You have single-handedly touched on many important themes in this thread that will be the subject of many future posts and commentary around which additional discussion can take place. You have also significantly contributed to this conversation around America’s version of the welfare state. We hope you and others feel welcome here as we continue to explore these issues over the coming months and years.

Taking care of the poor and needy is a fundamental teaching of the Savior’s gospel in all dispensations and if ignored, incurs unique consequences (Sodom and Gomorrah). How we as individuals and as a society choose to assist has been the subject of utopians throughout the world’s ages. It is hoped we can learn from those who have gone before and grappled with similar issues.

Congratulations on the new addition to your family. Best wishes.

Also, the United Order is not the Law of Consecration, but instead it is one of many attempts by the early Saint to establish a more egalitarian community after failing to keep the Law of Consecration. So when people say that the egalitarian communities described in the Book of Mormon were the “United Order” it is literally false, since the United Order was not even invented until the Saints were in Utah. Not only that, but often in the Book of Mormon we read that these egalitarian forms of government were made up of both members and non-members, and since the Law of Consecration and the United Order are both covenants that are made between members of the Church, my conclusion is that they had achieved a better form of governance that was secular, or at least separate from Church membership.

We also can’t assume that when the First Presidency published that pamphlet encouraging members to participate in ZCMI in 1875 and said “The experience of mankind has shown that the people of communities and nations among whom wealth is the most equally distributed, enjoy the largest degree of liberty, are the least exposed to tyranny and oppression and suffer the least from luxurious habits which beget vice,” that they were talking specifically about communities and nations that live the United Order. Instead, it is a broad, and in my opinion accurate, observation. The same goes for another quote from that pamphlet “One of the great evils with which our own nation is menaced at the present time is the wonderful growth of wealth in the hands of a comparatively few individuals.” I highly doubt they were talking about Utah when they said “our nation”.

I don’t agree with your observation Greg about my links where you say “most have to do with various aspects of the United Order”. While some do, MOST do not.

What I don’t like is lists pointing out how “Communist” we are becoming. Besides, I don’t think it’s the end goal of communism that is false (a classless society where equality and brotherhood have made government unnecessary and where each contributes according his ability, and recieves according to his need). I am more of the school of thought that the Bolshevik’s methods, tactics and theories about achieving such a lofty goal were what was out of whack. This is why I don’t shriek in horror when people make lists about how much closer we are to enacting legislation similar to what Communists sought (“Oh no! Universal healthcare and education! Run for your lives!”) Instead, I think to myself “Great! Unlike the Soviet Union, North Korea and China, we were able to achieve a society that cares for the poor, the needy, the sick, and the disadvantaged through peaceful and democratic means, rather than through state police, torture, terror, and violence. Good for us, and in your face Bolshevik’s!”

As to item 1 in Greg’s post, the main point I was trying to make is that Rothbard seems to be making quite an assumption. It is clear from the quote and the language he uses that he dislikes those who supported government social services (I hesitate to refer to it as the “welfare state” as I don’t think minimal services to help those in need qualifies as being a “welfare state”). For instance, he starts out by taking a jab and calling them “overeducated”. Is it possible to be overeducated? Should we just educate ourselves a little bit and then hold back when we become too knowledgable? Anyway, he then goes on to attribute motives to these “intellectuals and technocrats” that are entirely negative, as if he could read minds. Desire to end misery and affliction? Of course not, they must have just been looking for cushy government jobs right? Wanting to alleviate the ills of poverty? Why, that would be ridiculous, since Rothbard apparently knows that these Americans (who often made great sacrifices) were just in it for sinister reasons.

I find it hard to swallow, even if I try to avoid Rothbard’s contemptuous tone and obvious bias.

As to point 2 from Greg’s post, I do not disagree that business and private capital tried as hard as possible to use government to achieve their needs. In fact, this was a common complaint from the left about the New Deal and FDR’s administration. They felt the needed reforms were being hijacked by big business and private capital. It’s like a sailor using a gust of wind to his advantage. The sailor knows he can do nothing about the gust of wind, and fighting against it could destroy him and his ship. Instead, the sailor steers his vessel just right so that he can use the gust to his advantage. It is my opinion that much like the sailor, business knew that they couldn’t go on fighting against the “gust” of reforms…reforms such as the right to organize, health and safety regulations to protect workers, shorter workdays, better wages, etc. They had spent plenty of time violently opposing these reforms for decades, but now the public wasn’t standing for it anymore and there were even threats of revolution if something didn’t change. So what did they do? They turn their sails and steered the reforms. So instead of social security kicking in when most workers retired, they raised the age to above the average lifespan of a worker. Does that mean social security was a bad idea? No, it just means the benefit of a social security system, instead of being non-existent, at least covered those who lived beyond the age requirements.

So what am I saying? I’m saying that despite business’ involvement in shaping the welfare system, America was still better off then they were before social services ever existed.

Now bullet number 3: I do think communism and capitalism have much more in common then their adherents like to admit. Also, I wouldn’t lump socialism with communism (socialism is a broad term and I think lumping it with communism simply because they are both left-wing ideologies is just as misleading as me lumping fascism and corporate capitalism, two right-wing ideologies). For example, while giving lip service to the workers, the Soviet Union ended up just replacing the capitalists with the state (which China is doing now I might add). Although there were great improvements compared to life under the Czar, and the early years of the Soviet Union were quite successful, the workers were not much nearer to owning the means of production in the USSR then they were under the capitalists.

As for me personally, I agree with Martin Luther King Jr. “Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social. And the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism, but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both.”

I think there are some great examples of this “higher synthesis”. Sweden, Norway, and Finland have done quite well in this area. Other countries have done well also, although not a progressive as the Scandinavian nations, these include Germany, Israel, France, Canada, Spain, and others. I would love to go into this more some time, but I’m already staying up late just to address the above post.

Okay, here we go. Now I’m addressing number 4. I think Marion G. Romney makes some good points…after all, the United Order is not socialism. Socialism is an economic and political theory whereas the United Order is a religious institution. I don’t think Catholics want the government run like a monestary, even if their religious beliefs tell them it’s a better way to live with each other. The same is true of the United Order. However, I think this talk was very much influenced by Romney’s own politics, the political environment of that time period, as well as the fact that historically Mormons were considered politically, economically, and socially radical (in fact, it’s not uncommon to come across the word “Communist” and “Socialist” being used by anti-Mormons in the early history of the Church, and the term was used specifically as a bad word much the same it is today by people like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh). Let’s not forget that Utah was one of the first states to have a strong Socialist Party. Not only that, but Apostle Moses Thatcher had come out in favor of socialism, the Church had been almost a tourist trap for early European socialists interested in the Church’s cooperative communities like Brigham City, and Edward Bellamy’s bestselling socialist book slash pamphlet was known to be inspired by his visit to Utah and late night talks with Lorenzo Snow. None of this made the Church look good during the McCarthy era, when everything even remotely left of center was being attacked as “unAmerican”.

Number 5: Yes, the “Mormon Worker” was inspired by Dorothy Day’s “The Catholic Worker” and issue number one explains in further detail.

Number 6: Although I’d like to say I thought out my comparison between Ayn Rand and Rothbard in detail, I can’t claim that. The connection I was making was just this; Rothbard and Rand both want their readers to just assume that those who favor social services and government regulation are a bunch of “do gooders” who are secretly and solely motivated by such sinister things as power, prestige, and “cushy government jobs”, and so and so on. As I made clear earlier in this post, I think this is the equivalent of an atheist telling people that religious individuals are motivated to do good not because they have the Spirit or have developed charity, but because they just want to get into heaven or avoid hell.

And lastly, number 8. I think Keynes was a jerk, and it’s not like he even tried to cover this up. Has anyone ever read his writings? He pretty says openly that those in power should use inflation as a sort of secret tax. Anyway, I think the Fed, along with the financial industry in general, are certainly going to promote the interests of the wealthy over everyone else. After all, do they make money off of poor people or rich? I wouldn’t want to debate the Fed however, as I don’t feel educated on the subject well enough to do it justice. I’ll leave that for others. However, I will say that when Joseph Smith ran for President of the United States, his platform included a national bank that he believed the government should operate which would be accountable to the people through representative democracy. He believed a national bank was necessary to protect Americans from the abuses of a private financial industry.

I hope I answered and responded to everything here. I’ve got an 11 day old son, a full time job, am attending a university currently and just bought a new house. Pulling myself away to write this was quite a task, so I hope my response is sufficient as I probably will be backing off for a little while.

If anyone is interested in reading more about my perspective on politics and religion, I have written two articles for the LDS Left newsletter and corresponding blog. One is about Ezra Taft Benson and the trouble his political opinions stirred within the Church, and the other is a satirical piece where I point out that the Church has quite a few troubling things in it’s history if someone wants to believe the Church is and always has been economically conservative. Below are the links for anyone interested. Oh, and sorry about any typos, I’m too tired to go back, reread my post, and make adjustments…what you get is what you get.

The satirical article:
http://theldsleft.blogspot.com/2009/09/screwtape-letter-on-mormon-politics-by.html

The article on Benson:
http://theldsleft.blogspot.com/2009/09/ezra-taft-benson-end-of-all-political.html

1 – Concerning the “growing legion of educated (and often overeducated) intellectuals, technocrats, and the ‘helping professions’ . . . “, the Veritas Foundation – a group of Harvard alumni – published two books that seem to confirm Rothbard’s assessment that these two groups did indeed help form the basis of the American welfare state (The Great Deceit: Pseudo Social Sciences and Keynes at Harvard: Economic Deception as a Political Credo).

2 – I understand your position about labor being a cause of the social services that were enacted in the early 1900s. I thought it interesting that Rothbard felt otherwise and saw that business (read private capital) could use government to achieve their needs.

3 – Capitalism and socialism/communism seem to be based on the same philosophy of materialism. Capitalists want to control the means of production while socialists/communists seek the same. Do you believe it’s a zero-sum game? Do you see any similarities in this and Nibley’s comments in Polarization in the Book of Mormon?

4 – Thanks for the links to some great articles above. Since most have to do with various aspects of the United Order, what are your thoughts about Elder Marion G. Romney’s comments in Is Socialism the United Order?

5 – Is The Mormon Worker somewhat of a modern equivalent of Dorothy Day’s The Catholic Worker, but for Mormons?

6 – Why did you link Rothbard to Ayn Rand? I thought that an interesting connection to make. Is one reason because Rothbard “came to view Marxism as a secularized Christian heresy and American Progressivism as secularized post-millennial Protestantism” as Lew Rockwell suggested (Rand v. Rothbard)?

7 – Sometimes it seems that the labels “right-wing”, “left-wing”, conservative, and liberal appear superfluous. Hopefully the conversation focuses on the “principles” although it is understandable that some principles are advanced more prominently by one party versus another.

8 – Some believe that the Federal Reserve – like other central banks around the world – has helped fund the American welfare state. Congressman Ron Paul quoted John Maynard Keynes in End the Fed who wrote:

Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose. (p. 171 – quoting Keynes. The Economic Consequences of the Peace. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1920. 235-236.).

Also, Mr. Paul also points out that “Marx’s Fifth Plank of the Communist Manifesto mandates a strong central bank monopoly. This was seen as necessary to maintain power over the entire economy and to protect against the encroachment of capitalism” (p. 172; see also 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto: How Many Do We Have?). Hasn’t this process been in effect since the Fed’s founding in 1913?

These are just some of the questions that came to mind as I reviewed your comments. I hope you don’t mind responding.

To which I reply: That may be true, but both Marion G. Romney and Ezra Taft Benson used the term “counterfeit” to refer to Communism. Here’s the quote:

“Communism is Satan’s counterfeit for the gospel plan, and . . . it is an avowed enemy of the God of the land. Communism is the greatest Anti-Christ power in the world today and therefore the greatest menace not only to our peace but to our preservation as a free people.”