In both Moses and 4th Nephi we read of a Zion society. A particular component is that “there was no poor among them.” How do you get to where there are no poor among them? I’ve asked for a real-world social/political/organizational implementation of this. Below is a synopsis of many of those conversations.
A: How do we implement a society where there “are no poor among us?” What would that look like? What does that even mean?
B: Well, everyone would have everything they need.
A: How? Would everyone work so hard that they would make enough money to buy all the food they need, houses, clothes, etc.? What about those who are crippled, mentally handicapped, or too old or too young? To keep things simpler, let’s just talk about financial needs right now.
B: Those that have more than they need would take care of and provide for those who don’t have enough.
A: So, if you saw someone whom you thought needed something, you would just give them money? There are probably a lot of people that I don’t see very often and so wouldn’t know that they need help, and I can’t give a whole lot and still cover my own needs. How would someone take care of expensive things? A lot of people giving them? So if you need money, you have to either hope that enough people recognize your need, or you have to go begging for it?
B: You could have a pool of money that everyone contributes to, and then that would cover people’s needs. There would be enough for the larger expenses that some other individual may not be able to pay on behalf of the needy person.
A: If you needed money, you would just go to the big box and take what you needed? This seems to open it up to a lot of abuse. We can always come up with some sort of “need” that a few extra monies could help with.
B: You’d have to have some sort of administrator to determine who got the money, and how much they got. Some sort of organization to keep things orderly and make sure that it was given out fairly.
A: How are we going to choose who that person or group is going to be? What are the rules to determine what is “fair”? Who gets to decide those? These issues start becoming really complex, really fast. There are a lot of layers that have to be decided and agreed upon.
For example, what if I don’t agree with the decisions of whomever is “in charge”. I’m going to stop giving and revert back to helping only those that I view as being in need of help, reducing the effectiveness and ability of the welfare system. It is pretty much guaranteed that everyone is going to be frustrated at some distribution at some point. If enough people withdraw, or the system doesn’t get enough buy-in to begin with, then we are back to before there was anything set up. Actually, potentially worse off. Because you have to account for the time and costs of trying to get the system running, the shift in perception towards an organized welfare system, and the hurt feelings of those who participated.
B: We could just pay for it out of taxes, then we don’t have to worry about those issues.
A: Taxes! We have already seen the problems with tax based welfare systems in the world we have now. How would that work in a society striving to eliminate having “poor amongst them”? Let’s explore taxes as funding for the welfare program.
B: Ummm... ok.
A: What are taxes?
B: Money you pay the government.
A: Why?
B: Because you have to. It’s the law.
A: So? What if I don’t want to? What if I think that they are unfair or unjust? What if I don’t agree with how they are going to be spent?
B: You still have to pay them or you could go to jail. Or they could just garnish your wages.
A: So, taxes are essentially money that the government forces me to give them, that I would not otherwise voluntarily give, under the threat of force or violence.
B: Well, no... ummm...
A: If there were no threats of punishment, would you pay taxes? If, come April 15, you knew that you could completely ignore it, would you still fill out the forms and send off a chunk of money?
B: Probably not.
A: So taxes are theft.
B: No they aren’t...
A: Ok. [We are at lunch in a cafeteria] I’m looking around and it is pretty obvious to me that that guy over there needs food. Go give your food to him.
B: Wait, what?!
A: Go give your food to him. Now.
B: No. It’s my food. Besides, he already has food.
A: But not enough. Give him your food.
B: No. He has plenty off food. He doesn’t need my food.
A: I have determined that he is food deficient and you must rectify the situation by giving him your food. I’m going to take your food from you and go give it to him.
B: No you aren’t!
A: I’m going to beat you with this chair until you let me take your food over to him. And if that isn’t enough, I’m going to get some of the people around us to hold you down while I take your food to him.
B: What the heck are you talking about? That isn’t fair! He doesn’t need my food and that would be assault and stealing!
A: How is this any different than taxes?
B: You aren’t the government! No one gave you power to do that!
A: So, If I could get enough of the people around here to say that I am the government, then I can take your food or beat you or hold you down if I felt like it? Remember, this is only for the good of that guy over there.
B: That’s not how it works! That is acting like a tyrant. It doesn’t matter how many people you convince to let you do that, it still isn’t right.
A: How is this any different than taxes? A bunch of people in a geographic area declare that some people and organizations are empowered to come in and take property of others and then use it as they see fit. Any resistance to these actions are met by overwhelming threat and violence. This is exactly how the income tax and welfare tax schemes work; just on a much larger scale than some guys here in the food court ganging up on you. As Rothbard says: “The government is just a gang of thieves writ large.”
Even if we stick with the food court example, what are the effects of this “charity” that I’m enacting. How do you feel about it?
B: I don’t know that I agree with your characterization of the government and taxes. Of course what you are doing isn’t “charity”: you are beating me up and stealing my property and then giving it to some other guy.
A: So you have issues with the method of collection. What are your feelings towards the person who is receiving the benefit of your generosity?
B: Can’t say that I’m going to be very pleased with him. He’s taking goods stolen from me for his own use.
A: What do you think his feelings towards you are going to be?
B: Does he even know that the food originally was mine? Does he know I only gave it up under threat?
A: No. He’s receiving it from me. I’m the one delivering it to him.
B: He’s going to thank you. He doesn’t know anything about me, so I don’t think he’s going to have any feelings about me.
A: Regardless of these feelings, we have now solved the problem of “no poor among us”, right? There was a person in need, you had the means of suppling his wants, so everything is good. Obviously, all we have to do is implement this system on a large enough scale, tweak it so it is efficient, and we will soon be on our way to a Zion society.
----
This obviously doesn’t solve the poor dilemma. At this point person B is angry that I besmirched the government and taxes, but doesn’t have any response other than grudgingly admitting that he can’t discern the differences between taxation and theft, so somehow I must have pulled a fast one over on him somehow. No one believes that a zion society could possibly result from a tax supported welfare system that seems to be based upon violence and robbery. The issue seems insurmountable and confusing.
The problem is, all of these issues have been addressed and argued by many people for thousands of years. The answers are also clearly stated in the scriptures, if you know how to recognize them, which mainly consists in looking for them with a basic understanding of gospel doctrine, economics, and an understanding of agency. If we seek for the actions that will most enable us to become “agents unto ourselves” and to “be actors, not to be acted upon” in a pursuit to become like our father, the answers are all clearly available.
The Book of Mormon in particular clearly lays out the problems, gives solid historical examples, clarifies the theory behind both the satanic impulses and drives of men and the divine desires, and then tells us how to implement them. The greatest difficulties seems to lie in the the fact that most people have no interest in finding these things. The gospel is for “churchy” things, right? Searching the scriptures for such secular and mundane teachings is almost borderline blasphemous. It takes so much work, and they don’t have training or aren’t taking a class on those subjects. Besides, the answers so clash with so-called mainstream political and social views, that they almost can’t recognize them anyways.
If we truly desired a Zion society, wouldn’t we strive to become knowledgable in all these areas? Wouldn’t we be consumed with knowing the principles and theory behind godly governance and social structure? As long as we remain willfully ignorant, there can be no wonder that the demonic society we live in runs rampant over everything we hold dear and then stand in baffled amazement losing battle after battle.
