective-action-singular.html

@Jeff Spector,

You’re right, saying it was a lie is over board. But it isn’t black or white like you portend.

As for not being informed. The government gets the evidence covers it up and then we don’t know anything about it. Take 9/11, the people that did the 9/11 report for the government don’t even believe it and have spoken against the government on this subject. It doesn’t get more blatant than that. We should all be truthers, not in the sense that we should believe that the government caused the atrocity but in in the sense that the government isn’t telling us the truth and not letting us find it out. Just ask the official commission people themselves that that’s what they tell you.

As for the people being apathetic who causes this? Maybe we should look at our indoctrination schools, or public schools, should I say? When the country was originally started people would learn to love the constitution and the freedom it gives, in detail, but I don’t see that any more. I see teachers teaching the people to love government oppression.

As for WWII, take a look at the history of the elections, you’ll find that indeed, FDR was voted for because he advocated for not entering the war. He later let Pearl Harbor happen which caused us to go into the war and caused the people to rally behind him. Sound familiar…wars based on lies, read up on Iraq. You can read these two articles that review books on the subject:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north26.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson8.html

Read post #75 where I listed the websites you can look at that talk about pro freedom and regularly update us on government atrocities against the people.

Carlos #67: “#33 the US poor? no, they are just as poor as India’s poor are today.”

Now, it drives me crazy when a leftist whom I’ve cornered in an argument resorts to “Oh, come on! You can’t seriously believe that!” But…come on. You can’t seriously believe that.

I’m intimately familiar with the poorest SoCal neighborhoods. I’m familiar with all the government and private-charity resources that are available to them. And I’ve seen pictures and read accounts of what it’s like to be poor on the streets of Calcutta, or in Haiti. No frickin’ comparison whatsoever.

The greatest inconvenience of being a poor American, is having to live in neighborhoods inhabited by other poor Americans. Not to say that the vast majority of poor Americans are decent people — it’s just that dysfunctional personalities are typically unable to afford better neighborhoods, so they naturally become concentrated in poor neighborhoods, where they make their neighbors miserable.

Jeff: “I probably don’t even need to mention this. However, my overall observation is that the American people are generally apathetic and not interested in what goes on around them unless it affects them personally. We sit here, mostly fat, dumb and happy.” Somebody’s been watching Wall*E!

I agree with Jon on two points: 1) “render unto Caesar” doesn’t equate endorsement of taxes so much as a politically neutral statement from Jesus which is either wise (I tend to think so) or cowardly (those Romans had major power to kick your trash for any anti-Roman sentiments), and 2) ultimately I voted against McCain’s lack of diplomacy and choice of running mate (and her inability to navigate an interview with Katie Couric) more than for Obama, so when I was standing in the voting booth I wasn’t tacitly approving every action my duly elected president could cook up over the next four years.

Hawk,

“ultimately I voted against McCain’s lack of diplomacy and choice of running mate (and her inability to navigate an interview with Katie Couric)’

I thought that made it easy for a lot of people. But, on the other hand, as a “quiter” governor, who seems to have such an easy time criticizing others rather than looking in the mirror, she has quite a following.

She would be like Peter Sellers in the White House.

Jeff:

You have noticed that John McCain is still alive, haven’t you?

Am I missing something here? I got stone walled on my last comment this morning. “Awaiting moderation.” I don’t see any rules for posting so I don’t know if I did anything wrong.

FireTag #78 “the European social model is unsustainable

Again, the problem is debt and deficit spending not ‘socialism’ or ‘conservatism’. Some European nations are in trouble due to debt but, remember, the US is the biggest debtor nation of all since Reagan’s days.

Thomas #79 “…me crazy when a leftist whom I’ve cornered in an argument”…obviously you are talking about someone else, someone who is a leftist?

re the US poor , you say: “I’m intimately familiar with the poorest SoCal neighborhoods. I’m familiar with all the government and private-charity resources that are available to them..” them?? really! Reading that statement I can’t help but quietly think ‘what ignorance’! The ‘poorest’ you should be considering are those homeless on street corners or parks or sleeping under bridges and in water drains, not those other so called poor neighborhoods , which are mostly lower working class. but again I get the feeling that it is pointless to tell you this since that republican wacko cocoon hasn’t hatched yet in Utah right?

carlos:

Let me ask you to be consistent in how you compare the US to Europe. Please do not compare the US to individual European states when it suits your argument, but switch to considering Europe or the EU or the Eurozone when it doesn’t.

The US became a debtor nation, considering both public and private borrowing because it was the largest economy period. Everything was magnified. Of course its debt was larger when you compare public and private debt of a continental nation to that of a single nation within Europe.

I’m not quoting American right wingers; I’m quoting European national and EU officials about the unsustainability. Go pull up today’s BBC web site if you don’t believe that “right-wing” New York Times.

To understand the extent to which indebtedness relates to creditworthyness, it is more appropriate to compare debt to GDP ratios. US public debt is now launched on an exponential growth path that Administrations of both parties have been warning about repeatedly in private.

During the early Clinton Administration, I was a support contractor for Department of Energy Environmental Management programs responsible for cleaning up the waste from the nuclear weapons manufacturing process. One day I was asked to accompany one of the Feds to a meeting at the Office of Management and Budget where he had to justify the program requests to budget officials. After that meeting, he decides to visit an old friend working for OMB in another department, and, since my clearance doesn’t allow me to wander around OMB unescorted, I’m invited along.

Within about 10 minutes, the second Fed was showing the first what he was working on: social security revenue and outlay numbers out into the 21st Century. The problems stood out on the charts like the proverbial sore thumb even then four Presidential elections ago. But guess what. Even then economists were pointing out that Europe’s future was worse and the bad times would arrive faster. European birthrates are so low and benefits so generous that their debt to GDP ratios, even in the Northern tier can’t sustain the Southern tier.

In neither North America nor Europe do countries spend more than a modest amount on the sub-working class poor you emphasize. Entitlement money is spent in bulk on the working class, the middle class, and even the well to do — not necessarily in that order.

Switching the system of government so that political connections are even more emphasized than at present does nothing to address that concern, and arguably makes it worse.

#92, OK.

#93 “Go pull up today’s BBC web site if you don’t..”, BBC now has conservative bosses and it need to now sell a debt reduction policy -which I agree with

“Let me ask you to be consistent in how you compare the US to Europe. Please do not compare the US to individual European states when it suits your argument,”

I was only following your lead there when you mentioned ‘the European social model’ in #78. People do pick out Greece or Spain for example to point to this so called failure of socialism. But those countries simply aren’t socialist in the way the US right defines it. Over burdened by debt? yes; its industry damaged by a high euro too? sure.

But sure, I agree with you here that to compare them we should compare all the US to all the EU to be fair. Still the entire EU, with Germany leading, is doing better than the USA

“To understand the extent to which indebtedness relates to creditworthyness” that’s not really the issue here. Problem is when debt starts to affect your currency because, as you know, printing of the US dollar has been excessive over the years as it functioned as the worlds currency.

We agree on “an exponential growth path that Administrations of both parties have been warning about repeatedly in private.” Question is who and how will they change this. I’d say (my forecasting) that eventually the US will have to go to war against China to both cancel a major part of its debt -and also get rid of communism once and for all so the church can get in there freely jmho

Interesting about your experience with OMB.

“..Europe do countries spend more than a modest amount on the sub-working class poor you emphasize” Well that’s the point. Europe (most countries) has a safety net that the US lacks but it is a modest amount. Pension funds? , yes, they are in trouble and need to change asap, as France has been trying to do since about 04 odd because it is unsustainable (Still though in France if you break a leg, treatment is free in a large decent public hospital ie socialized medicine as US rightwing calls it!!)

.

I’m not feeling up to catching up on all those comments up there, so forgive me if I’m retreading.

A note to the post’s author: Are you the David H. Bailey at Lawrence Labs? I’m pretty sure you’re not in my stake (Oakland) so I want to give a positive report; at least from my ward (Berkeley) but I believe from the stake generally.

My stake was in the news recently for reasons that show that your concerns are not unmerited, but it’s worth mentioning that as part of my current calling, I’m privy to many complaints from members who complain that church meetings swing too dang liberal for their tastes.

While I suppose that it would be better if members on both sides of the political spectrum felt full incorporated, I would argue that the next best thing is for members on both sides of the political spectrum to both feel somewhat estranged.

We have a hope here that members who feel like they are marginalized for their conservatism — generally grad students — will, when they graduate, leave to other areas of the church more empathetic for any one who might, at church, feel marginalized for their politics.

May we all be charitable and learn to separate doctrine from politics.

OK, this will be my last post.
Some light humor on Europe’s financial situation:

GBSmith: “It is a mistake to think that they [i.e. businessmen] are more immoral than politicians.” (John Maynard Keynes to Franklin D. Roosevelt, Feb. 1, 1938.)

How many times does a libertarian-leaning conservative have to explain that limited government /= anarchy?

The answer, my friends, is blowing in the wind….

@GBSmith,

It seems in the argument against government that I’ve read in the posts above by Jon there are a lot of if’s.

-That’s what all political philosophies rely on. The Soviet Union used to be the mecca that modern liberals would point to as a “success” but once they collapse they all back pedaled. And their answer was always, if this was better or if the people would have done this instead, etc. So, the ifs argument doesn’t hold water. For libertarianism the ifs eventually would since, if you want a good life, you would work with it. If you don’t want one, or can’t for some reason out of your control you would have to rely on the charity of others. But it would grow the people more morally, physically, mentally than socialism does since it puts you in a stressful situation that makes you work hard.

“And trusting business and the market to do the right thing?”

-The political or economic philosophy is perfect but I think the free market/libertarian view would be the most caring and produce the best results for the greatest amount of people. The opposing question to that would be, and you trust politicians and bureaucracies to do the right thing? I don’t, I know that the people that run this country are just about as intelligent as I am. So I trust the that 300,000,000 people working together for their own betterment and for the betterment of their fellowman would be better than having a few people at the top who aren’t connected to what is going on in my life to make judgments for me.

See Nobel Laureate Elinor Ostrom’s work on this one. You can see an article written specifically of what I’m talking about here:
http://azdistrict1.blogspot.com/2010/04/collective-action-singular.html

“I’ve always assumed that the most perfectly amoral system was unfettered capitalism.”

-People are more moral if they’re put through hard times themselves and then can look on others with more compassion. Not always the case but given stressful situations it gives individuals the opportunity rise up and become what they are capable of becoming.

If you read the literature you can learn more about markets and what they really mean. As you said, you’ve assumed but have not read about political and economic thought. Some good sources are Cato Institute, a political think tank, Mises Institute, a Austrian economic society and college, LewRockwell.com a libertarian website with articles. The Lew Rockwell website is a bit out there for some people and the post some information that even the administrator of the website might not agree with but interesting nonetheless.

“The only good is a profit and the only bad is a loss.”

-Nope, good can come of loss. That’s how the free market works.

“I guess I should feel more oppressed and downtrodden and daily and in multiple cruel and devious ways stripped of by God given rights but I just don’t quite feel that bad off.”

-I guess you don’t read very much about the atrocities perpetuated by the governments. Listen to the podcast that I had in my previous post where they very briefly introduce you to some of those atrocities, then you can dig a little deeper. The cow is fattened and feels good until the day it is slaughtered and no one comes to help. You can also read Pro Libertate, a blog/investigative journalist by Will Grigg. Or you can go to FlexYourRights dot com and there is another blog that a guy documents the atrocities against the people with cameras and video cameras, can’t remember the website right now but you can google it.

“Oh well. I’ll just have to listen to more right wing talk radio.”

-I don’t listen to right wing radio. I would suggest you don’t either. I would deem it hazardous to your health, way to angry for me.

You can listen to freedomainradio dot com, he’s an atheist that is pretty interesting but does get angry sometimes when he’s talking to people that have been abused and he tells them to get out of the situation and separate from their families. You can listen to Lew Rockwell. You can listen to libertynewsradio dot com. I listen to Ernest Hancock (the love-o-lution).

Hope this better addresses your concerns and helps you understand where I’m coming from. Remember coercion vs persuasion. Which one do you like?

“There are some people who just want to be left alone. There are some people who will just not leave them alone. Which one are you?” – Ernest Hancock

A couple of things. First I prefer to deal with the devil I know rather than the devil I don’t. The examples from the past of unregulated capitalism don’t seem to me to be all that better than the government systems to which you’re opposed. I don’t see evidence from then, big steel, Ford Motor Company, big oil, coal companies, etc. acting in the best interests of even their employees much less We the People. I don’t see what you describe as being better able form a more perfect union, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare or secure the blessings of liberty than what’s being done now. And you seem to describe selfless committed citizens who’s only interest is to work together for the good of all. It reminds me of everyone going to the harvest on the collective farm singing as they go. And I agree righteous people would solve a lot of problems but counting on that is nothing to hold your breath about.

When I see what you describe working in a sustained way on a large scale and not just position position papers from libertarian think tanks then we can talk some more. But for now we’ll just have to disagree.

Mr. Bailey, I applaud your statement and to some degree have restored my faith that not all LDS members are nearing the point of anarchy. Like you, I am a middle of the road Democrat. I believe there is a need for affordable health care for everyone. I am very cautious on my views of gun control, but as a retired police officer have concerns with Arizona’s recent legislation allowing anyone to carry concealed nearly anyplace. I think that is a recipe for trouble in some respects. I too, listen to Glenn Beck, and agree with some of his philosophies, but not to the extreme he seems to take them. He comes across as being asked personally by God to deliver the messages he so vehemently airs as near prophetical gospel. It reminds me of a political version of Jimmy Jones, and I think the outcome could be near the same.

I was / am worried that the LDS church has / is becoming a political device, rather than a community of people seeking to do good for all. Not being LDS (Baptist) I am not privy to the inside messages, and the Mormon religion already appears secretive and shady. This recent increase in the politicization of religion is only increasing that sentiment among many of my friends, and unfortunately myself at times. But, one only has to listen to a couple of episodes of Pat Robertson to realize it’s not restricted to the Mormon faith.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, and letting some of us know that not all LDS members are raving Tea Party fanatics.

Best wishes,

Ernie

 What I want to know is how do the Tea Party anti government types in  the LDS church see the Q12′s role in politics? With Prop 8 they were very vocal  about there views but they are silent about Beck. If they could call in Sister Johnson and Trey Parker for a court of love why not Beck? Are they afraid this would fracture the church or do they secretly agree with the Tea Party people? Is there anyone within the Church you would call the mad hatter? Who pulls the strings? I have never seen the LDS church leaders back off before on ERA or  other hot button problems. If they are so concerned about right wing control then why not say it from the pulpit or in GC?