caffiend Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "The problem with socialism is that, eventually, > you run out of other people's money." (Lady > Thatcher)
Bumper sticker I saw last week:
"Don't like socialism? Build your own damn roads. Don't call a cop. Put out your own fires."
Pretty stupid, even by the low standards of bumper-sticker politics. Having a limited government, which would include basic infrastructure and emergency services, does not mean one subscribes to Socialism. If one is too dense to figure that out, one shouldn't be voting.
Guess what?...your "limited government" is socialism. A police force, a military, roadways, schools, etc.? Those are all paid for by tax revenue and managed by government agencies.
The debate is never about, and never has been about, whether or not we should have socialism. It's merely a question of where do we draw the line. Those who say they oppose socialism usually don't know what the hell they're talking about. What they really mean to say is that they are opposed certain forms of socialism.
"Limited Government" is a really nice catch phrase, but what does it mean actually? Limited? How much? What roles are OK for a limited government and what aren't? That debate has been going on for a very long time.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/2017 07:33PM by Strength in the Loins.
Actually for 32 years in the oil field we generally did build our own roads, put out our own fires and didn't call the cops. I enjoyed it. Ironically enough, the government made more money off the oil we produced than the company did.
Considering the world's wealthiest 1% own nearly half of the world's wealth and has been gobbling up more of the pie in recent years, I'd say we don't need to worry too much about them running out of money.
Is the temple closed yet due to safety concerns? A good prophet could have seen this all coming, and either closed the temple down in anticipation of rioting, or not built it in Venezuela in the first place. We're all running low on good prophets these days.
I caution against any schadenfreude with a possible or actual confiscation of property by the Venezuelan junta. You may dislike LDS or GM, but government confiscation of private property without actual need and just compensation is always wrong.
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." (U.S. Constitution, Amendment V)
Straw man argument, Hie. You can do better than that!
All governments, whether left or right of the political center, should maintain roads and public infrastructure, provide for public safety and national defense, a reasonable and safe regulatory apparatus, a stable currency, etc. etc. Profit seekers, crony capitalists, and special interests have shown themselves very capable of cozying up to political parties and governments of all professed ideologies. Venezuela (leftist) is an tragically extreme case; Utah demonstrates improper private-government interactions to a rightist, if lesser, degree.
"The problem with capitalism is that the wealth in not equally distributed. The virtue of socialism is that the misery is." (Churchill)
caffiend Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Straw man argument, Hie. You can do better than > that!
I didn't make any argument. I quoted a bumper sticker I saw recently.
It does make a valid point, though: we in the US have lots of socialist programs. Ones that the ranters against "socialism" use, enjoy, and pretend aren't socialist. You were part of one (police forces).
That we have them doesn't justify taking of private property without "just compensation." Of course, OUR constitution prohibits that. I doubt Venezuela's does.
By quoting the bumpersticker, I jumped to the farfetched conclusion that you agreed with it. Silly me.
Legitimate government programs (mail, infrastructure, public safety, border defense, safeguarding of civil liberties, etc.) are part and parcel of all legitimate governments, both left and right of center. Silly me, I fail to see how law enforcement is ipso facto a socialist program. In some places, it is.* In others, it is not.
*Obviously not in Venezuela. I remember Red Diaper babies used to volunteer to go to Cuba to help with the sugar cane harvest (supposedly). I wonder if any Bernie dudes are going to Venezuela to help out the Marxist-Leninists there?
"Legitimacy" is not an objective reality but an empirical one; what comprises a legitimate government in one culture differs from what is legitimate in another. The disparity in the distribution of wealth in the US would be considered illegitimate in Japan or much of Europe. Meanwhile China's legitimacy is based on economic growth and the ability of people to get rich, not on the protection of rights or public security. My point is that there is no absolute standard for what comprises legitimacy and hence that applying the US model as if it were universal is a mistake.
As for the traits you describe as legitimate functions of government, those are not even absolute in the United States. The mail is delivered by any number of different carriers, including UPS and Fedex, pursuant to court decisions stating that mail delivery is not a defining characteristic of the US government. Likewise, public safety is partly outsourced to private security forces and private prison companies; and infrastructure and border security are always negotiable. To take another example, the welfare state has become critical to the legitimacy of the United States as well as Europe. People can fool around on the edges, but watch how fast the legitimacy crumbles if anyone proposes the abolition of Medicare or Social Security.
There may be theoretical definitions of governmental legitimacy and legitimate government functions, but those break down really fast in the empirical world.
Itzpapalotl, I'm not familiar with what you mean by "the watchman philsophy." My search came up with the movie, "The Watchmen." If that's your point, I am not in favor vigilantism. Should society deteriorate to genuine anarchy, I might well change my mind.
The Boston Police (1854--"First In the Nation") are derived from colonial Boston's "Watch and Ward Society," if that counts for anything.
Lots Wife, I acknowledge that "legitimate government" is a slippery concept. We First World denizens tend to equate that with some form of representative government. For purposes of discussion, let's assume it is elected in one way or another, and the political ideology and economic structure may be left or right of political center.
That said, a government should provide for certain functions, either by executive & administrative agencies, or by supervised delegation. Thus, prisons may be private enterprise, but should be overseen by the appropriate government agency. Same with alternate mail services (FedEx, UPS), who operate under Common Carrier statutes. Road crews are usually paid for by contractors, not a government check. I don't think we're disagreeing.
All these should be maintained, directly or by oversight, by socialist and free-market governments alike. Venezuela is obviously a failed state.
The topic, though, was confiscation in Venezuela and its possible relevance to the LDS Church. Given that focus, and the reality that what is legitimate government action in one country is illegitimate in another, your reference to US beliefs and the US constitution is off the mark. So I'm basically following you away from the OP.
The question of confiscation is a good example. We would agree in general that confiscation without compensation is a bad thing. But in specific cases such confiscation can be a very positive thing. This was true, for instance, when the US occupation forces in Japan and Germany and "advisory" forces in Taiwan and South Korea radically reallocated assets to create a foundation for democracy and capitalistic development. It would also be true if a new government in China or Russia denounced kleptocracy and repossessed assets that were acquired illegally but with government acquiescence or support. These are such egregious violations of the principles of democracy and efficient economics that they have to be corrected before the ownership of assets in fact merits government recognition.
But yes, Venezuela is a failed state. And returning to the OP, there is probably some chance that the LDS church could lose some of its property although that probably wouldn't do much to fill the government's coffers.
As I remember, the Church pulled the non-Venezuelan missionaries out of Venezuela around three years ago. I thought the temple was closed as well, but they have a schedule posted for the Caracas Temple.
The mormon church is supposed to be a charity and is funded by charitable donations. If people are starving while others are focusing on spiritual enlightenment despite the other people who are starving, then everyone misses the mark. Take the temple away from the church and turn it in to a feeding center for the hungry. Which decion would Jesus take? I generally don't agree with the seizing of private property. But all of the seized assets would have originated from charitable donations and should be used to benefit people, not as much to enrich the corporation of the president of the mormon church. By the way, how much hs the church done so far to help Venesuela? What better use of those assets is there, than to feed the hungry who really need to eat now?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2017 06:20PM by azsteve.