God is a Capitalist: Answering Ruble Fisher
October 27, 2008 by C. Rick Koerber
Filed under Business, Religion, Rick Koerber's Recent Posts
This past week a Facebook friend of mine, Ruble Fisher, wrote on my Facebook wall the following critique of my oft repeated observation that “God is a Capitalist.”
Rick, you definitely have not forgotten to suggest that God is a Capitalist, but I must say that this is not true. God’s economic system is Consecration, not Capitalism. Capitalism, Communism and Socialism all have the same flaw; they are man-made systems that ultimately lead to only one place, and that is destruction.
I answered Ruble on his wall, but since that time I’ve had several people who can’t access my post, ask about my response. So, I figured I’d just post it here (with some minor edits and several additions based upon Ruble’s subsequent responses).
I wrote: Ruble, the error in your logic is that you’ve made my proposition a tautology. You choose to see the concept referred to in my statement, by the word Capitalism, as a man made concept. You then connect this choice with your choice—to see everything not directly made by God as doomed to destruction. So in essence what you are saying is that, “Whatever is made by God will prevail, whatever is not made by God will fail and whatever Rick says (including his choice of the term Capitalism) is made by Rick, not God and therefore it is self-evidently true that Capitalism will fail.”
However, here is the challenge put to you, that you ignore. The concept I refer to when I use the term Capitalism (and this is not my choice uniquely) is the concept that the initiation of FORCE by one man (or group) against another (man or group) is immoral and unjust.
When I say that “God is a Capitalist,” I am making the argument that the concept of capitalism is NOT man made. This is the challenge you ignore by defining the proposition as a tautology and simply assuming through your restatement of your proposition that capitalism is “man made.”
Since it is an assertion inseparable from your tautology, if I want to engage you in rational discussion, I can’t respond without you claiming that whatever I say or whatever concept I uphold is “man made” since I (the one speaking) am indeed a man. Or, in other words, your position boils down to the claim that MAN can never understand God well enough to accurately label God’s truths or laws and subsequently communicate them to others. While you don’t make this argument explicitly, its implied in your position.
Your stance, of course, is self-evidently false, when at the same time you claim that God’s system is consecration. You see, the word consecration is also a “man made” term and therefore—according to your position—our understanding of God’s truths or laws is always limited by our man made articulations or choice of terms.
Certainly, you would agree (and its consistent with the position you take) that someone using the term consecration is not necessarily doing so in a way that accurately conforms with or communicates God’s law. Right? Since any such communication is going to be limited by man’s inherent fallibility (the core of your position).
The consequence, therefore, of your position is that in order to be rationally consistent you have to abandon either the tautology or your claim that you know and have properly labeled God’s system as consecration.
I suspect you would choose giving up the tautology. If its possible for you to argue that you have an accurate conceptualization of God’s law, then certainly you are forced to admit the possibility that I might also have made an accurate conceptualization of God’s law, regardless of the term I use (which would therefore include my use of the term Capitalism).
Your only argument could be that since the “word” consecration is used in the scripture and the word capitalism is not, your word (and the conceptualization attached to it) is not man made, while mine is. This, of course, would make any conversation between us on the subject meaningless, because I could just point out every word used in defense of your position, that is not scriptural, and that effort would become infinitely regressive.
On the chance that I’m right, and that you’d be willing to give up the tautology and actually engage in the discussion over WHY I contend that God is Capitalist, then let me advance the next stage of our intellectual exchange.
I would begin by suggesting that Consecration is NOT POSSIBLE without the foundation of CAPITALISM being established in place first. Or, in other words, a society must first accept and obey God’s law that to initiate FORCE (of either the body or the mind) against any man or group is unjust and immoral. (Notice, my not so subtle argument by articulation).
This would therefore fence out any participation in CONSECRATION by tyrants. Or more simply, CONSECRATION is only possible absent tyranny. Because, CONSECRATION is the surrender of all RIGHT to waste, to horde, to control for unproductive use and to gratify at the expense of value. YET, any attempt at CONSECRATION by any group of Christians is ultimately undermine without a fundamental respect for the tenants of CAPITALISM.
This is the premise for Apostle Stephen L. Richards (who was an attorney, grandson of Apostle Willard Richards and mentor to the late President Gordon B. Hinckley), teaching that CAPITALISM IS THE FOUNDATION OF GOD’S CELESTIAL LAW. He taught:
“Many people misunderstand and misinterpret capitalism. They think that because the word “capital” is used to designate the system that its chief purpose is to make wealthy men who are usually called capitalists and whose wealth, it is feared, is too often accumulated at the expense of poorer classes.
I admit that there are instances, altogether too many, where this comes about. But this is not the true concept of capitalism. The capitalistic system in its inner essence, is little, if anything, more than a man’s free right to work, to choose his work, and enjoy the rewards of his efforts. In my estimation, it is a most precious thing and it is indispensable to the liberty and freedom of which America boasts.
It is the only tried and tested system of free enterprise in this world and every other opposing system is built on an abridgment of personal liberty. For one I do not want to lose it. But we will lose it if we do not understand it and recognize its virtues. It is not the capitalistic system itself that makes some men rich and some men poor. The men themselves do that, again with some exceptions. The system merely offers the opportunities. “
Ruble then responded. I’ll address his response, in line by line fashion, for clarity.
Ruble writes 1: Rick, honestly, I am really trying to follow your logic, but I am unable to do so. Capitalism was not inspired by God, nor was it made by you.
I agree I did not “create” capitalism, but I have argued that it is in fact God’s doctrine. You don’t address my argument you just ignore it. You see, I’ve defined Capitalism as, “the concept that the initiation of FORCE by one man (or group) against another (man or group) is immoral and unjust.” The basic premise of capitalism, justifying this moral position, is that man is free by right, and that all men have an equal claim to liberty.
Again, I suggest that this plan/system of men being “free” (Which I, and many others call Capitalism) is indeed authored by God.
- “…under [Christ's] head ye are made free, and there is no other head whereby ye can be made free.” (Mosiah 5:8)
- “Wherefore men are free according o the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.” (2 NE 2:27)
- “I stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.” (Gal:5:1)
- “Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” (2 Cor. 3:17)
- “…according to the Spirit of God, which is also the spirit of freedom which is in them.” (Alma 61:15)
- “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” (Rom. 8:2)
- “That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him…” (Moses 4:3)
Finally, on this I would also point out that you have completely ignored that excellent quotation I provided from an Apostle of the Lord who uses the SAME articulation of CAPITALISM that I have used and that is at issue here.
Let me remind you that he clearly pointed out, “The capitalistic system in its inner essence, is little, if anything, more than a man’s free right to work, to choose his work, and enjoy the rewards of his efforts. In my estimation, it is a most precious thing and it is indispensable to the liberty and freedom of which America boasts.”
The reason this quotation is important is that it directly counters your claim that Capitalism was not inspired by God. It does so in two ways.
- Elder Richards clearly articulates that Capitalism is “a man’s free right to work, to choose his work, and…. is indispensable to the liberty and freedom of which America boasts.”
- The Doctrine and Coventants makes clear that the Constitutional law of the United States which supports “that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges” was indeed inspired by him.
Ruble Writes 2: Capitalism is simply another economic system like Socialism and Communism that is helping the inhabitants of this Earth to know the difference between good and evil. Each of these systems are evil, and God has nothing to do with them.
I have already addressed the core of your argument above, namely that God did not create capitalism. However, you now take the matter even further, so I’ll provide some additional insight regarding your claims that “Capitalism is simply another economic system like Socialism and Communism”, your claim that “each of these systems are evil” and you last claim that “God has nothing to do with them.”
RE: “Capitalism is simply another economic system like Socialism and Communism.”
- Why? You have ignored my arguments to the contrary.
- You offer no analysis as to how these are similar, except to repeat, implicitly, your contention that they are all “man made.” But certainly I’ve addressed that. But, to be clear, TRUTH is not man made, and ideas either conform to the TRUTH or they do not. I have argued that CAPITALISM conforms the the essential Gospel truth related to the agency of man. I have argued that God has authored this system and provided an explanation and scriptural support. But, you simply keep repeating your assumption. My question to you is, what if it’s not true Ruble… what if God did indeed establish the “Capitalistic system.” I’m presenting that case, and you are ignoring it completely, and ignoring the statement by a Latter-day Apostle on the subject without any explanation.
- How are these systems alike, besides your claim that they are man made?
- I suggest they are extremely different. First, Socialism and Communism are Godless. Second, Capitalism acknowledges the supremacy of individual rights (which are central to the American System established by God) and Socialism and Communism seek to eradicate these fundamental rights.Lest you think this is just my assertion, let me quote Engles to you from his “Principles on Communism” 1847,“Moreover, since the management of industry by individuals necessarily implies private property, and since competition is in reality merely the manner and form in which the control of industry by private property owners expresses itself, it follows that private property cannot be separated from competition and the individual management of industry. Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must come the common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement – in a word, what is called the communal ownership of goods. In fact, the abolition of private property is, doubtless, the shortest and most significant way to characterize the revolution in the whole social order which has been made necessary by the development of industry – and for this reason it is rightly advanced by communists as their main demand.”
- Finally, I suggest that the Church has made clear distinction between these systems. Consider for example the following statement from Elder Albert E. Bowen who said,“The Lord must want and intend that His people shall be free of constraint whether enforceable or only arising out of the bindings of conscience. … That is why the Church is not satisfied with any system which leaves able people permanently dependent, and insists, on the contrary, that the true function and office of giving, is to help people [get] into a position where they can help themselves and thus be free.” (The Church Welfare Plan, Gospel Doctrine manual, 1946, p. 77.)
RE: “Each of these systems are evil.”
- Why? Same argument right? They are all man made? I’ve addressed that.
- What would you say is actually evil about Capitalism? We need not delve into the others because I’ll readily concede they are evil.
- You’re still ignoring Elder Richards who directly contradicts your point when he says that the capitalistic system is “precious” and “indispensable to liberty.” Is it your argument then, that he is simply mistaken?
RE: “God has nothing to do with them.”
- I’ve already addressed this point above.
- God is the author of man’s agency, certainly you would agree to that. Capitalism is the name given to the philosophy of holding man’s agency sacred, as I’ve explained, so how can it be argued that God has nothing to do with it?
- Do you really mean NOTHING? Do you agree with the scripture that says not even a sparrow falls to the earth without his notice and sanction?
- If I have not been convincing previously, perhaps you’ll consider President McKay’s suggestion in the Church News of 11/27/1954 that:The “Individaulistic, capitalistic, free enterprise system” has been the God inspired means of enabling men to raise to a level of prosperity unprecedented in “all historic time.”
- Perhaps you’ll also consider Apostle Mark E. Peterson’s explanation and warning in the Church News of April 16, 1950.“How many Latter-day Saints truly believe in the Constitution of the United States? That Constitution stands for free initiative. That is free agency. In a business sense we have spoken of it as free private enterprise. Are the Latter-day Saints as a people willing to accept the principle of free enterprise? There are some among us who are teaching that free enterprise is wrong. These same individuals would do away with the capitalist system, setting forth its many abuses.” He goes on to suggest that “Free Enterprise” generally and “Capitalism” specifically are both in a general sense “free agency—the principle to which Latter-day Saints are committed.”
Ruble Writes 3: God’s economic system is Consecration.
- Yes, but you do not define Consecration and at the same time have ignored my statement that, “Someone using the term consecration is not necessarily doing so in a way that accurately conforms with or communicates God’s law.”
- Also, I argue that Consecration requires a group of men first committed to the fundamental principles of Capitalism, i.e, eschewing the initiation of force. You ignore my argument and simply say you “disagree.” But, why?
- How could you ever consecrate something if a) you did not have it in your possession and b) it was not yours (by private property right) to give in the first place. “How can we give if there is nothing there? Food for the hungry cannot come from empty shelves. Money to assist the needy cannot come from an empty purse. Support and understanding cannot come from the emotionally starved. Teaching cannot come from the unlearned. And most important of all, spiritual guidance cannot come from the spiritually weak.”(Marion G. Romney, First Presidency Message October 1984)
- Any group of people who get together, as you later suggest, to live the law of consecration will suffer the same fate as that suffered by the early pilgrims who had to learn first hand how to overcome the evil of collectivism and institute the Godly inspired virtues of individuals rights, individual stewardship, and the protection of men’s individual liberty. Or in other words, how can this group ever consecrate effectively without capitalism? You seem to believe their is some other way but you don’t elaborate.
- You also ignore Elder Richard’s statement that the system of Capitalism, “Is the only tried and tested system of free enterprise in this world and every other opposing system is built on an abridgment of personal liberty.” Is it your suggestion that Elder Richards simply forgot about Consecration in his assessment that Capitalism (since he does not mention consecration) is the ONLY system that has been proven to protect our freedoms.
- Perhaps you might say, “all these things are incorporated in consecration” but this would mean we agree because this is what I have said in essence, that consecration is not possible without Capitalism. Whether you say it my way or say it like, “Consecration contains all the principles of capitalism” then you are agreeing with me that God is a Capitalist because for him to be a consecrationist he would have to “be” that by first “assuming all of the qualities of a true capitalist.”
Ruble Writes 4: However, there are some good principles found within the Capitalistic system, one of which is private property rights.
- You are contradicting yourself. You have already said that you did not believe that God “had anything to do” with Capitalism. Yet now you say it has some “good principles.”
- The scripture is clear that we should, “lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not..” and that the followers of Christ will “cleave unto every good thing…” (Moro. 7:19,28)
- The scriptures also clearly state that, “…every good gift cometh of Christ.” (Moro. 10:18) and that “Every good gift”, “cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” (James 1:17)
Ruble Writes 5: Your “claim” that the concept that “God is a Capitalist” is not man made is something which I agree with. The “God of this World” is the author of Capitalism, and the God of this world is the enemy of all righteousness.
- Ruble, its hard to take you seriously when you get to this point. Are you kidding? Do you believe that the God of this world is Satan? The God of this World is JESUS CHRIST. And, on this point, you and I will have to agree, that HE is the author of Capitalism, which was my argument in the first place.
- Ruble, in all sincerity, Satan is a liar, and he is NOT the God of this world. If you have been misled or deceived on this fundamental, core doctrine of the Gospel, perhaps we ought not be having this conversation yet. Please consider,
- “My heart tonight is filled with thanksgiving unto the Almighty God. Through the gift of His Son, who is the God of this world, we have been so magnificently blessed.” — Gordon B. Hinckley, Feb. 2001
- “Jesus Christ is the God of this world. He has made it very plain in his many self-introductions.” — Spencer W. Kimball, Nov. 1977
- “His identity and his relationship to God, the Eternal Father, and as “the God of this earth,” was clearly explained when he as the risen Lord, following his crucifixion and resurrection, appeared to his people in the land Bountiful on this continent.” — Harold B. Lee, November 1973.
Ruble Writes 6: God is a consecrationist, not a Capitalist. That is simple and understandable.
It’s only simple and understandable if a) you do not define “consecrationist”, b) ignore my challenges to your definition and my counter definition—remember I originally argued that to be a consecrationist meant one who, “surrenders all RIGHT to waste, to horde, to control for unproductive use and to gratify at the expense of value.” I would agree with you that God is a consecrationist, but I would argue that it first presupposes that he is first and foremost a capitalist, as I’ve been arguing.
Why do you think the two are mutually exclusive? What about Capitalism or Consecration creates this dichotomy?
Ruble Writes 7: Your logic is not so simple or understandable.
Okay? What exactly don’t you understand? Where am I being unclear?
Ruble Writes 8: To be consistent Rick, I uniformly abandon the tautology, and I stand solidly with my claim that I know and properly label God’s system “Consecration”.
Great. I thought we would agree on abandoning the tautology.
Ruble Writes 9: [Beginning by quoting my earlier statement] “Consecration is NOT POSSIBLE without the foundation of CAPITALISM being in place first. Or, in other words, a society must first accept obey God’s law that to initiate FORCE against any man or group is unjust and immoral.” Your connection here is faulty and illogical.
Okay? What is faulty about it? Or Illgoical?
Can you consecrate without first having the private right of ownership?
Can you consecrate while resisting the idea that the initiation of FORCE is unjust and immoral?
Can any society live by consecration while tyrants abound who would mooch, or loot the wealth of the “order?” I posit, that this is exactly why previous experiments failed, because men needed more time in our generation perfecting their ideas with regards to freedom, liberty, individual rights, and therefore CAPITALISM.
What logic allows you to counter my statement?
Ruble Writes 10: The connection between force initiation and Capitalism is strange to me. I read your explanation, but it simple does not logically hold up.
Hmmm, what do you mean?
I simply defined capitalism? What about that definition is strange?
Stephen L. Richards also defined the system of Capitalism in consistent terms with my statements? Did you misunderstand his statement as well?
Consider, “There are only two fundamental questions (or two aspects of the same question) that determine the nature of any social system: Does a social system recognize individual rights? — and: Does a social system ban physical force from human relationships?
The answer to the second question is the practical implementation of the answer to the first…
Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned…In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate.” (Ayn Rand: “What Is Capitalism?” Nov. 1965)
Ruble Writes 11: [Again beginning by quoting my argument first] “CONSECRATION is only possible absent tyranny.” I don’t agree! There can be tyrrany everywhere. We only need a group of people who truly understand the power of the Priesthood, and they will overthrow the powers of darkness through their faith.
- Okay, finally you’ve addressed my argument. Kind of. What do you mean that there can be tyranny everywhere. Certainly that statement is true by itself, but my argument was that the presence of tyranny (i.e. one or more tyrants who do not respect the basic premise of capitalism, or for the sake of further clarity, any person who does not respect the agency of man) threatens any chance of consecration. You don’t address this. You simply make a counter assertion.How could any number of Priesthood holders live God’s law without first casting out the tyrants? I think Rev. Ch. 12 sets the precedent.* Note, a capitalist does not believe that ALL force is tyrannical. It is the initiation of force that is tyrannical, but it is morally just to respond to tyranny with force in self-defense (separate argument if you want to have it.)
- When you say that this “group of people” would have to first understand “the power of the priesthood” what you are essentially saying is that they would have to understand the fundamental tenant of a capitalist. Right? D&C 121:41
- I would go a step further and say they would have to voluntarily agree to be bound by the priesthood, and would have to enter into such an agreement through covenant (private agreement based upon individual rights, including property rights). Or in other words, we are agreeing on this point, because you have no argument against what I’ve clearly defined as Capitalism.
- It is dangerous and naive to think that because “a group of people who truly understand the Priesthood” will ever “overthrow the powers of darkness through their faith” if that is what you are advancing as the only requirement.The implication is that somehow faith alone will “do the trick.” It will not. Faith is essential, no doubt. But, the fundamental agreement mentioned in #2 and #3 above is essential. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that the current members of the Quorum of the Twelve and the Quorums of Seventy don’t “truly understand the Priesthood.” I don’t think that is what you’re wanting to to do here. Is it?The Saints have been working at this for a long time, but the stumbling block has been the PRIDE of our members who accept the deceptions of the adversary, for example, rejecting capitalism through misunderstanding and mis-attribution. Additionally, the brethren teach that in addition to UNDERSTANDING the Priesthood this same group would have to:a) commit to live by the principles
b) have a legal right to do so and the ability to defend that legal right
c) become temporally self-reliant and surplus generating and
d) united through love and service to and with one another.These are just a few things. I suggest that before ANY of this is affected the PRINCIPLES of CAPITALISM have to be established first, because once again TYRANNY through FORCE (of either the body or the mind) is the way Satan seeks to destroy the AGENCY of man and with that goes the chance of living in a united order.
In modern history, neither Capitalism nor its higher, supplemental manifestation of CONSECRATION has yet been possible among any sizable group of people because no sizable group has yet established legitimate civil authority over the tyranny brought about by the members of that same society having their hearts so set upon the things of the world and gaining the the honors of other men. It will take a moral revolution, lead indeed by those who understand the Celestial law and have covenanted to live by it, before the day of Capitalism and Consecration fully comes. Thank goodness, God is a Capitalist—and that the revolution has begun.
Ruble Writes 12: In conclusion, Capitalism is not necessary in order to have consecration. Enoch had no knowledge of Capitalism and he created God’s consecrated society on Earth.
- Ruble, with respect, I suggest your biggest stumbling block is that you do not define terms. Your argument is not against Capitalism but against some idea of what capitalism means “to you” that you have not been clearly defining. You have yet to advance an argument against Capitalism as I have represented it—yet it is to my original argument that you’ve been intended to respond.
- Your statement about Enoch not having any knowledge of Capitalism is to suggest that he did not have any knowledge of THE CONCEPT we’re calling capitalism and that suggestion, on your part, is without foundation. My argument is that CAPITALISM is at its core based upon timeless truths and governed by eternal principles. No one, Enoch included, can prosper without being mindful of these truths, and the degree to which we are mindful determines the degree to which we prosper.
- Also, your statement about Enoch is also revealing because using the same logic I could argue that “the ‘Mormon’ Church isn’t God’s true Church because Enoch was a member of God’s true Churcha nd he never heard of it, or of the Book of Mormon for that matter.”The “NAMES” we use to define concepts do not bind the truth—in fact it is the other way around. To the extent that we are not deliberate and diligent in educating ourselves, including taking responsibility for having a consistent rational framework for organizing our conceptual understanding of the world, we are blinded to greater truths.
My own conclusion is that, God is a Capitalist, Enoch is a Capitalist, I am a Capitalist, Jefferson is a Capitalist, Joseph Smith is a Capitalist, etc., …. you get the picture. The men upon whom the light of truth has shined and from which social revolution has taken place to advance the eternal cause of liberty—these men are true Capitalists.
Now, with all due respect I’ve invested quite a bit of time and energy taking your casual “stabs” at an argument very seriously. Before you answer would you please consider the following invitation of mine….
- Read my whole argument before responding.
- Read the references contained in my argument.
- When responding make arguments, not just claims. An argument consists of three essential ingredients. First a claim (which you are good at already), second is data or an appeal to the factual basis that substantiates your claim (logic is suitable but so is reference to external realities) and finally a warrant or the “reasoning” behind why your data supports your claim.
- Finally, will you spend some time refining your point? I mean no disrespect when I say, you haven’t really begun to come to terms with what I’m saying when I say that “God is a Capitalist.” You are simply launching random thoughts at a concept that seems offensive to you and it makes it a rather lengthy and cumbersome task to address all of your statements when we’re not diving very deeply into a very rich and rewarding subject.
I appreciate you taking the time to a) consider my statement, b) respond to it in a way that is both challenging and passionate and c) doing it without using techniques that are uncivil. I look forward to further discussion… but again, I hope you’ll consider my 4-fold invitation.
Thanks for reading.
Thanks for sharing Rick. I have been having a discussion in Facebook with my cousin. First we have been working out where each of us are coming from regarding the definitions of words like Captialism and Socialism.
Your discussion adds to our discussion so that we can both get on the same terminology. Or at least understand the terminology we are each using.
The terminology seems to be the biggest barrier to real conversations related to the issues and some of the ideas being thrown about by those who are seeking elected office.
I noticed this on your Facebook profile and I am happy you answered it. Couldn’t have said it better myself. I will certainly be linking this entry on my blog for my readers to see.
Rick, you stated, “…Consecration is NOT POSSIBLE without the foundation of CAPITALISM being established in place first. Or, in other words, a society must first accept and obey God’s law that to initiate FORCE (of either the body or the mind) against any man or group is unjust and immoral. (Notice, my not so subtle argument by articulation).
This would therefore fence out any participation in CONSECRATION by tyrants. Or more simply, CONSECRATION is only possible absent tyranny. Because, CONSECRATION is the surrender of all RIGHT to waste, to horde, to control for unproductive use and to gratify at the expense of value. YET, any attempt at CONSECRATION by any group of Christians is ultimately undermine without a fundamental respect for the tenants of CAPITALISM.”
Your definition of Capitalism is that “to initiate force against any man or group is unjust and immoral.” This is your very clear and anunciated definition of Capitalism correct? Capitalism (by this definition) is necessary in order to have consecration, This would not allow any participation by tyrants, and it would take away “all RIGHT to waste, to horde, to control for unproductive use and to gratify” any individuals lusts and wicked desires.
If this truly is THE definition of Capitalism, then I am a Capitalist! I agree with this!
What is your source for Apostle Stephen L. Richards teaching that CAPITALISM IS THE FOUNDATION OF GOD’S CELESTIAL LAW?
Rick,
I am amazed at the exhibition of patience and longsuffering as you nurtured this brain-off individual. Your humility and capacity for kindness was very evident. You obviously felt that there are many with the same thought processes out there. I appreciate your dedication to the this Free Capitalist cause as well as your unique talents that seem to be perfectly fitted to this calling of yours. You have inspired and enlightened me immensely. I have often wished I could debate you on some important issue, but, so far, can’t find any with which I disagree with you. Your conversation with Ruble is amazingly similar to a discussion I had with some Evangelicals in a Bible chat forum awhile ago on the necessity of living apostles in a true church of Jesus Christ. I probably was not as patient as you were, however.
Thanks for everything
Alan
In my experience having “discussions” with Ruble, your invitation will be fruitless.
But you may have a different experience. You’re much more skilled at having conversations being fruitful.
“Consecration is not possible without the foundation of Capitalism being established in the place first. A society must first accept and obey God’s law that to initiate force (of either the body or the mind) against any man or group is unjust and immoral. This would therefore fence out any participation in consecration by tyrants. Or more simply, consecration is only possible absent tyranny. Because, consecration is the surrender of all right to waste, to horde, to control for unproductive use and to gratify at the expense of value. Any attempt at consecration by any group of Christians is ultimately undermined without a fundamental respect for the tenants of Capitalism.
The capitalistic system in its inner essence, is little, if anything, more than a man’s free right to work, to choose his work, and enjoy the rewards of his efforts. In my estimation, it is a most precious thing and it is indispensable to the liberty and freedom of which America boasts. It is the only tried and tested system of free enterprise in this world and every other opposing system is built on an abridgment of personal liberty. For one I do not want to lose it. But we will lose it if we do not understand it and recognize its virtues. It is not the capitalistic system itself that makes some men rich and some men poor. The men themselves do that, again with some exceptions. The system merely offers the opportunities.”
If we might substitute the words Free Enterprise for the word Capitalism? Capitalism by current definition allows the capitalist to utilize the government’s law making capacity to fulfill selfish market strategy—creating monopolies, and the destruction of competition through regulation, licensing, bonding, and application to government just to exist. There is no significant difference between capitalism and communism.
Additionally, the current economic condition is addressed by Pres Monson in the recent conference report: “ always remember the poor and needy among you”—a prerequisite to instituting the law of consecration by the church at least in isolated circumstances. This “portent of a storm” may be the catalyst that prepares the hearts of good priesthood holders for this divine law. Harsh times and persecutions always bring out the noblest characteristics in men.
Rick –
Please indulge me as I work to understand your assertion a bit better and add comments to challenge your view.
Though I’ve never met you it is obvious that you can be classified as well-spoken, charismatic, intelligent and influential as a thought leader. I’ve followed your religious and business philosophies, career progression and business deals for years and am aware of the controversies that surround you now and have surrounded you in the past. I’ll refrain judgment with regard to you and your motivations in these dealings because I understand all judgment to ultimately be God’s prerogative intended for His purposes. Just as it is God’s right, not yours or mine or anyone else’s, to make distinctions for Him regarding who He is and what He believes or establish doctrines and declare them as truth without His consent. But because you’ve asserted yourself in designating God as a Capitalist, I only intend to challenge this assertion.
But you ought to know that I first learned of you through water cooler conversation. That is to say, I learned of you from what others had to say about your local impact and your impact statewide. I’ve researched you online. I’ve even heard you speak. I’ve spoken with those who have trusted you with their finances. I’ve formed some opinions and would like answers from you to assist me with their justification.
My personal opinion, considering myself a capitalist, is that the heroes of Capitalism that have shaped the capitalistic standards of this nation have often been imbued with controversies and lawsuits as you have. In addition to lawsuits and controversies, one commonality of these men and women is that they all added compelling value to others in their offerings. J.P. Morgan, saved the state of New York and arguably the economic welfare of the nation before the mature Federal policies of this nation were formed. He was known to be a pillager by his adversaries who capitalized most when those around him were in need and even especially at times of war but helped form free-enterprise finance none-the-less and having an integral role in the formation of these policies. Without going into detail on several examples, there are long lists of other controversial capitalistic figures that helped shape the United States to be the great nation that it is today whether it be by policy or goods and/or services offered in the free market including Benjamin Franklin, John D. Rockerfeller, Andrew Carnegie, and modern examples like Ronald Reagan, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet to name a few. All have surrounded themselves with controversies but history proves that all have added great value with policies products or services that better Capitalism.
My opinion is that a true capitalist thought leader is one who improves ways to participate in supply and demand within the market economy while adding extra value to participants whether it be policy or products or services offered. These are they that grow the most wealth personally and affect the greater good. While the means of wealth accumulation might be controversial, while points of business may be argued between parties resulting in legal action, while certain parties within a particular business dealing may disagree with other partners, and even certain methods can be questioned, the intent to produce goods or services that add value to all parties is a commonality among the greatest of the great. The core offering of a capitalist can not be questioned as valid when true capitalists do business with other capitalists.
I’m sure you would agree that those that propose capitalism but do not add value cannot be considered among the great and it may be argued as to their capitalistic significance. Whether fair or not, it’s these that are lumped with the Snake Oil salesmen and the Ponzi schemers. Sometimes business deals go South on even the greatest Capitalists, but if we have not added value in our offering then those that have unwisely trusted us will see our failure as justified. So whether or not you believe you are justified in the public’s reaction to your motives and your dealings, as a proposed capitalistic thought leader I’m curious to know how you weigh yourself against those deemed capitalistic thought leaders who have gone before you and what their views might be of capitalism.
As a God-fearing capitalist, who has never observed God give Himself the distinction as a capitalist in the same way you have nor having been bold enough to speak for Him in declaring this as such, I am compelled to challenge your view and your motive in declaring that ‘God is a Capitalist’. To challenge I only request that you answer this one question on your blog: Just as I would ask J.P. Morgan or Benjamin Franklin if they were bold enough to declare God a capitalist and I was given the chance to question – Can you honestly assert, with God as your witness, that you understand God well enough and capitalism well enough to justify speaking for Him, as it relates to His motives and mode of operation, and particularly as it relates to your stating of this as what appears to be an overt justification of your business history in regard to answering any negative impact you may have had, well enough to expect God, or any of His children, to sanction such a classification?
Curious to hear your reply,
Peter Galt
Pete,
That’s a rather long introduction, but I am in no place to be overly critical of long-windedness. And, while you throw out a few teasers that I’m tempted to engage, in your description of how you’ve become aware of me and my efforts, I’ll resist for now and just answer your question directly.
I do indeed, honestly assert, with God as my witness that I know something about the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which “something” includes knowing the true nature of God, his character and his attributes.
I speak “for God” only a a disciple of Jesus Christ. I am certainly prone to weakness and capable of error. But, I stand forth and declare my testimony of Him and His Gospel as his witness. He himself has revealed his “motives and mode of operation” I am simply articulating what he has said, in a context that culturally seems too often void of any reference to God or his teachings.
Make no mistake Pete, I do not claim that “God is a Capitalist” to defend my previously decided upon position that “I am a Capitalist.” It is the other way around. Once I discovered that God, himself, was a capitalist – I changed course in my life so as to become the best capitalist I could envision. My vision is still growing, but I do indeed claim – that CAPITALISM (i.e. the only moral system defending man’s free agency based upon TRUTH and PRINCIPLE and subsequently eschewing the initiation of force through coercion or deception) is in fact God’s way.
We live in a society that has been trained taught and educated to keep God in Church, or in other words to keep our ideas of God restricted to Sunday conversations and highly abstract conversations about “do gooderism.” I reject this notion entirely. God is a Producer, the ultimate Producer and all producers who produce from a moral basis are capitalists in the truest sense of the word. The problem most have with this articulation is that they accept either Marx’s flawed, materialistic critique of capitalism (knowingly or unknowingly) or they accept the collectivist notion that God and his principles are limited in their sphere and should therefore be limited in our discourse. I reject both.
Finally, I expect nothing of anyone – except that those who claim to be lovers of the truth will give my argument a fair hearing. What I expect from God is what he has promised (in both mercy and justice) and in that I’m certain I will not be disappointed.
Oh, and regarding any “negative impact” I may have had – I am unaware of any but am certainly willing to defend my actions upon my own merits without relying upon any mystical claim to divine sanction.
Thanks for the question – I look forward to more.
Hey Rick,
I just read over your discussion over God being a Capitalist with Mr. Fisher. I was a little uncertain of some things. In what context were you referring to consecration? It’s use was muddling up the rest of the argument for me and it was hard for me to follow. It would be greatly appreciate if that was cleared up. Thank you very much,
Erik
Ruble Fisher said:
“If we might substitute the words Free Enterprise for the word Capitalism? Capitalism by current definition allows the capitalist to utilize the government’s law making capacity to fulfill selfish market strategy—creating monopolies, and the destruction of competition through regulation, licensing, bonding, and application to government just to exist. There is no significant difference between capitalism and communism.
“Additionally, the current economic condition is addressed by Pres Monson in the recent conference report: ‘always remember the poor and needy among you’—a prerequisite to instituting the law of consecration by the church at least in isolated circumstances. This ‘portent of a storm’ may be the catalyst that prepares the hearts of good priesthood holders for this divine law. Harsh times and persecutions always bring out the noblest characteristics in men.”
Free Enterprise and Capitalism are exactly the same thing. No need to fear away from one word. One of the objectives of the FreeCapitalist Project is to take back the word that so many have desecrated over the decades.
The twentieth century was horrible to the concept of capitalism, the Great Depression especially taking its toll. During the 1910s and 1930s, fascism spread its awful wings over a frightened populace that abandoned God as the author of prosperity and attached that authorship to Government. This is where the “current definition” of capitalism comes into play in this discussion. But it is a false and deceptive definition. Capitalism is NOT fascism. A so-called capitalist who engages the government’s aid to either subsidize his own business or to restrict the efforts of his competition is not a capitalist. He is in fact a socialist. We can call good evil and evil good all we want in this society, but that does not change the truth. This is why the educational movements of the FreeCapitalist Project are so important. They are a renaissance or a restoration of those ancient principles, rediscovered by our Founding generation and subsequently lost again. The FreeCapitalist Project intends to restore these principles and their correct conceptions in the marketplace of ideas. It is therefore that I caution all who would rely upon conventional wisdom’s “current definitions.” That being said, it would then be a correct statement to close that first paragraph: There is no significant difference between FASCISM and communism. Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin said almost exactly the same things. (Dare I add certain American presidents of the time?)
The concept of the quote by Monson is a good one, though it seems out of context in this discussion. I can only assume that Ruble meant some inference to which he really dares not outwardly mention. Further, this statement may never have been uttered. A diligent search of the past two conference reports failed to produce a connection between President Monson and either of the two quoted phrases above. Perhaps more clarification could help the conversation.
Rick:
You may or may not recognize my name, I had a business dealing with a company associated with you, and was someone who was negatively impacted by a business dealing I had with a company that you were involved with. Over the last couple of years, my opinion of you as a person has evolved, and I have been intrigued by your life and ideas.
I have also asked myself what value you have created as a Capitalist to our society, and our economy? I do believe that you, through your teachings to your followers, exploited our banking system, which in a way, has led to it’s collapse. How do you justify taking peoples property, and not repaying them whether it is a bank or an individual? How did you justify going into debt, and teaching others to do so, when it was contrary to the teachings of the prophets just quoted?
I know personal friends that followed your principles of investing that are now in drowning in debt, bankrupt, and foreclosing on homes that were mortgaged to the hilt and overvalued. I would like an explanation of your business philosophy, and how you justify taking mens property under contractual agreement, and then don’t repay them. I would like an explanation of these things… and I promise you that I will give you a fair hearing.
Now Rick, know this, I was deeply impressed by your explanation of God being a Capitalist, I believe that completely. Not to say that Capitalism has won over God by political posturing or maneuvering, but simply because the true definition of Capitalism is Freedom, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. God is the provider of our freedom.
Our country is the first, since the Nephites to provide Freedom to men, both religious and economic, and it is astounding that men believe so deeply in the blessing of Religious Freedom, but ignore the blessing of Economic Freedom, they go hand in hand. For example, I cannot pay tithing to the church if I have nothing that is my own to tithe. Likewise, I cannot consecrate my POSSESSIONS, or my efforts if the Government “exacts” them from me before I POSSESS them. Under Socialism, the State is the provider of all of your possession’s, and you are a slave to the State. This is the evil of Socialism, and all forms of Socialism. There can be no religious freedom in a socialist society.
Capitalism is the only system that would have allowed (may not be the proper word) the church to be restored and prospered. Through the system of Capitalism, and tithing, 10% of my time talents and abilities, goes to the building up of the kingdom of God on the earth. If God requires more of me, then under the capitalist system (or economic freedom), I can chose where my time, talents and abilities go. Under Socialism, I have no choice. Therefore, how can Capitalism be evil? How can any man with an understanding of the Restoration of the Gospel believe that Capitalism and Socialism be put in the same category without being greatly deceived? The answer is IT CANNOT! If we have no Capitalism, then there is no private property, if there is no private property or ownership, there is no tithing, if there is no tithing, there is no churches, temples, missionaries, internet broadcast (it wouldn’t have been invented without capitalism), lesson materials, etc etc etc. The same can be stated about the law of Consecration, without Freedom (or under collectivist or socialist tyranny), there is no possessions to give, they are already claimed by the Government.
I can honestly say that I believe just about every word you wrote to Mr. Ruble. I say just about, because I only read it once. This is my dilemma though Rick, I believe what you teach in regards to Capitalism, but I have a hard time separating your past from your teachings. I am willing to hear your side.
The real question is when is Rick going to publish “God is a Capitalist: So Why Are Most Christians Socialists?”
Kenny, I’ll just respond to your personal questions since I think that the rest of your comments are essentially without question. If there is something I miss, send it my direction. Let’s just take your questions about my personal businesses one step at a time.
You Write: I had a business dealing with a company associated with you, and was someone who was negatively impacted by a business dealing I had with a company that you were involved with.
My Response: I’m sure you must have your own reasons for being vague here, but I cannot respond to vague assertions. I do not know what you are talking about specifically, so there is nothing to address.
You Write: Over the last couple of years, my opinion of you as a person has evolved, and I have been intrigued by your life and ideas.
My Response: Thanks.
You Write: I have also asked myself what value you have created as a Capitalist to our society, and our economy?
My Response: The value you I create “in our society” is evidenced by the personal exchanges I’ve engaged in, and their outcomes. If you’d like to inquire about specific exchanges, I’m open.
You Write: I do believe that you, through your teachings to your followers, exploited our banking system, which in a way, has led to it’s collapse.
My Response: Alright, you believe this. Fine. What response can I give? Your belief’s are your business. I firmly disagree with your belief, but since you do not state the foundation upon which you make the accusation, once again there is nothing to respond to.
For example, what teachings?
You Ask: How do you justify taking peoples property, and not repaying them whether it is a bank or an individual?
My Response: I do not justify theft, which is what yo you describe. I do not engage in such behavior, nor do I tolerate it from my friends or associates. So, once again, if you want a specific response you’re going to have to provide details. I suspect you’ve either been misinformed our you made inaccurate assumptions.
You Ask: How did you justify going into debt, and teaching others to do so, when it was contrary to the teachings of the prophets just quoted?
My Response: I do not justify going into debt. I do not teach and have not taught others to do so.
I suspect however, that by the way you are using the term you equate “borrowing money” with “debt” and define debt only in its negative context. In this regard I think you are mistaken, neither the scriptures nor the teachings of the prophets condemn all borrowing as “contrary” to any teaching or doctrine.
I have taught others that borrowing, for productive purposes, is appropriate and good (which, when I teach it, I am personally carefully to ensure I am only teaching what leaders of the Church have taught. For example….
“Investment debt should be fully secured so as not to encumber a family’s security. Don’t invest in speculative ventures. The spirit of speculation can become intoxicating. Many fortunes have been wiped out by the uncontrolled appetite to accumulate more and more. Let us learn from the sorrows of the past and avoid enslaving our time, energy, and general health to a gluttonous appetite to acquire increased material goods.” (Elder Tanner “Constancy Amid Change” Ensign, Nov 1979, 80)
It is a gross mis-characterization of Church Doctrine to suggest that the prophets have taught that all borrowing is bad, that all borrowing should or could be avoided or that those who engage in borrowing or lending are somehow intrinsically committing some sin or doing something inherently bad.
You Write: I know personal friends that followed your principles of investing that are now in drowning in debt, bankrupt, and foreclosing on homes that were mortgaged to the hilt and overvalued.
My Response: Again, this is too vague to merit much of a direct response. However I doubt that your statement is accurate. If you know friends who “followed” my “principles of investing” they would not be drowning in debt or bankrupt. Just because someone has taken a class form me, or just because someone claims to be “doing” what I taught them, does not mean that is the case. Without specifics I am at a loss to rebut the specifics but I can not imagine that you will find anywhere in my teachings ANY activity that could, if done as I taught openly and publicly, lead anyone to “drowning in debt” or to bankruptcy. There are many people, in all walks of life who are suffering right now because of their economic circumstances, and while I’m sure there are a few who have actually done business with me who “blame” me for their troubles, I’ve yet to meet one who followed my teachings and are in that same position.Most of the rumor and gossip is self-serving, and divorced from me or anything I teach.
You state: I would like an explanation of your business philosophy…
My Response: My business philosophy is public. I have published via audio, video and written media my basic philosophy. What question do you have?
You write: [I would like an explanation of] how you justify taking mens property under contractual agreement, and then don’t repay them.
My Response: I do not.
You write: I promise you that I will give you a fair hearing.
My Response: In order to give me a fair hearing, it would require that you ask questions than can be answered. The vagueness of your accusations and the lack of specifics in your questions make it very difficult to respond at all.
If you want to be fair, I’m happy to provide a fair description or response to any question you’ve raised here – but you have to provide enough detail that I can respond to the actual issue at hand.
In summary, the thing I find so inappropriate about this kind of questioning is that it is offered with an underlying assumption that the premise of your questions is valid. You, and others with similar questions, have a moral obligation to check your premise and establish some foundation for this kind of questioning or it just amounts to gossip—which leads to no real discussion at all.
Rick writes, “The concept I refer to when I use the term Capitalism (and this is not my choice uniquely) is the concept that the initiation of FORCE by one man (or group) against another (man or group) is immoral and unjust.”
I am curious whether Rick (or the others he refers to when he says this is not uniquely his definition) considers this a complete definition of Capitalism. It seems to me that the profit-seeking element typical to definitions of the word might add an interesting element to the discussion of whether capitalism (defined with this additional element) is in complete harmony with God’s law.
By asking, I am not implying condemnation of profit-seeking or taking. I am merely suggesting that that the argument may be better couched in terms of that (more complete?) element of the definition of capitalism than the one Rick offers.
And Trever – a capitalist would listen to the YouTube version of “God is a Capitalist…” and produce his own transcription!
Well, I agree that the description of capitalism as the conceptual eschewing of force is not exhaustive in its articulation. I was attempting to be brief and direct on the point.
I would say however that at least two corollary truths, follow, self-evidently, from the definition I offer. First – private property. Second, profit taking.
Why are these self-evident – well, once one thinks through the implication of the statement I’ve made, there are no alternatives. For example….
When a man uses his Human Life Value (his time, talents, health, character, personality, drive, skill, education, relationships, etc.) to create something “of value” in the material world he “owns” this thing. In the beginning he is the only one that even knows this “new” thing exists.
Notice that creating something “of value” implies a valuer. Meaning, the question becomes, “of value to whom.” At first, the creation is simply “of value” to the creator. But, once knowledge of the creation spreads, others may perceive utility in having or controlling the thing and therefore may develop a desire or want of that newly created thing.
Absent the creator discarding it as trash or complete waste (judging it to have no utility or value) thereby reducing its status back into a natural, essentially unimproved state ( a status only ascribable at this point by the creator)—the only way, asumming force (of either kind) is not an option, that another person could obtain ownership or control of the newly created thing is through barter (voluntary trade) with the creator. The only reason (meaning rational or logical calculation) any human being would do something voluntarily is if he values the exchange, or in other words judges the result of the exchange to be in his self-interest.
This is the essential description of both the principle of private property (the right to the use or control of the fruits of one’s own labor) and profit taking (the right of a man to judge the value of a thing offered to him in an exchange for his property).
So, a lot more CAN be said, but the basic definition of the philosophical foundation of capitalism is the system of human relations eschewing the initiation of force aka the system of protecting, in all social relations, each man’s individual freedom or free agency.
So I get passed Rick Koerber articles by friends and I enjoy commenting to them privately. However I’ve decided that on this issue I’d like to weigh in. I must admit that my comments are not in question form but rather points where I agree or disagree. Below are excerpt from my email to my friends:
OK. So I’ve read the whole article (I left out the comments). And I have to say that I agree with Koerber, but don’t like his phraseology (to borrower from the Music Man). To say that God is a Capitalist is just like saying that God’s priesthood is the Aaronic priesthood. Does God have dominion over the Aaronic priesthood? Yes. Is it his? Yes. Is it the full truth to refer to the Aaronic priesthood as the priesthood of God? No. Rick admits in his article that consecration is a higher form of capitalism making consecration, not capitalism, our final goal. The statement that God is a capitalist is like calling God a deacon, or a priest or an elder. If the choice were presented to God of whether his people should be a capitalist group or a consecration group, which would he choose? If God were to choose consecration, then the correct statement would be that God is a consecrationalist (is that a word?) and that he tolerates our imperfect capitalism as a preparation for consecration. This is a law of Moses vs celestial law kind of thing in my opinion. Capitalism is correct….for now,…..but given the choice God would have us be a consecration people.
I also want to point out that while capitalism may be acceptable to God and work in his plan, it doesn’t make it the celestial law. We know that the constitution was inspired by God, but is the constitution an eternal law? Did we live the US constitution in the pre-existence when we were in the presence of God? When Christ comes to reign on the earth we won’t live the constitution. Christ will be our head. When we go to the celestial kingdom we won’t have three branches. We’ll have a God head. God is eternal and celestial, when we make statements about his character (like “God is a capitalist”) we need to be sure that those statements are 1) unchanging (ie eternal) and 2) celestial in nature. God lives the celestial law, even when his children don’t. To say that God is a capitalist is to say that he is living the same lesser law that we are living. God is not a capitalist…he lives a higher form of the law. God tolerates us being capitalists.
Michael, so what you’re saying is that freedom (Capitalism) is good enough for now, but is imperfect and will eventually be replaced by…what?
Capitalism, as Rick, Ayn Rand, and others have defined it, is the absence of the initiation of force. It is freedom. The statement, God is a Capitalist, means that God eschews the initiation of force. This is an eternal principle. It is also a celestial principle. There may be other laws that we don’t know about at this time or are not prepared to live fully, but this does mean that capitalism (again, the absence of initiation of force) will someday be overridden. It will merely be added to.
http://rickkoerber.com/2008/10/27/god-is-a-capitalist-answering-ruble-fisher/
Rick,
Your personal philosophy is an incredible amalgamation of Ayn Rand and contemporary conservative Mormonism. Here is a debunking of your idea that God is a capitalist. It relies on you accepting three simple premises that would be generally accepted by any Mormon in good standing with their church:
1. Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and the de facto instrument in establishing His kingdom on earth, who received direct revelation from God regarding how His kingdom should be established.
2. Joseph Smith’s revelation from God to institute the “law of consecration” as contained in section 42 of the Docterine and Covenants was in fact inspired by God.
3. The law of consecration as outlined in section 42 of the Docterine and Covenants commands the saints to give their surplus material goods to the church to be distributed to those who are in need. Joseph Smith claimed no other revelation from God regarding the distribution of wealth among the saints, i.e., for the scope of this discussion, God never revealed to Joseph Smith that they should practice lasse faire capitalism.
Since you cannot challenge premise 1 or 2 without simultaneously discrediting Joseph Smith, I assume you will challenge premise 3 by starting a semantical argument around what consecration means and what capitalism means. Please spare the semantics.
Your definition of capitalism is lifted directly from Ayn Rand:
“Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.
The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.”
- “What Is Capitalism?” from Capitalism; The Unknown Ideal
Yet you claim that this is God’s truth? Ayn Rand is a confirmed atheist. She despises Christianity, and all other organized religion because it ends up infringing on the personal rights and property of its adherents. All churches collect money. The LDS church collects tithes with the promise that you “shall not be burned at the last day”. Sounds pretty compulsory, and pretty contradictory to your (Rand’s) definition of capitalism. Commandments are just that, a command.
I do love your Ayn Rand prophetess of God ideas though. And I understand why you try to fuse Mormonism with Objectivism. It makes you money.
P.S.
Anyone who has studied any LDS history at all knows that the law of consecration tends toward what we now define as a “socialist” rather than a “capitalist” mode for the distribution of wealth. People were commanded by God to surrender their goods to the Church, and the Church would then distribute a portion of their goods back to them and give them “stewardship” over it. They no longer had “ownership”. The church did. If you have a hard time with this concept, please read up on it. Here’s a good place to start:
http://byursc.com/pubSHarperAllThings.php#11df8950b3c8755f__edn1
Or, as Bruce R. McConkie (as you are wont to cite apostles) said in May 1975:
“The law of consecration is that we consecrate our time, our talents, and our money and property to the cause of the Church.”
Or, as Neil A. Maxwell said in May 2002:
We tend to think of consecration only as yielding up, when divinely directed, our material possessions. But ultimate consecration is the yielding up of oneself to God.”
uhhh… socialism?
And Joseph Smith (speaking on behalf of God):
And behold, thou wilt remember the poor, and consecrate of thy properties for their support that which thou hast to impart unto them, with a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken.
And inasmuch as ye impart of your substance unto the poor, ye will do it unto me; and they shall be laid before the bishop of my church and his counselors, two of the elders, or high priests, such as he shall appoint or has appointed and set apart for that purpose.
And it shall come to pass, that after they are laid before the bishop of my church, and after that he has received these testimonies concerning the consecration of the properties of my church, that they cannot be taken from the church, agreeable to my commandments, every man shall be made accountable unto me, a steward over his own property, or that which he has received by consecration, as much as is sufficient for himself and family.
And again, 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.
Therefore, the residue shall be kept in my storehouse, to administer to the poor and the needy, as shall be appointed by the high council of the church, and the bishop and his council;
And for the purpose of purchasing lands for the public benefit of the church, and building houses of worship, and building up of the New Jerusalem which is hereafter to be revealed-
That my covenant people may be gathered in one in that day when I shall come to my temple. And this I do for the salvation of my people. (D&C 42:30-36)
Aaron,
You and I agree perfectly. You stated that “There may be other laws that we don’t know about at this time or are not prepared to live fully, but this does mean that capitalism (again, the absence of initiation of force) will someday be overridden. It will merely be added to.”
This was exactly my point in comparing capitalism to the Aaronic priesthood. We still practice everything that the Aaronic priesthood embodies, but we know that God’s true priesthood is the higher Melchizedek priesthood. You can’t argue that capitalism is the end game and then make your statement that more can be added to. We are interested in the final nature of God as that is our goal.
It should be noted that in the Ayn Rand definition, ““Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.” Capitalism is BASED on recognition of rights. Capitalism isn’t just property rights, it is a social (and economic) system that is imbued with elements such as property rights. Capitalism isn’t limited to just being property rights.
Michael, I agree. God is a Capitalist, just as I am an Aaronic Priesthood holder, even though I also hold the Melchizedek Priesthood. It’s important to remember what Rick talked about above. You cannot live the law of consecration unless you are first and foremost living as a Capitalist, eschewing the initiation of force and deception. If you cannot do this, you can in no way live the law of consecration.
Aptus Unfit:
Just a couple of comments. I will leave the heavy hitting to Rick as I believe he will do a much better job at refuting your comments.
Socialism is Satan’s counterfeit to the Law of Consecration and the United Order. They bears no resemblance to each other in principle. To claim that because God ‘commands’ us to obey means that he uses force, is laughable. I assume you are LDS, and if you are you will remember that it was Satan who wanted to force everyone to be good so that not one soul would be lost. God granted unto men their agency to choose good or evil as they would. He commanded us to choose the good, but He left it up to us as to whether we would actually choose the good or not. There are natural consequences attached to each of those choices. God loves us, so he wants us to know what the law is so that we can avoid the bad consequences. Thus, the commandments. Freedom and free-agency does not mean that you are free to do whatever you want without consequences. If you choose to jump off a cliff, you will reap the natural consequences of that action. If you choose to disobey God’s laws you will necessarily reap the consequences of those actions. It is my belief that God is not an arbitrary God. The commandments he has given us are not according to His whim, but according to the Laws of Nature which even God is required to obey if he wants to remain God. In fact, God is God because he has learned to master those natural laws. He did not invent them.
I also suggest that you read Ezra Taft Benson’s remarks in his address, Stand Up for Freedom, in particular. In many of his addresses he has repudiated Socialism by name and upheld and advocated for Capitalism or the Free Market.
Perhaps what Mike Tanner and others have been trying to say is that capitalism is a necessary but not sufficient condition for God’s law. God is a capitalist, yes. But He is a lot of other things, too.
The simple absence of force and deception, while necessary, are not sufficient to “bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man,” which is God’s work and therefore presumably elemental to His law.
Rick,
In your explanation to Pete, you refer to God as “the ultimate Producer.” I am curious as to whether this statement also encompasses your view of Jesus Christ. Would you go so far as to say that the Atonement, in your mind, was an act of capitalistic production? And if so, please explain your rationale.
I’m sorry, but I’m very much with Aptus on this one. The Law of Consecration is clearly redistributionist, and thus a rational LDS member can only conclude that God is neither Capitalist, nor Socialist. You cannot put God in a box like that, no more than you can say Jesus Christ was a liberal or a conservative.
Frankly, this behavior is insulting to our Lord and Savior. God champions both personal freedoms and aid for the poor at the expense of our own profits. Thusly, I rest my case on the unique individualism of the Lord. Perhaps I shall have to write a counter-argument to Brother Rick’s theory, as it seeks to compartmentalize the Almighty.
Also, I’m confused as to why Koerber would pretend to post as someone else lauding his “humility and capacity for kindness,” his patience and inspiring qualities, etc., etc., under the fake name Alan Bylund. This term “brain off” is purely Koerber’s concoction, and then Bylund mysteriously uses it while flattering Koerber. Very suspicious. Such odd behavior strongly indicates some serious insecurity on Koerber’s part, if he feels the need to surreptitiously pat his own back.
Elizabeth, the term ‘brain-off’ has become a term that many in the FreeCapitalist Project use to denote someone who is still in the Brain-off Conspiracy. It is not used by Rick Koerber exclusively.
Also, I suggest you listen to the September 12th, 2007 episode of FreeCapitalist Radio. Rick explains very clearly what the Law of Consecration is and what it is not. Many people seem to think that it is some collectivist program. The leaders of the church have emphatically declared that it is ‘intensely individualistic’ and not collectivist (See Marion G. Romney’s May 1977 Ensign article “The Purpose of Church Welfare Services).
As Rick stated above, you must first be a capitalist, meaning not initiating force or deception in your dealings with others, before you can live the United Order. The United Order bears no resemblance to Socialism or Communism. It is NOT communistic in nature (see the same article referred to above).
God has many attributes and names and one of those attributes is that he is a capitalist as carefully defined by Rick Koerber above. Obviously, if you define capitalism differently (it is, afterall, just a word), then he may or may not be a capitalist as you define it. But Rick is correct in applying the term (AS HE DEFINED IT) to God, as God does not initiate force or deception and has given man his agency.
Aptus Unfit,
Anybody who claims that the law of consecration is anything like socialism has not studied either topic very much in depth. I suggest studying what has been said about the two concepts in the institute manuals distributed by the church, and what Joseph Smith has said about socialism, or what Ezra Taft Benson has said and written about socialism.
Here is a good start:
http://www.ldsces.org/inst_manuals/dc-in/dc-in-200-j-l.htm#l
Quick and to the point. Application is what is missing in this dialog. We are all brain off to one degree or another if we do not practice the sermon and apply it in the laboratory of life. This goes nowhere without direct application and untilzation. Apply the framework to home, work, church, and yes……everywhere else.
Yesterday I enjoyed the opportunity I had to teach my class of 13 year olds the law of consecration. It required a discussion regarding capitalism, socialism and communism. It also required a discussion regarding ownership, stewardship, and slavery. It required the teaching of rights, talents, abilities, and industry to the realization of the spirit of this law……unity among all to inherit all The Father has. They GOT IT! Some even thanked me afterward because it gave them cause to THINK, then ACT for themselves! Liberating.
It reminded me of a discussion Les McGuire had posted regarding a sermon in Sacrament meeting regarding communism.
If God is a Capitalist, and I state to the affirmative, then we will not find the answer to this debate without application. Ruble and everyone else, test the premises being promoted here as well as your own, then ask the most productive question afterwards…………HOWS THAT WORKING FOR YOU?
I apologize for sounding mean, but this article is perhaps the most absurd and badly reasoned economic article I’ve ever read. Rick repeatedly writes that “Capitalism is the concept that the initiation of FORCE by one man (or group) against another (man or group) is immoral and unjust.” This simply is not what the expression ‘capitalism’ refers to.
There are necessary and sufficient conditions to what makes it correct to say of some economic system or other that it is capitalism. That some system has as a necessary condition that force ought not be used by one party against another is not a sufficient condition to call that system capitalism. Of course, Rick apparently endorses the following:
“The capitalistic system in its inner essence, is little, if anything, more than a man’s free right to work, to choose his work, and enjoy the rewards of his efforts. In my estimation, it is a most precious thing and it is indispensable to the liberty and freedom of which America boasts.”
So, on Ricks view, the conditions that make some system or other a capitalist system are that:
(1) Force is not used by one party against another
(2) People have a free right to work
(3) People have a free right to choose their work
(4) People have a free right to enjoy the rewards of their labor
All those conditions can be satisfied by an economic system and that system will not be capitalism because capitalism by definition includes the condition that private owners participate in a market for profit.
Additionally, since Rick seems to want to hold fast to a sort of moral ideal of capitalism, a correct sketch of capitalism includes the observation or condition that all trade ought to be trade of equals. That is to say, under a capitalist system equals are traded for equals. Of course, It’s obvious that the system doesn’t work in the ideal and that people are cheated, but capitalism described in the best light includes the condition that there ought to be no cheating. In any event, profit is a necessary condition of a capitalist system, and since surely Rick doesn’t believe that one ought to cheat to get that profit, there must be some non-cheating way to generate profit.
If you don’t see the problem, then you don’t properly understand what capitalism. If equals are being traded for equals in the ideal capitalist system, how is profit (a necessary element of a capitalist system) generated? Profit is generated by another necessary condition of capitalism–a large class of folks that do not own any means of production.
This class of people–the working class–must sell their labor at a fair market cost in order to survive. Note that still, to fairly characterize capitalism, this does not violate the equals for equals principle because the fair market value of raw labor is simply the cost of the commodities it takes to replenish the laborer and keep him alive. The capitalist buys their labor-power and employs that labor-power for longer than it takes to produce the value necessary to provide the stuff necessary to keep the worker alive. The extra is profit. The worker sells his labor to the capitalist for, say, 8 hours a day. The nature of the capitalists business is such that a worker working at an average rate is able to generate the value needed to keep that worker alive after, say, 4 hours of work. The worker still has 4 hours left according to the contract he entered into with the capitalist, and that 4 hours is pure profit for the capitalist. There simply is no other way to generate profit in the ideal capitalist system. Of course, in reality its even worse (or better depending on how much God loves this system) since profit is generated by extracting value from the working class and by cheating.
Since a necessary condition of capitalism is the existence of a large class of people with no ownership of any means of production, an appropriate question to ask is how that class of people came to be. In order for capitalists to justify capitalism, a popular response is that that class of people just happens to be all the lazy people of the world throughout history. It just happens to be the case that the majority of the earth’s population is just to stupid or lazy or both to have gotten any of the earth’s means of production through the earth’s history. History, fortunately, does not support that thesis. Rather, a large class of people without ownership in the means of production is created after thousands of years of force, war, and violence, where the guy that can use the most force, gets the most land and property. Over time, land and property gets concentrated in the hands of a very few. This, remember, is all pre-capitalist. Capitalism doesn’t create a landless class. A capitalist system simply needs it in order to generate profit.
I’ll conclude with the prayer that Rick ought to say every night before he goes to bed. “Dear Heavenly Father, I thank thee for aiding kings, tyrants, dictators, and Cain for taking more than they need by violence or threat of violence. I thank thee for keeping most of the worlds land and property in the hands of a very few; for this, thankfully, established a necessary condition of thy divine economic system–capitalism. I thank thee that constitutions and statutes protect those that own the means of production from those that don’t. In Jesus’ name. Amen”
God was definitely not a capitalist as you can see below there is a vast difference between the word of God and economic concepts of capitalism which are incidentally replacing our current value systems. The effects of this will be huge and the cost to society immeasurable but it will have dire effects. Capitalism was never designed to manage social issues like relationships and friendships and now it is being applied this way, it is horrifying that an inhumane system is being implemented into very human intensive areas. Just look around you and you see it everywhere. The costs of capitalism are far reaching and it is seducing our values.
Capitalism : The New God
Trinity:
Individual Satisfaction – Father
Exploitation – Son
Purchasing power – Holy Spirit
10 Commandments
* I will make sure I maximise my profits at the cost of everything else
* Individual satisfaction must be 100% satisified even if it means I cheat on my marriage, destroy my childrens lives and end up divorced
* Exploit whoever you can for whatever you can, its survival of the fittest
* You are what you can afford
* Love thy cheap goods even if you don’t know they came from a child sweat shop
* Thou shall not worship false Gods: socialism, communism, et al
* Thou shall be faithful and not lie with another man’s wife unless our wife failed to deliver for a few days or I see someone else I want in the street round the corner, like the latest purchase from that tv store down the road I just had to have as it was 50 inches wide not 45 like the one I have already.
* Individual success and power are everything crush all enemies that stand in your way.
* Avoid giving money to charity it is rescuing and people should be responsible for their own problems even if they are not self inflicted or were originally caused by our neoliberal economic and political policies.
* Lend support to wars and support dictators if there is cheap oil or cheap access to valuable resources to be gained as our country has to be the most wealthy and powerful.
New Testament Most Important of all these Commands not love thy neighbour :
Love myself and everyone else can have the breadcrumbs that fall from my table
12 Disciples – Enablers, Message Delivery Systems, Promoters
* World Bank & IMF
* Companies that exploit developing nation producers with low and unfair prices
* Advertisements that promote materialism with irresponsible marketing messages
* Pride
* Greed
* Ego
* Vanity
* Banks that don’t support and help small businesses, yet provide huge overdraft facilities to big organisations who really do not need that support .
* Lenders who throw credit cards at people that they can’t afford to have or use
* Banks that wont lend to people who actually need the money and provide the financial support they are supposed to so these people turn to loan sharks and charge huge profitable fees for bounced Direct Debits and unauthorised overdrafts.
* Politicians with delusions of grandeur that want to control the world
* Judas Iscariot – Enlightened invididuals that try to inform people (whistleblowers)
The Evil One
Devil – Socialism and anything resembling socialist systems
Lord’s Prayer
Our Individual Satisfaction
That art all over the world
Hallowed be thy buy one get one free
Thy autumn sales come, Thy supreme shopping experience be done
On earth as it is in the stores
Forgive us for missing the winter sales and we will forgive the stores for closing on Sundays
Give this day our daily buying
Lead us into cheating, sleeping around and not looking after our children
Let us not be tempted to really care about other people
Deliver us from socialism
For thine be the kingdom, the power and the glory, for as long as we practice this awful economic concept
Amen
Note: writers note this is a criticism of capitalism in an attempt to make a few points and is no way shape or form supposed to represent the real bible and the Word of God within it.
Copyright @ Jill Barraclough 2009 Please feel free to circulate this article with the copyright notice, authors name, contact details and Note above included. Writer can be contacted @ loventruth@hotmail.com, or jillb@jillb.me , or website is http://www.jillb.me.