http://www.ldsfreemen.com/scripturaltaxation/

Gabriel

The Book of Mormon contains multiple examples of governments. If you can choose Mosiah 29, I get to choose Mosiah 23 (6,7,13):

6 And the people were desirous that Alma should be their king, for he was beloved by his people.

7 But he said unto them: Behold, it is not expedient that we should have a king; for thus saith the Lord: Ye shall not esteem one flesh above another, or one man shall not think himself above another; therefore I say unto you it is not expedient that ye should have a king.

13 And now as ye have been delivered by the power of God out of these bonds; yea, even out of the ahands of king Noah and his people, and also from the bonds of iniquity, even so I desire that ye should stand fast in this liberty wherewith ye have been made free, and that ye trust no man to be a king over you.

It does because the libertarian principle of self-ownership is a political principle. If it weren’t true, then the State could do whatever it pleased and we would have no legitimate objection. Again, it’s a principle that protects us from the State and from men, not from God.

[In Mosiah 29, the scriptures advocate selecting judges, by majority vote to judge according to the laws God had given. Since only a majority was required there were logically people who did not want to be governed by the laws of Moses (i.e. Korihor and his followers). I beleive the scriptures provide these examples as an illustration of how to govern.]

And Muslim scriptures provide examples of how to govern, and the Jewish, and the Christian, and the Buddhist. Under covenant government, that is all fine and dandy. As for the State, it cannot legitimate exercise any power not granted to it by the people, and men do not have the authority over other men to enforce their god’s law.

[The key to success of the whole plan being personal righteousness....This is not incompatible with God’s law, it is God’s law.]

I believe that is God’s law. But others don’t, and I sure don’t want them using their conception of God as justification for oppression. Do you?

[This is what I argue against. The fact that God has right of property over our bodies sets boundaries on certain human to human interactions. Man has the power to do whatever he wants, he does not however have the authority. Two property owners can exchange property how they see fit. Two renters cannot exchange property since they do not have right of property, only right of possession. I see the point you are making, I just do not believe it.]

I agree with what God has a right over, but I think you miss my point. God is just in enforcing his laws. Man is not. “By what right do men exercise power over each other?” None. Therefore, as far as man ruling over man is concerned, we own ourselves.

“Choose ye this day whom ye will serve.”. God has forbade man from forcing others to believe a certain way. My argument does not advocate that. In Mosiah 29, the scriptures advocate selecting judges, by majority vote to judge according to the laws God had given. Since only a majority was required there were logically people who did not want to be governed by the laws of Moses (i.e. Korihor and his followers). I beleive the scriptures provide these examples as an illustration of how to govern. The key to success of the whole plan being personal righteousness. Those who lost the vote were not forced to beleive anything. And the law granted them the right to advocate their belief. God grants man the right to enact laws which reject him as the only rightful legislator. If the majority in such a society select judges who will vote in favor of laws punishing adultery, only the crime is punished, not the beleif in whether it is a crime or not. I beleive the Prophets of the church were justified under this concept I have advocated, to ask members of the Church in California to vote to disallow homosexual ‘marriage’. Only a man and a woman have the right to marry granted unto them based on stewardship rights associated with the human body. This is contrary to libertarian philosophy because it does not recognize God as the soveriegn. You equating belief and action. God has never given man authority to punish people for beleiving there is no crime in adultery. He has given authority for punishing those who commit the act of adultery. This is not incompatible with God’s law, it is God’s law.

(Let me simplify what I’ve said. It is true that God owns all property. This fact relates to God and man. It is also true that man owns himself. This fact relates to man and man. In other words, man relative to God, God owns all property, man relative to man, man owns himself. You see?)

This is what I argue against. The fact that God has right of property over our bodies sets boundaries on certain human to human interactions. Man has the power to do whatever he wants, he does not however have the authority. Two property owners can exchange property how they see fit. Two renters cannot exchange property since they do not have right of property, only right of possession. I see the point you are making, I just do not believe it.

There is no conflict in these principles.

Gabriel, I should have made myself more clear. Believing God is the true owner of all property is not incompatible with being a libertarian. What is incompatible with being a libertarian is believing God is the true owner of all property and forcing everyone else into that belief. I believe this is also incompatible with God’s law. Since none of us are God, although we might believe that God, as we have conceived him, is the true owner of all property, we cannot hold others to that belief, so long as force is involved. Government is force. And libertarianism is a political theory.

[I completely disagree that God must not enter into the argument. I am not allowed to bring God into the discussion on the LDSFreeman website? The reality is God owns everything, we are his stewards, that is the truth. All other philosophies that do not include this acknowledgment are flawed and incomplete.]

I agree that all other philosophies that do not include God as the true owner of all property are flawed and incomplete. But since neither you or I are God, we cannot expect others to accept that belief, nor can we can force them to through the use of Government. Only by persuasion can we bring them into harmony with God’s law.

[Never in the scriptures or in my argument do I argue enforcing this concept via force. There are numerous examples in the scriptures mandating that government be executed by the voice of the people. The Lord even mandates it if it means people turn away from him (1 Samuel 8:7).]

If you inferred from what I said that I thought you had implied that, I apologize. But that’s where your argument breaks down. You critique Rothbard of not considering your third option, when it would be illogical to consider that third option. As Latter-day Saints, we believe God is the true owner of all property. But what right do we have to diminish or take-away the self-ownership of others, such as Muslims or Buddhists? It is by the principle of self-ownership that we can hold such a belief about God. Self-ownership is the foundation of our having freedom of conscience to believe in that conception of God.

[Libertarianism says abortion is okay. God says it is not. If man is the owner of his body, then the libertarian argument is logical (Ethics of Liberty p.97-98). If man is not the owner of his body, then the libertarian argument is incorrect. If I am not permitted to introduce God into the argument, then I am not permitted to introduce reality into the discussion. You are asking me to tie both arms behind my back in a boxing match.]

I would argue that libertarianism does not say abortion is okay. Libertarians are divided on this issue. Some believe a woman’s right to her body trumps the right to life of the unborn. Others believe the right to life trumps a woman’s right to her body. Here’s a very good article on the latter belief: http://truth.skylerjcollins.com/2009/06/reasoned-scientific-pro-life-argument.html. You are allowed to introduce God into the argument in order to persuade others into accepting your belief. You are not allowed to force God onto others through the State (unrighteous dominion, force). The entire purpose of clarifying and understanding the principle of self-ownership is to better gauge the legitimacy of laws and government actions. Laws and government action are necessarily force. You can believe that God is the true owner of all property (which I do), but to promote State action recognizing such, thereby forcing that belief on others, contradicts the very tenants of your belief system, the Gospel of Jesus Christ as restored through Joseph Smith.

[With all due respect, what I have written has pointed out a major flaw in some of the conclusions you have reached based on recent articles.]

What you have written has failed to point out a major flow in the principle of self-ownership, of which I (and others) have used to reach conclusions about government laws and actions (force). There is no flaw in the principle of self-ownership. If there were, than none of us have any rights at all, including the right to believe in a God that truly owns everything. The flaw is your own, as you’re trying to critique a secular political theory by using a freedom that that theory holds as fundamental. I’m sure you wouldn’t accept an argument from socialist Bob that god, as he conceives him, wants all of us to live under socialism with socialist Bob as dictator. We can only believe that God truly owns everything because we, relative to other men, own ourselves and minds. And the principle of self-ownership is a principle relative to men, not God.

Skyler

I completely disagree that God must not enter into the argument. I am not allowed to bring God into the discussion on the LDSFreeman website? The reality is God owns everything, we are his stewards, that is the truth. All other philosophies that do not include this acknowledgment are flawed and incomplete.

Never in the scriptures or in my argument do I argue enforcing this concept via force. There are numerous examples in the scriptures mandating that government be executed by the voice of the people. The Lord even mandates it if it means people turn away from him (1 Samuel 8:7).

Libertarianism says abortion is okay. God says it is not. If man is the owner of his body, then the libertarian argument is logical (Ethics of Liberty p.97-98). If man is not the owner of his body, then the libertarian argument is incorrect. If I am not permitted to introduce God into the argument, then I am not permitted to introduce reality into the discussion. You are asking me to tie both arms behind my back in a boxing match. With all due respect, what I have written has pointed out a major flaw in some of the conclusions you have reached based on recent articles.

Rothbard’s analysis did not consider your third option because that third option is different in each religion. Therefore, it must not enter the discussion unless the one bringing it is God himself, as he’s the only one with authority on it. In which case, God will bring the true third option among all competing third options of men.

What we (everyone on earth) consider the true third option may or may not confirm to the truth as God sees it. Therefore, no man has the authority force his conception of the third option, the eternal realm, onto others. Therefore, it logically follows, that we own ourselves relative to everyone else on earth.