You've misread him for a long time. Similar to you continually saying I'm leftist.
Shades is a leftist, period. The fact that he thinks economic prosperity and civil liberties and social liberalism can coexist at the end of the day is testament only to the extensive degree of his intellectual confusion.
I long ago, if you will recall, moved away from seeing you as a leftist. You are, however, anti-economic freedom, which really reduces, at the end of the day, to being opposed to free agency in an area in which, at least here in mortality, is primary. You display what Von Mises called "the anti-capitalist mentality", which means you have been heavily influenced by leftist ideas (which can quite easily be imbibed osmotically from the surrounding culture) and by Nibley's economically illiterate nonsense.
Someone needs to call Jacob and tell him to recant the sermon he gave in the Temple. He mocked those hard-working capitalists who gained more then everyone else and encouraged them to share
Strongly disagree. She caricatured them.
Wrong. She morally and intellectually cut them open and exposed their entrails to the open air. Clearly, you understand neither Rand nor
leftism as a belief system.
No, no she didn't.
I would call the gospel the biggest success story but to each their own I guess.
Nice dodge, but I understand you are not particularly educated or well read in this area, and have little interest in political philosophy or history generally (yet you have very strong opinions on various subjects closely connected to these areas).
HAHAHAHAHAHAH (blasted smiley limits)
I minored in Economics and was barely short of the same in Political Science. I still keep in touch with some professors in those subjects about current events. I read a lot of classical political philosophy and occasionally read the stuff of today. I am obsessed with history and read it voraciously.
What have you read? Locke? Confucius? Plato? Hobbes? Burke? Marx? Strauss?
Droopy, capitalism will one day vanish if we advance technologically far enough.
Interesting claim. Now, could you provide a logical argument that would provide a reason to assume such to be the case?
Sure, once we have machines that can create the necessities and reasonable wants of life with minimal or no effort would you countenance the continuance of capitalism? Economics is about scarce resources. When resources are no longer scarce it will no longer be an economic issue. The only danger would be political control.
I'm not suggesting this is likely anytime soon but capitalism is not the greatest thing ever devised. The Gospel is the best, moral philosophy and simple enjoyment good.
It's a system. I think it's a good one. I do not think it will work universally but controlled capitalism is ideal for the United States at this time.
It has worked, as a matter of history, everywhere its been tried in the proper manner.
By proper manner I assume you mean the right cultural and political conditions? If so, then you're saying that it will work when it will work. Hardly a helpful proposition.
I think you're stretching the parable of the talents. I think it should be taken into consideration with the parable of the ten sons given in the D&C which is an outright repudiation to competitive capitalism.
How does this repudiate "competitive capitalism" (keeping in mind that free market capitalism is an eminently cooperative system, without which it could not function at all)?
Capitalism is cooperative in a limited sense only. So is Mercantilism, Socialism, and Communism.
Are you seriously suggesting that Satan's fall was aimed at the destruction of capitalism?
Satan's fall was a direct result of his hostility to free agency.
That and his desire for power. Then he fell and offered to make people rich to buy them off. Capitalist at heart?
Have you been to the Temple? His plan involves using wealth disparity to his advantage. Remember Korihor, the laissez faire capitalist?
Korihor was what in modern terms would be called a leftist; in the sense that he was a libertine social radical, moral relativist, and philosophical materialist. I see no evidence whatsoever in the scriptures that he was anything approaching the ancient equivalent of a laissez fair capitalist. He was a Machiavellian hedonist, and made, as I recall, no particular statements regarding economic relations.
Have you read Machiavelli? I don't think Korihor fits the image (at least from what the Book of Mormon says.
Yea, they durst not make use of that with is their won lest they should offend their priests, who do yoke them according to their desires....
He's preaching against government controls over economic life.
Rational self-interest doesn't work for two reasons:
1. Humans aren't rational.
2. Self-interest is the antithesis of the gospel.
Everything you have that allows you to live materially above the level of the manner in which people in Salt Lake City, Utah lived in the nineteenth century is a derivative of rational self interest and the liberty to work, save, invest, risk, and create in an environment of respect for property rights and free, uncoeirced economic activity between free individuals according to the use of their own agency.
The idea that self interest, as a general concept, is antithetical to the gospel is without any ambiguity false doctrine, if you intend it to be taken as such. The entire endeavor to overcome the world, endure to the end, and master ourselves is self interested - we desire the blessings and promises of the gospel. We keep the commandments, live the gospel, and deny ourselves of baser things because we are, of ourselves, interested in our own salvation. You draw a false dichotomy between self interest and selflessness, which, in a gospel context, are not mutually exclusive but mutually reinforcing and interconnected.
Wait, what? How can anyone be saved on that rationale? I love the Gospel because it offers salvation to the human race. Part of me is still incredibly partial to myself alone and that part needs to be killed.
The fact that our salvation hinges on our relations with others, our sharing of the gospel, and the strenght we draw from each other in a Zion culture alters not this fundamental reality. We are not saved as a group or collective, but only as individuals. We spend our lives attempting to persuade, exhort, implore, and expend ourselves in an effort to convince others to join us in this gospel, but the choice is always theirs and theirs alone. We must all help and assist one another in our salvation, we cannot do it alone, it is true, but each individual is saved only as he as an individual so chooses.
That's a false dichotomy. Yes, everyone chooses their own fate but we are not individuals in that sense. If we were the sealing ordinance of parent to child would be irrelevant.
In like manner, our property is our stewardship, to improve, expand, and make prosperous. This is impossible without "capitalism", in the very fundamental sense of the freedom to work, save, accumulate capital, and invest it in productive activities. The United Order is grounded to a great extent on precisely this concept, but with a different social component in the idea of the voluntary support of the Zion community through the Bishop's storehouse. There will be no rich or poor in Zion, but there will still be free markets and free individuals with their talents improving and investing in their stewardships for the building of the Kingdom in a Zion context.
I disagree with your views on Zion and your idea of the purpose of an economic stewardship. Jesus told the man who asked what he lacked to devalue his economic stewardship. Abraham refused to take anything after the battle of the five kings when he could have improved his stewardship legally. Moses gave up his wealth when he left Egypt. Peter gave up his business to preach.
Our economic property is given to us to build up the kingdom and so that all may be made rich. I find no scriptural support for your ideas.
I don't at this point, unfortunately, expect any argument, no matter how well articulated and clear, to have much effect penetrating the class envy that saturates your entire perspective on these issues.
CLASS ENVY????? LOL!!!! I'm the son of a millionaire and am financially prosperous myself. By all indications I'll be upper-middle class or up my entire life........you're way off..
But try I must.