LDS Freedom Forum

MercynGrace wrote:Teancum,
I specfically responded to what I excerpted from 7cylcon7's post. I believe you've read more into my words than I intended. . I'm well aware that the march toward Zion is yet before us...

MnG

PS Also I specifically pointed out that the verses referred to covenant NOT compulsion.

MnG,
Your scriptures about equality refer directly to those who choose to live the Celestial law not those living lesser laws. Even during the Millenium and Christ's reign, there will be many not living under this divine law. While those living under that higher law will be doing all they can to make sure everyone's needs are met within the community (no poor among them), those living under something other than this law will not necessarily be doing the same. The same will be true throughout eternity when comparing the different kingdoms (Clelestial, Terrestrial, etc.)
I concur that those living the higher law will be relatively equal (again, define equality, as Mummy mentioned) due to adherence to the law of consecration, but this will still not be a strict equality (D&C 130:18-19, Intelligence gained in this life rises with us in the Resurrection; D&C 131:1-4
Celestial marriage is essential to reach highest level of Celestial kingdom). There can be no perfect or strict equality in the doctrine of Eternal Progression, we will all be progressing at our own pace, those living lower laws will have no opporutunity for eternal progression.

Again, to clarify, my complaint is with any who believe that inequality is inherently evil, which from your posts, it appears this is your view (in agreement with davedan).

MercynGrace wrote:

7cylon7 wrote:Inequality is not bad.... who says we all HAVE to be equal? Only one person I know of and it is not Christ.

Actually, Christ did say it:

But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin. ~ D&C 49:20

If you indeed believe that inequality is inherently evil, please justify. If not, then we are in perfect agreement. :ymparty: Inequality is eternal, necessary, and does not have to be evil. Our duty (according to the law of consecration) is to help others up, selflessly, to live the higher law (help others to help themselves) as we all continue on our own paths of Eternal Progression. But we will all be at different points in our path to perfection. Scriptures like D&C 49:20 must be viewed in the light of Eternal Progression.

davedan wrote:The Constitution calls for FREE ENTERPRISE not CAPITALISM. Are you brave enough to break your mind-control and admit it? Some how we've been programmed to associate Capitalism with freedom and even the gospel of Jesus Christ. Capitalism isn't free, Capitalism produces a Corporatocracy that is unelected, self-interested, and oppressive. Capitalism little better than Communism or Socialism. Free Enterprise means equal opportunity and equals true freedom.

Words, words, words... I think it just shows us how the same word can be defined so differently by different people.

Yes, I do prefer using the term "free enterprise" instead of Capitalism, simply because of the various ideas people have attributed to capitalism, not that the definition of 'free enterprise" isn't capable of being distorted either. I just like 'free enterprise"...

Similarly I avoid calling myself "conservative"... if I came close it would be "paleo-conservative" but unfortunately most conservatives today are "neo-conservative".

One name I'll always proudly refer to myself as, is a Christian and disciple of Christ.

Teancum wrote: MnG,
...snip...
Again, to clarify, my complaint is with any who believe that inequality is inherently evil, which from your posts, it appears this is your view (in agreement with davedan).

If you indeed believe that inequality is inherently evil, please justify. If not, then we are in perfect agreement. :ymparty: Inequality is eternal, necessary, and does not have to be evil. Our duty (according to the law of consecration) is to help others up, selflessly, to live the higher law (help others to help themselves) as we all continue on our own paths of Eternal Progression. But we will all be at different points in our path to perfection. Scriptures like D&C 49:20 must be viewed in the light of Eternal Progression.

As I said earlier, you are reading into my posts more than I've written.

I posted scriptures in response only to the idea that Christ never commanded equality. And, as I said earlier, He did speak directly to this topic. I never said there would be no spiritual inequality in the eternities. I never even spoke to that at all. Not once. I think you are arguing with a ghost, Teancum I really said nothing like what you keep inferring.

MercynGrace wrote:

Teancum wrote: I think you are arguing with a ghost, Teancum I really said nothing like what you keep inferring.

Really? I must have been mistaken. The ghost I am in disagreement with did say:

MercynGrace wrote:

7cylon7 wrote:Inequality is not bad.... who says we all HAVE to be equal? Only one person I know of and it is not Christ.

Actually, Christ did say it:

But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin. ~ D&C 49:20

This ghost really did seem to believe that inequality is inherently evil due to their disagreement above with 7cylon7. If the interaction above does not mean this, then some clarification from this ghost would be nice. If this was all a misunderstanding, then we are in perfect agreement. Great! :ymparty:

davedan wrote:I am talking about Equality of Opportunity here NOT Equality of Result.

Great! We are on the same page then! :ymparty: Equality of RESULTS or strict equality of is not possible and is not the Lord's plan. It is not part of the Lord's plan in mortality (under our current law or under the law of consecration) or in eternity. Inequality of opportunity is basically what we have under Crony Capitalism.

Teancum, the words you are talking about aren't mine but Christ's. The only words that are mine there are "Actually Christ did say it:"

My sole point in responding to 7cylcon 7 was that Christ had indeed spoken on the issue. He seemed to be saying that only Marx had spoken about the need for equality.

Matthew 25:14-30 (King James Version)

14For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.

15And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.

16Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.

17And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.

18But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.

19After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

20And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.

21His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

22He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.

23His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

24Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:

25And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

26His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:

27Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.

28Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.

29For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

30And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Talk about unequal.... AND it was the Lord who used this as an example of a Gospel Principal.
Why didn't he give each of them the same amount to begin with( opportunity ) ?
Why, when he took back the talent from the one who did nothing with it, did he give it to the one with ten instead of giving it to the one with the lesser amount?
Why would the Lord condone this????
He obviously isn't a Democrat and obviously doesn't believe in the fairness doctrine.

While I agree that the Lord is not a Democrat, I think you are misreading the text if you believe the parable of the talents is about money or is an indictment of temporal equality.

This parable is recorded within the context of a three parable series (1) The parable of the 10 virgins, (2) The parable of the talents, and (2) the parable of the sheep and goats.

Each of these parables is about being about the Father's business.

In the first parable, we read of virgins, all of whom were called but only half of whom were prepared and doing what was required by the Bridegroom. Those obedient virgins were escorted into the feast. Those who did not what was required were left outside.

In the second parable, we read of servants, all of whom were called to be about their master's business but only two-thirds of whom were actually following their master's intent. Two were rewarded, the third lost even what he had.

In the third parable, Christ brings this series home by editorializing very clearly that only those who DO what He does will stand at His right hand and be welcomed into His kingdom. He separates those who do from those who don't according to a simple criteria. Have we fed the hungry, given drink to the thirsty, clothed the naked, visited the sick and imprisoned? Have we served our fellowman?

The tendency to segregate the parable of the talents from its context is common but it leads to a fundamental misunderstanding of what Christ is really teaching here. Which in short form can be summarized by the injunction to be about our Father's business. Christ used common imagery to teach principles - a bridgroom whose guests clearly didn't value the wedding enough to be prepared to enter in, a businessman whose servant clearly did not understand the will of his employer, and sons and daughters, half of whom clearly can't grasp what their Father's business is.

Ask yourself, Cowboy, if God is a businessman, what business is He is in?

Nevertheless, in your temporal things you shall be equal, and this not grudgingly, otherwise the abundance of the manifestations of the Spirit shall be withheld. ~ D&C 70:14

...appoint unto this people their portions, every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs. ~ D&C 51:3

For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things; ~ D&C 78:5-6

Looks to me that if we choose to hoard our temporal/earthly 'things' beyond that of our individual family 'needs' we are putting our Spiritual progress in jeopardy.

Just a matter of choice...

Perhaps what needs to be defined is the concept of EQUALITY...rather than arguing that some motivated 'go-getters' are more successful temporally because they are inherently superior, and are therefore more worthy of their piles of gold and paper than those who obviously have no motivation.

I cannot help but wonder if this 'SUCCESS' line of thinking comes more from the typewriter of Ayn Rand than from the HOLY SCRIPTURE. When we lived there, 'successful' street dealers in the Seattle area wore pure gold medallions formed in the shape of the dollar sign - just like the one found in - was it Atlas Shrugged?

Reading in Alma 34 this morning, I was reminded of just how seriously the Lord takes the injunction to temporally bless others. After explaining the power of the atonement and the need to exercise faith unto repentance and pour out our souls in prayer for our welfare and the welfare of those around us, Amulek adds:

And now behold, my beloved brethren, I say unto you, do not suppose that this is all; for after ye have done all these things, if ye turn away the needy, and the naked, and visit not the sick and afflicted, and impart of your substance, if ye have, to those who stand in need—I say unto you, if ye do not any of these things, behold, your prayer is vain, and availeth you nothing, and ye are as hypocrites who do deny the faith.

Praying for mercy and salvation while watching your fellowmen go hungry and naked or sick and afflicted makes you a hypocrite. Hits too close to home for me, there is definitely more I can do to help my neighbors.

MercynGrace wrote:Teancum, the words you are talking about aren't mine but Christ's. The only words that are mine there are "Actually Christ did say it:"

My sole point in responding to 7cylcon 7 was that Christ had indeed spoken on the issue. He seemed to be saying that only Marx had spoken about the need for equality.

You still have not said this directly but your statements make this implication all over the place: INEQUALITY IS INHERENTLY EVIL. Is this your stance or not??? You also, as of yet, have not attempted to clearly shun this statement. Without coming right out to directly state your stance will keep us running around in circles @-) .

MercynGrace wrote:While I agree that the Lord is not a Democrat

I understand Pres. Faust was a life-long Democrat . So that in and of itself does not mean a whole lot.

MercynGrace wrote:The tendency to segregate the parable of the talents from its context is common but it leads to a fundamental misunderstanding of what Christ is really teaching here. Which in short form can be summarized by the injunction to be about our Father's business. Christ used common imagery to teach principles - a bridgroom whose guests clearly didn't value the wedding enough to be prepared to enter in, a businessman whose servant clearly did not understand the will of his employer, and sons and daughters, half of whom clearly can't grasp what their Father's business is.

Ask yourself, Cowboy, if God is a businessman, what business is He is in?

Great analysis of these parables MercynGrace! I never put them all together that way before.

But I still am left clueless as to your exact stance on this issue. Is INEQUALITY IS INHERENTLY EVIL?

To respond to your question to cowboy, God's business is "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." In order to do this, there must needs be INEQUALITY in order to allow for agency. Again, eternal progression also implies inequality so that it cannot be considered inherently evil.

buffalo_girl wrote:

Nevertheless, in your temporal things you shall be equal, and this not grudgingly, otherwise the abundance of the manifestations of the Spirit shall be withheld. ~ D&C 70:14

...appoint unto this people their portions, every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs. ~ D&C 51:3

For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things; ~ D&C 78:5-6

Looks to me that if we choose to hoard our temporal/earthly 'things' beyond that of our individual family 'needs' we are putting our Spiritual progress in jeopardy.

buffalo_girl: I always love your insights! Thank you for commenting. But I do have to get clarification from you on this as well: Are you saying that INEQUALITY IS INHERENTLY EVIL? I know that the majority on this site are not basing their idea of capitalism (the truly free market sytem kind) on selfishness (or hoarding as you said). This is not my view, so you should not equate most anyone on this forum with that mentality. I believe we all understand the law of consecration to some extent and realize that we will be working to assure that everyone is provided for and that no one is left without. Actually, we should be working towards that right now!

But the question remains: Are you all saying that INEQUALITY IS INHERENTLY EVIL? Even under the law of consecration, the property/goods that people own will not be stricly equal either, it will all depend on their stewardships. Besides, as I mentioned before (but have received no response as of yet), heaven itself is divided in to various kingdoms (unequal), the Celestial kingdom itself is divided into multiple levels (unequal), and eternal progression from there on out will also depend on each individual's effort to progress (unequal; I assume all celestial beings will be equally able and have the opportunity to progress but the advancement will depend on their efforts). Under this view, the eternal worlds will never be equal either! God will always be there to help us but He will not do OUR work for us.

All of the principles both you and MercynGrace have laid out, all have to do with MEMBERS who CHOOSE to live under the law of consecration. Thus there is never one degree of force involved here. Once members become part of a United Order, they still will not be strictly equal but will have the conviction that they are to help others in their spiritual and temporal progression without any selfish motivation. Still, this implies that some will have more than others (inequality). Then after this life, we are judged according to the idea that we reap what we sow, and move into eternity in definitely unequal terms. But yes, we all had EQUAL OPPORTUNITY in the endeavor of mortality. This does not however imply that we will get EQUAL RESULTS.

MercynGrace wrote:Reading in Alma 34 this morning, I was reminded of just how seriously the Lord takes the injunction to temporally bless others. After explaining the power of the atonement and the need to exercise faith unto repentance and pour out our souls in prayer for our welfare and the welfare of those around us, Amulek adds:

And now behold, my beloved brethren, I say unto you, do not suppose that this is all; for after ye have done all these things, if ye turn away the needy, and the naked, and visit not the sick and afflicted, and impart of your substance, if ye have, to those who stand in need—I say unto you, if ye do not any of these things, behold, your prayer is vain, and availeth you nothing, and ye are as hypocrites who do deny the faith.

Praying for mercy and salvation while watching your fellowmen go hungry and naked or sick and afflicted makes you a hypocrite. Hits too close to home for me, there is definitely more I can do to help my neighbors.

Agree wholeheartedly MercynGrace. But I don't think you will get much disagreement on this forum on that point.

No inequality is not inherently equal - allowing there to be poor among us is inherently evil.

Sorry, I felt like I was answering your question. Thanks for being so direct. Even under the united order, the needs and wants determined distribution from the bishop's storehouse and talents impacted stewardships. The key is that the laborer in zion works FOR zion.

Still, this implies that some will have more than others (inequality). Then after this life, we are judged according to the idea that we reap what we sow, and move into eternity in definitely unequal terms.

"Some will have more" of WHAT than others?

Teancum wrote:Agree wholeheartedly MercynGrace. But I don't think you will get much disagreement on this forum on that point.

I never look for disagreement, Teancum. Sometimes it just finds me...

buffalo_girl wrote:

Still, this implies that some will have more than others (inequality). Then after this life, we are judged according to the idea that we reap what we sow, and move into eternity in definitely unequal terms.

"Some will have more" of WHAT than others?

More "residue."

if there shall be properties in the hands of the church, or any individuals of it, more than is necessary for their support after this first consecration, which is a "residue to be consecrated unto the bishop, it shall be kept to administer to those who have not, from time to time, that every man who has need may be amply supplied and receive according to his wants. D&C 42:33

Depending upon the efficiency of an individual stewardship, their economic output will either be more than the steward "needs" or less than their "needs". If the steward has more than their needs, their "residue", or that output which is above and beyond the family's and stewardship's needs, will be VOLUNTARILY consecrated to the Bishop for the use of the order and given to stewards whose output are less than their "needs" (these less efficient stewards will have no residue to consecrate). Obviously there must be unequal results in order for some stewards to produce more than their needs while others produce less. Thus the economic output of each stewardship will be unequal due to the unequal nature of their respective efficiency. Also, some stewards will receive more in "residue" as aid to their stewardship than other stewards (also unequal). The law of consecration tries to make all more or less equal but it is still RELATIVE to the needs of each family and the size/needs of their stewardship. Hence inequality exists even under the law of consecration.

Again, I don't believe any of us pro-capitalists (pure capitalism not the crony-type or corporatist type; again its all about vocabulary) are condoning selfishness. I am only trying to say that the idea that INEQUALITY is INHERENTLY EVIL is false. This thinking is typical of socialists and I want to make sure that this thinking is clearly brought to light for what it is in this discussion. We were never strictly equal in premortaility, we are currently not strictly equal at present, and we will never be strictly equal in the future, whether it be under the law of consecration in mortality or in the Celestial kingdom. Again, it is not the Lord's plan. INEQUALITY must exist otherwise the justice of God would be frustrated. If there were no poor, there would be no need for charity and no command to care for the needy. BUT the need for this INEQUALITY does not imply that we can selfishly ignore the needs of others.

I still see a need for venture capital. But our countries history has been plagued by one banking failure after another. So, all I am proposing is for something like this locally instituted SAFETY SOCIETY idea to be permitted, and allowed to compete along side traditional mega-banking institutions. I think having banking institutions which are immune to the turbulence of the economy is critical for protecting Americans.

This idea is not calling for more government regulation. What it is calling for is for a new paradigm to be allowed to compete against the current paradigm.

Traditional banks can continue their speculation and venture capital. In fact, we could Let local and regional banks create a subsidiary that is non-profit, and that administers these no-interest fee-based loans. Local banks usually just make their money collecting fees anyways as they immediately sell their loans to the big mega-banks.

CAPITAL = MONEY LEVERAGED TO CREATE MORE MONEY
FREE ENTERPRISE IS CAPITALISM WITHOUT THE USURY

Please stop defending the term "capital". "Capital" is just another way to refer to "Usury". Look up the definition of "Capital"

I agree that in a Zion society there is not an Equality of Result but an Equality of Opportunity. Some bring forth 10-fold, another 30-fold, and others 100-fold. But through Righteousness, there can be a greater equality of result as well.

Those that have excess, voluntarily give to those that have need. Using the SAFETY SOCIETY, those with excess are not tempted to use their excess as leverage to enslave their neighbor.
Instead the neighbor has equal access to credit and liquidity.

Obviously there must be unequal results in order for some stewards to produce more than their needs while others produce less. Thus the economic output of each stewardship will be unequal due to the unequal nature of their respective efficiency.

The underlined, bold type illustrates - to me - the misconception in your definition of INequality.

I suppose there will be lazy people in mortality. Let's put 'lazy people' aside - totally out of the social/economic order. NO lazy people.

OK...are we talking about individual SKILLS applied to EQUALLY available resources in order to PRODUCE things?

buffalo_girl wrote:

Obviously there must be unequal results in order for some stewards to produce more than their needs while others produce less. Thus the economic output of each stewardship will be unequal due to the unequal nature of their respective efficiency.

The underlined, bold type illustrates - to me - the misconception in your definition of INequality.

I suppose there will be lazy people in mortality. Let's put 'lazy people' aside - totally out of the social/economic order. NO lazy people.

OK...are we talking about individual SKILLS applied to EQUALLY available resources in order to PRODUCE things?

My law of consecration assumptions do not assume lazy people will be in the equation. But even if lazy people are excluded, the efficiency of stewardships or thier total economic can never be equal or somehow made equal. I don't believe this point is logically debatable.

are we talking about individual SKILLS applied to EQUALLY available resources in order to PRODUCE things?[/color]

Ok, this one just flew right over my head. Not sure what you are talking about now... :-\ Perhaps we are now debating totally unrelated ideas?? @-)

davedan wrote:I still see a need for venture capital. But our countries history has been plagued by one banking failure after another. So, all I am proposing is for something like this locally instituted SAFETY SOCIETY idea to be permitted, and allowed to compete along side traditional mega-banking institutions. I think having banking institutions which are immune to the turbulence of the economy is critical for protecting Americans.

This idea is not calling for more government regulation. What it is calling for is for a new paradigm to be allowed to compete against the current paradigm.

Traditional banks can continue their speculation and venture capital. In fact, we could Let local and regional banks create a subsidiary that is non-profit, and that administers these no-interest fee-based loans. Local banks usually just make their money collecting fees anyways as they immediately sell their loans to the big mega-banks.

CAPITAL = MONEY LEVERAGED TO CREATE MORE MONEY
FREE ENTERPRISE IS CAPITALISM WITHOUT THE USURY

Please stop defending the term "capital". "Capital" is just another way to refer to "Usury". Look up the definition of "Capital"

Need more info on your idea of a "SAFETY SOCIETY" before I can comment on that.

With regard to usury, there are some who see this as downright evil on this forum. Not sure why though. Didn't Christ say in a parable to the servant who did nothing to increase his pound:

Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury? (Luke 19:23)

I am sure that the Church takes advantage of usury in all of their investments. For these reasons, usury cannot, in and of itself, be purely evil. Human wickedness is what gives usury the appearance of evil. Similarly, pure capitalism (free enterprise; I still see no difference) is not purely evil, it is only perceived as evil due to human wickedness.

Besides, I would not expect avoidance from banking failures until after Christ's coming. Until then, we will be plagued with them. But then again, this doesn't mean we can't try to reduce the frequency or magnitude of the failures. But I would not bet on the idea of getting rid of failures to a large extent.

are we talking about individual SKILLS applied to EQUALLY available resources in order to PRODUCE things?

Ok, this one just flew right over my head. Not sure what you are talking about now... Perhaps we are now debating totally unrelated ideas??

Let's think about Stewardship on a small scale as it applies to individual Families.

Each head of family has chosen 100 acres of land according to his individual family's 'needs and wants' and the SKILL set of the individuals within that Family.

One Family chose 100 acres upon which there are 50 acres of 400 year-old burr oak; a 20 acre natural pond which has a well established stand of wild rice & plenty of fish - more than sufficient for the 1st Steward's own domestic needs - which drains into a fairly rapid stream subsequently flowing through neighbor 2's 100 acre Stewardship; in addition to the 30 acres of open land which houses his buildings and a few 'useful' animals.

The 1st Steward chose this particular 100 acres because he is particularly SKILLED in woodworking and builds beautifully crafted cabinets and other furniture from burr oak. The pond provides some basic food resources for his family - the fish as needed and the rice crop harvested in its season lest it go to waste. The 1st Steward has determined what amount of wild rice takes care of the needs of his Family. The 'residue' can be given to the 'Store House'.

Building furniture is a time consuming undertaking. The 1st Steward isn't going to crank out cabinets and chairs - in any given year's time - enough to sell or trade in exchange for ALL his domestic necessities. In addition, he and his family are not able to produce everything they need on their open land, pond, and burr oak stand. They can grow a lot of what they eat, but not everything - like wheat, oats, barley, or the hay enough needed for their few useful animals.

Steward 2 grows wheat in abundance and uses the fast moving stream draining from Steward 1's pond to operate the millstone he built to utilize water power. He produces more grain and flour than he needs for his own family. The 'residue' is given to the 'Store House'. His family produces many of their food necessities from their orchard and garden, but do NOT produce flax for their clothing needs.

So, is this hardworking, resourceful 1st Steward of 100 acres UNequal in his 'efficiency of stewardship' to that of his neighbor Steward 2 who chose his land to fit his own unique SKILL set - NEITHER of whom can PRODUCE everything they NEED?

I could extend this exercise into a whole region with all sorts of Stewards of varying SKILLS over their individual 100 acres to make my point, but I'm hoping this begins to illustrate how the term UNequal tends to imply one person is BETTER than another person when what we really need to consider is how individual SKILLS applied to PRODUCTION of someTHING can be dovetailed to EDIFY ALL.

In my opinion, it isn't a contest or a 'rating system'.

BrentL wrote:Capitalism sucks.

The State Is A Tragedy Of The Commons

Some of you may already be familiar with the economic law called “the tragedy of the commons,” but for those of you who are not, I shall explain it to you.

The tragedy of the commons refers to a dilemma arising from the situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone’s long-term interest for this to happen.

For example: If two cattle farmers share a common plot of land between them, and neither can exclude the other from grazing their cattle on it, both farmers have a natural incentive to graze their cows as much as possible on the common land, there by destroying it quickly, rather than conserving it for future use.

Another example would be hunting deer on common land. If several hunters share a common hunting ground, and none can exclude the others from hunting there, each hunter has an incentive to shoot as many deer as he can before the stock of deer is depleted by the other hunters.

The clear lesson to be learned from this economic law is that common resources, which everyone has access to, lead to rapid depletion and destruction of those resources as the public attempts to horde as much as they can before the resources are depleted.

I would argue the tragedy of the commons receives far too little attention as a rational explanation for the cancerous expansion of the State. For what is the State other than people looting each others’ private property in a zero sum game of resource redistribution? The tragedy of the commons gives us a rational basis for the consistent and constant expansion of the coercively funded democratic State and why that expansion always leads to the destruction of society.

Alexander Tytler once wrote, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.” I would argue Tytler had the cause and effect inverted in his statement. Modern democracies are specifically created for the express purpose of establishing common property across an entire State region.

To be logically consistent, Tytler’s statement should be rewritten as: The modern democratic State cannot exist without the largess of the public treasury.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest- ... dy-commons" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

buffalo_girl wrote:

are we talking about individual SKILLS applied to EQUALLY available resources in order to PRODUCE things?

Ok, this one just flew right over my head. Not sure what you are talking about now... Perhaps we are now debating totally unrelated ideas??

Let's think about Stewardship on a small scale as it applies to individual Families.

Each head of family has chosen 100 acres of land according to his individual family's 'needs and wants' and the SKILL set of the individuals within that Family.

One Family chose 100 acres upon which there are 50 acres of 400 year-old burr oak; a 20 acre natural pond which has a well established stand of wild rice & plenty of fish - more than sufficient for the 1st Steward's own domestic needs - which drains into a fairly rapid stream subsequently flowing through neighbor 2's 100 acre Stewardship; in addition to the 30 acres of open land which houses his buildings and a few 'useful' animals.

The 1st Steward chose this particular 100 acres because he is particularly SKILLED in woodworking and builds beautifully crafted cabinets and other furniture from burr oak. The pond provides some basic food resources for his family - the fish as needed and the rice crop harvested in its season lest it go to waste. The 1st Steward has determined what amount of wild rice takes care of the needs of his Family. The 'residue' can be given to the 'Store House'.

Building furniture is a time consuming undertaking. The 1st Steward isn't going to crank out cabinets and chairs - in any given year's time - enough to sell or trade in exchange for ALL his domestic necessities. In addition, he and his family are not able to produce everything they need on their open land, pond, and burr oak stand. They can grow a lot of what they eat, but not everything - like wheat, oats, barley, or the hay enough needed for their few useful animals.

Steward 2 grows wheat in abundance and uses the fast moving stream draining from Steward 1's pond to operate the millstone he built to utilize water power. He produces more grain and flour than he needs for his own family. The 'residue' is given to the 'Store House'. His family produces many of their food necessities from their orchard and garden, but do NOT produce flax for their clothing needs.

So, is this hardworking, resourceful 1st Steward of 100 acres UNequal in his 'efficiency of stewardship' to that of his neighbor Steward 2 who chose his land to fit his own unique SKILL set - NEITHER of whom can PRODUCE everything they NEED?

I could extend this exercise into a whole region with all sorts of Stewards of varying SKILLS over their individual 100 acres to make my point, but I'm hoping this begins to illustrate how the term UNequal tends to imply one person is BETTER than another person when what we really need to consider is how individual SKILLS applied to PRODUCTION of someTHING can be dovetailed to EDIFY ALL.

In my opinion, it isn't a contest or a 'rating system'.

Your point is well accepted. No one will be completely independent as everyone will have some needs that are not satisfied. I agree. That's basically what we have today as well; not very many us are truly independent.

But are you suggesting that life under the law of consecration will have no use for money?? Your example curiously excludes money altogether assuming that the residue is made up only of the commodities produced in any given stewardship. I don't believe currency will not be used (not yet at least; I could be proven wrong of course :-s ). But assuming currency is available, then that means economic exchange will also exist outside of the Church run "storehouse." If so, then those who are extremely efficient may become fairly independant and require very little, if any, support from the storehouse for their own "needs " while still rendering all their residue to the "storehouse". On the other hand there will be some who are not as efficient, and will require more aid from the "storehouse" than others. Therefore some stewards may be adding more to the storehouse and using less from the storehouse than others.

This is logical is it not?? Unless, of course, you can prove that currency will not be used under the law of consecration at all (I am confident you can prove this to me IF this is actually the case).

By the way, I am not planning to set up a public rating system of any kind on the use of the storehouse, nor do I believe there should be one. I assume the transactions at the storehouse will go on very similarly to how Bishop's privately and quitely administer the fast offering funds to those in need today. Only those who run the storehouse will have definite knowledge of who has added or subtracted from its quantity. It will not be public knowledge.

So, what's up buffalo_girl? Do you think I am some sort of sinister LDS wolf hiding in sheep's clothing looking to devour anyone who I deem is taking more than their fair share out of the Lord's storehouse?! C'mon, us constitutionalists who approve of the word "capitalist" aren't so bad. B-)

By the way I am the fin clerk in my ward. Therefore those wishing to feed themselves off the sweat of the laborers better look out! :ymdevil:

Just kidding. ) I do my best to handle the Lord's sacred funds to the best of my ability.

Mummy wrote:The clear lesson to be learned from this economic law is that common resources, which everyone has access to, lead to rapid depletion and destruction of those resources as the public attempts to horde as much as they can before the resources are depleted.

I would argue the tragedy of the commons receives far too little attention as a rational explanation for the cancerous expansion of the State. For what is the State other than people looting each others’ private property in a zero sum game of resource redistribution? The tragedy of the commons gives us a rational basis for the consistent and constant expansion of the coercively funded democratic State and why that expansion always leads to the destruction of society.

Alexander Tytler once wrote, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.” I would argue Tytler had the cause and effect inverted in his statement. Modern democracies are specifically created for the express purpose of establishing common property across an entire State region.

To be logically consistent, Tytler’s statement should be rewritten as: The modern democratic State cannot exist without the largess of the public treasury.

Of course, we see this every day when we consider any publicly owned facilities. Most people don't respect them much because they don't own it and are not directly accountable for their upkeep and maintenance. Naturally, publicly owned facilities get so abused and neglected; no wonder it costs government a fortune (aside from their own inefficiency and corruption) to preserve public parks, public schools, public lands, public transportation, public housing projects, etc..

But what does this all have to do with the CAPITALISM = INEQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY subject Mummy?