Teancum wrote:
I guess I will be the one to start the controversy over on this one.
What do you say about the Church's stance on Prohibition in the first half of the 20th century? Could we not say that the Church felt that the anti-alcohol campaign was not only the family's job but also the government's job?? Was Church leadership wrong for supporting the Constitutional Amendment (18th) on Prohibition even though a majority of members opposed it? Was Church leadership correct on this one or was the majority of members correct? If your answer is the latter, what does this say about our doctrine of continued revelation? How is legislation against alcohol any different than legislation against drugs?
I believe government has some responsibility to deter vice (I believe I have just opened the pandoras box with that one!). Please note that I am not condoning the government's abuse of the 4th amendment in any way.
I tend to think that the viability of laws on issues such as drugs, alcohol, and other vices really depends on the righteousness of the majority and the strength of that majority. If the righteous are in a majority and this majority is willing to work hard, such laws (assuming they are righteous) will work and be viable. If not, those laws will be repealed just as Prohibition was.
This is one of the areas where I do not align completely with Ron Paul. Nevertheless, Ron Paul is the best politician we have out there at the present.
Benson Principle is a fundamental principle of liberty, without which liberty is impossible. Benson Principle is derived from the idea of private property which is the Foundation of Liberty (liberty does not exist without private property; In fact Private Property IS Liberty).
God is the owner of the earth and of all that is on it. Therefore he can dictate the rules, because he is the creator and owner of the earth (just like the parents can dictate to their children as long as the children live with them). This is why, for instance, Moses was justified in dispossessing the people of the region and killing them, because God, the true owner of the land gave it to Moses and to Israel.
But short of a commandment of God, the true owner of the land, no one is justified in violating liberty or property of another.
It is wickedness to force a higher law on people who are not ready for it, unless you are intending to exterminate them. This is why God gave Israelites the lesser law, the law of Moses, for instance, because he wanted to preserve their lives.
Prohibition is a higher law that is wrong to force upon the people who are not ready for it. For this reason, for instance In 1910 President Smith instructed the Quorum of the Twelve to ignore statewide prohibition and work for local option.
Prohibition nation wide was an error. In fact there is evidence that the Rockefellers gave money to certain “puritan” women organizations to lobby the Congress for the Prohibition, because it was discovered that alcohol derived from hemp and other sources could replace oil as fuel. So, at its source, it was a corrupt and calculated move by the Rockefellers to preserve their oil profits, not the desire to keep the nation sober.
Again, I say, it is wickedness to force the higher law upon the people who are not ready for it, unless you intend to destroy them. So the Nation wide Prohibition, (i.e. the use of force to prevent the use of alcohol) was wrong, and the war on drugs is wrong, and immoral, because they violate the Benson Principle, and were not commanded by God.