Since Sir Thomas More introduced to the world the term "Utopia" in 1516, it has been used broadly across the world as a descriptor of the ideal society. Such a society is filled with peace, equality, justice, prosperity for all, knowledge, and happiness. Certainly More was not the first to conceive of such a place. Ever since the beginning of the human race, men and women have dreamed of a perfect society; they have longed to live there and make it a reality. They do so not only because they believe it would make them and others happy, but also because it strikes a familiar chord of eternal memory within their souls. They know that place; they've seen it before, though the memory is clouded.
Each of us existed before our birth on this planet as spirit children of Heavenly Parents and we lived in their presence. During that time we witnessed that kind of society made manifest in them, in who they were, how they lived, and how they associated with each other and with us. The immense goodness of such associations was part of what motivated us to leave their presence for a time and pass through mortality, knowing that mortality was the springboard that would propel us toward being able to dwell and fully participate in that eternal society. And so, amidst the sorrow, injustice, and darkness inherent in mortality, our thoughts often stray to a place filled with light, harmony, connection, and satisfaction. It is at these times of renascent rememberence that our hearts and minds harken back to the pattern we witnessed for so long at our Heavenly Parent's side, and our souls long to be there (Alma 36:22).
Until we regain that eternal society, a homesickness for "Utopia" will forever be woven into our imaginations.
A Little History
At various times throughout human history both secular and saint have sought to reconstitute ideal societies on earth. The modern versions of this pursuit can all be traced back to G. F. Hegel, a German philosopher born in 1770. The aspect of Hegel's thought that has arguably had greater impact on the world than any other is what has come to be known as "historicism." The basic idea of this term is that the entirety of human history has been a great story of continual progress. Endicott Peabody, an early member of the Progressive movement who influenced FDR greatly, summed up historicism in these words, "The great fact to remember is that the trend of civilization itself is forever upward, that a line drawn through the middle of the peaks and the valleys of the centuries always has an upward trend." This means that history itself is an unstoppable force that is constantly moving towards perfection. Thus, as we hear many Progressives say today, we can either choose to be on "the wrong side of history" or on the rights side; the choice is ours, but history will march on towards Utopia with or without us.
At around the same time as Hegel, many of the monarchies in Europe were undergoing a tremendous change. They were shifting away from having all the powers of government largely in the hands of the King or Queen to more parliamentary forms of government with separated powers. However, the Prussians and Germans managed to preserve a more centralized regime of concentrated powers through establishing a form of government that we know today as bureaucracy. This modern form of administration kept the kingly form of absolute power by hiding it in many different agencies or "drawers in a bureau." These administrative organizations had supralegal, extralegal, and consolidated power, or power that was above the law, outside the law, and contained all three forms of governmental power (See Phillip Hamburger's book "Is Administrative Law Unlawful?").
All of these things were occurring shortly after the Enlightenment, and everyone was still very excited about modern science and the power that it potentially gave them over nature. It wasn't long before people started thinking that, "if history is nothing but a continual process of change towards the better, why don't we use modern science together with bureaucratic administration to take control of the process of change to quicken it's speed towards a utopian society? If we did this, we could remake the world." This was the beginning of modern social engineering. From this union of Hegelian historicism, modern science, and modern bureaucratic administration you can trace communism, socialism, fascism, progressivism, and Nazism. Each of these political philosophies proposes a different application of the principles, but all of them have as their common goal and overarching doctrine the use of science and modern administration to create a perfect society.
For Marx and Engle the change in society could not occur without a revolution and a full abolition of the traditional elements of society. Socialism and progressivism broke from communism by pursuing the end goals through constitutional means. This approach meant that the transition would be more gradual or progressive in its nature, but it would mean less resistance and bloodshed. Though brought to pass by constitutional means, both Progressives and Socialists alike knew that their objective would mean abandoning at least large portions of constitutional government, for any government that proposes to fix all things, must also control all things. Progressives differed from Socialists only in that Progressives felt that government wasn't ready yet to take on the administrative tasks that their aims required (See Woodrow Wilson's essay "Socialism and Democracy"). So, their initial focus was on getting the Government ready to administrate the social reform.
The Plan of Salvation
Our Father in Heaven is also interested in shaping individuals and, therefore, society into a state of perfection (Moses 1:39). However, God's approach is much different. The different political philosophies referred to above all aim to use science and the power of the state to engineer people and society through extrinsic forces into perfection. God's approach is through agency. The following are three scriptures that explain, in part, the role of agency in God's plan:
"[Men and women] are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency" (Moses 7:32).
"1 And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying--Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.
2 But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me--Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.
3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;" (Moses 4:1-3).
"22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;
23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.
24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;
25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;
26 And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever. (Abr. 3:22-26).
From these scriptures and others, including modern revelation, we learn that Satan too sought a perfect world. His administration of the plan promised that "one soul shall not be lost." This would mean there would be no suffering, no greed, no inequality, no violence, no poverty, and no sin of any kind. God, however, in His wisdom was able to see through Satan's promises to see that this meant the loss of agency, which was a price God would not pay. In my mind, this is how Satan was able to convince a third of God's children to follow him in the war in Heaven (Rev 12:1-11). He convinced them that he could create a world in which no one would suffer, everyone would be comfortable and have their needs met, there would be no social classes, no inequality of opportunity, and no one would be lost. This kind of world sounds wonderful. Why not? Why not go down that road? The other version of the plan, the one with all the sorrow, all the violence and death, all the selfishness, the strong preying on the weak, that sounds like a terrible idea.
Satan, those that followed him, and many still today, even in the Church, did not and do not understand the essence of agency and thus were (are) able to be persuaded that centralized control through complete regulation by the governing body is better than Liberty. To them, sacrificing Liberty is worth it if it means that all of the suffering can be avoided. What they misunderstand is that without Liberty, without agency, the whole purpose of the plan is destroyed. There would be no possible way to accomplish its objective and the whole argument held in premortal councils in Heaven about mortal life would be meaningless. I will explain what I mean.
God seeks to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of" His children (Moses 1:39) and, through that process, to give them joy (2 Nephi 2:25). Since eternal life is God's kind of life (D&C 19:4-12), we obtain that life by living the laws and principles that He lives (D&C 93). However, the mere action of keeping the law is not enough. In order to have our natures changed to be like God's nature, and thus have the capacity to receive a fullness of happiness (Alma 41:10-11), our obedience must be infused by the power of free will. A few examples will make this abundantly clear—and here I credit Larry Arnn for these specific examples, as they are ones he uses frequently to make the case for freedom, but there are myriad others.
If you charge the enemy because your government will shoot you if you don't, that's not courage. If you're moderate about pleasure because you are living in a place that doesn't allow you the opportunity for pleasure, that's not moderation. If you give all your surplus to the poor because the government will fine or jail you if you don't, that's not generosity. Thus, the objective of God's commandments is not obedience but transformation, the transformation of our natures and our desires. If they are to shape our souls, God's commandments must be followed out of our own free will and for the right reasons. If this does not occur, the act of keeping the law is meaningless, being completely devoid of power to exalt the soul. This is where Satan and his followers went wrong. Though under God's version of the plan there would be suffering in the world and some souls would be lost, it would also unlock the power to make Eternal Beings of those that choose that path.
The Incompatibility
If we are to understand the incompatibility of socialism and the Plan of Salvation, we need to understand what socialism is. The following are the definitions of socialism from two online dictionaries compiled by a common, free dictionary app:
I will not address at this time the fact that socialism was born in Marxism and Leninism as the transitional, meaning a temporary, stage in leading a society from capitalism to communism.
Both of the definitions above state that socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production and distribution with the aim of eliminating economic inequality. In both definitions the control of the economy is placed into the hands of a centralized state. This inevitably means the economic control of some people over other people. It shifts the location of those "at the top" from being the wealthy elite to being those in the government, only now they have the full power of the state at their disposal. The individuals now in control of the economy continue to be human beings, susceptible to the same temptations as any other. Being given control over the economy "for the common welfare" does not magically make them impartial, disinterested in their own wellbeing and that of their friends and family, and not vindictive toward those they disagree with.
Because Socialism and Progressivism are based in historicism, they are predicated upon the idea that humans have evolved or progressed to the point where they are not tempted by power; those in the government will not be a danger to the governed and they will rule with only the common good in mind. This what led Woodrow Wilson to believe that it would be okay to separate administration from politics. Scientific bureaucrats would be unbiased and only serve the public good. Some will say, What of democratic socialism? Under that system, can't we still vote them out if they misbehave? This is not the case under modern bureaucracy. When was the last time you voted out the head of the EPA? The IRS? The Fed? (More to come on this)
Once socialism is adopted, the people in control of the economy will have enormous power over the rest of the society, having the ability to control every economic decision in the land. That control will not necessarily take the form of dictating to each individual directly what to do, but it will come in the form of directing what products are allowed to be available for purchase, which path businesses and industries will take, who will get licenses to produce, and how much money will be allowed to be given as compensation for work. If you don't feel your job is paying you enough, you can't leave that company and find one that will treat you better, for they will both be under the jurisdiction of the same government dictating wages and prices. It will institute the basic principle of slavery, which is "you will work and you will get in return what I say you will get." Remember, the definitions above state that government will control the means of distribution, not just production.
The Lord taught, through the prophet Joseph Smith, that "no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life" (D&C 134:2). The right to property is left out of the lists of rights made today (See FDR's "New Bill of Rights" speech and the UN's "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights"). It is crucial to understand that all power, in terms of political institutions, has at its root property. Without property, no political power could be exercised. Thus, when all control of property is placed in the hands of the government, complete power is also placed in its hands. This is why the Socialists did not think that you needed a full revolution, like Marx and Engles promoted. Once you gain control of the economy, or in other words property, you can easily control all the rest. In order for freedom to continue, the right of property must be held inviolate.
One thing that you notice when you study the Book of Mormon is how dependent the Plan of Salvation is on the presence of Freedom. Throughout that book is an ongoing struggle to establish and keep a free government. The Lord explains in the Doctrine and Covenants why Freedom must exist if the plan is to function fully. He stated that He established the Constitution of the United States "That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment (D&C 101:78). The larger the government and the more it controls through legislating people's choices, the less God is able to hold them accountable for their actions and the less people are able to "act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity."
The Constitution provided the framework to reach the right balance between protecting people's rights while still giving them the greatest personal freedom possible. It gives government vigorous power to achieve its proper ends, "to secure these rights" (The Declaration of Independence), while limiting government to the enumerated powers needed to do that. Socialism and other related philosophies have and will continue to breakdown the principles of the Constitution as a necessary prerequisite to obtain the power needed to engineer an ideal society. In doing so, many of the sins committed by the people under their regime will be laid at the feet of those who are responsible for its institution and propagation.
In Conclusion
Awhile back a friend of mine posted a video of a young man that learns the value of giving service. The video depicts the young man going through his daily routine multiple times. At various points in his routine he decides to stop and render a small act of service, either to plant, animal, or human. One of these moments comes as he encounters a poor woman and her daughter. He pulls out his wallet, looks inside and decides to give them money. After this scenario repeats multiple times, the young man again finds the woman, but she is alone. After pulling out his wallet and finding it empty, he then sees the little girl running down the sidewalk in a school uniform and a backpack, smiling brilliantly. A feeling of immense happiness then rushes over the young man, illustrating the eternal principles that giving service, giving liberally to the poor, and sacrificing for others brings true joy.
If the government under which this young man lived had passed legislation to take a significant percentage of his money directly to give to the poor, he would never have to face that moment of looking into his wallet and deciding to give. His children would also never face that choice, nor the difficulty of making that choice when their own bank account is getting low. The word "character" comes from a Greek word that means "to etch or engrave." Attributes become engraved into our character by choosing a behavior over and over and over again for the right reasons. In this case, selflessness and generosity were the attributes etched into the young man's heart. However, this would never happen if the decision were legislated for him and the money managed by a distant central government. Destroying the choice destroys the transformation and, therefore, the happiness that full agency infused obedience would have produced.
Also, if the dispensation of funds comes from a distant, impersonal source, the young girl would never know her benefactor, never see his sacrifice, and likely never feel a debt of gratitude for the gift. Soon, she would come to expect it, think it was owed to her, and feel as though an injustice were done to her if it were to cease. She would be much less likely to see the money as a sacred representation of the sacrifice and generosity of the giver. She would also be much more likely to squander the gift and much less likely to want to provide for herself in order to get out from under the burden of eating someone else's bread. Don't worry, I'm not suggesting that there should be no government aid for the poor (more on that in the next post), but I am suggesting that adopting socialism will have enormous unintended consequences. How can you create a good society, let alone a perfect one, when the basic principles being proposed inhibit the development of the very attributes that desperately need to be prevalent in each individual citizen?
Socialism diminishes the efficacy of the plan of salvation in people's lives. It prevents people from learning to be good stewards over their material blessings. It impedes people from learning independence and joying in the dignity and self respect that comes from it. It keeps people from loving others due to the distance it places between those who give and those who receive. It makes people selfish and secretive because the lack of secure property drives them to hold close what they have and hide their gains for fear they will be taken away. It removes the most consistent driver of productivity and innovation, the ability to keep the fruits of one's labor. And because economics is woven into everything, a socialist government can control every decision we make, from the light bulbs we can buy, to the means of transportation we can use, to the number of children we can have. All such a government would need to dictate those choices to us would be some pretext that would make them fall under the heading of "the common good." No decision to care for the environment would ever be made by individuals, because the government would make the choice for them. No choice of how much education to pursue or which school would be best to attend, as they would all be under full control of the government. The more collectivist the government the smaller the realm of individual freedom of action and, therefore, the less people are able to develop Christlike attributes through the transformative power of agency. In this way such governments keep people from learning to live an Eternal Life and they significantly limit their capacity for happiness.
I pray that such a condition will never overtake this country nor the liberty for which so many of its sons and daughters have given their precious blood on battlefields across the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment