I’m not sure why the lack of feedback either! Perhaps when it was new, few saw it. Perhaps others look at the use of supply-side economics and think “Political!” when, at the same time, they view Keynesianism or Marxism as “academic”….

Yes, WordPress is free.

Why NOT write about it? I’m sure you can add to the discussion!

I think I have ALL of those books!

I KNOW I have President Benson’s book. He’s a political hero of mine!

I think President Benson’s attitude to the Birchers and the “Freepers” (www.freerepublic.com and like web site afficionados) is similar to Milton Friedman’s attitude toward anarchists (and mine toward both): While I’m not willing to go quite that far, we should be moving in that direction!

The first is an hour read by Pres. Ezra Taft Bensen: “The Constitution, a Heavenly Banner.”

Second: “The Creature from Jekyll Island.” (Griffin) LINK

Third: “Hope and Tragedy” (Quigley) LINK

-David

I agree. Frederic Bastiat called it, “Legal Plunder.”

Government comes from the people, it has no more rights than the people give it. When it becomes its own living entity and begins social engineering (re distributing wealth etc.), it has becomes opposed to the purpose for which is was created, and the Declaration of Independence holds a remedy for that.

Rights come from God. One of the rights we have is to keep the rewards of our labor (otherwise we are slaves), known as wealth. And when the government takes more from us by force than is required to protect the rights of the individual, it is stealing.

-David

That is a GREAT question about who owns the dollar! Let me try to answer it.

People’s opinions about it differ; Pennsylvania, for example, has as part of its Constitution to the effect that ALL resources were owned by ALL the people–the government, of course, being the trustee. As I’ve observed, whenever the government decides that they need more money for various projects, they seem to have the attitude that we have no right to object to ponying up, as the money was never ours to begin with.

To an extent, that is a truth, because everything belongs to its Creator, and we didn’t create this universe. But then, according to many libertarian types, neither did government!

I think that it is pretty obvious that I agree with those “many libertarian types”–for the most part. This, though, is where things get confusing: It was the government that created the dollar bills, but WE created government. Thus, the argument continues.

There IS a way out of the confusion, though, I think. When we go to work, are we ultimately working for money? Or what money buys? I believe that it the latter. Thus, money doesn’t hold value, except insofar as it represents real wealth.

Government doesn’t create wealth, but then, that’s not its job; that is to make it easier for us to create wealth. That includes protecting us, because it’s harder to create wealth while we’re being victimised. And part of that protection is taking some reasonable actions to protect us from “negative externalities” like pollution.

(As you can see, I’m NOT an anarchist! )

Moreover, I also believe that wealth belong to those the creator assigns ownership rights to–and so on down the line of ownership. Property rights are necessary to wealth creation, and I believe that the Creator assigned ownership rights of our stewardship of earth’s resources!

Do I make sense?

When I earn a dollar does it belong to me, or am I just the chattel of the government and it is really their dollar, and they will decide how much money I can keep (use)?

And when I have a dollar in my hand is that paper dollar a sign of a credit or a debit? And when you can understand that, the door is open.

-David

I know that it was “tribute (not tax!),” but the principle is still the same: Getting the most revenue. The US government’s euphamism, “voluntary compliance” simply hides the fact that both taxes and tributes are obtained at the point of a gun. As the economist Walter Williams put it: Guess what would happen if we didn’t pay our taxes….

You are quite right that people resent subjugation, but I would dispute that guards would have been necessary. Being left alone and paying no tribute is hardly subjugation!

Mosiah 19:15 tells us that, except for delivering up King Noah, the tribute was the only term of the subjugation. I saw no mention of the normal trappings of subjugation, like the Nephites being drafted into the Lamanite army, or being forced to work in the Lamanite fields at little or no pay. I’m human, though; I may have missed it.

In 1848, the USA conquered what became the States of California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico. As the Lamanites did with the Nephites, the USA generally left the erstwhile Mexicans alone, but unlike the Lamanites, the USA inflicted zero tribute. The USA found it unnecessary to post guards to prevent them from leaving–and not paying tribute. You may recall that, once the Nephites did leave town, the tribute payments stopped.

Hence, if the tribute were zero, there would be no need for guards, because the Lamanites otherwise left them alone.

Do I make sense?

I said that the Book of Mormon can’t be used in support of supply-side economics, not that supply-side economics doesn’t work (though, admittedly, i am a skeptic about that particular economic theory).

Why did the Lamanites take 50% and not 100%? The simplest solution is not because they believed in supply-side economics, but because they could think ahead two or three moves and didn’t want to kill the geese that were laying the golden eggs—if the People of Limhi had had 100% of everything taken from them, they wouldn’t have been able to eat and would have starved to death, resulting in a net loss to the Lamanites of 100% of the tribute (not tax!) they levied.

And i daresay that the Lamanites would have probably had to post guards even if the tribute levy had been 0%—human history, and particularly the history of the Israelite people, is filled with people hating being under subjugation to even a benevolent power.

I note that you are an English professor at UCF. I live about 50 miles away, and do most of my econ teaching in Tampa.

Of course taxes in Book of Mormon times aren’t the same as taxes in modern times! If my main point was a specific critique of a particular tax, then your issue might be justified.

However, my point is only tangential to modern tax policy (which was why I didn’t say much about it!), and the principle is still the same, whether we deal with Book of Mormon, modern welfare states, or any other tax policies: the higher the tax, the more people try to avoid or evade those taxes. While MOST people would probably pay increased taxes, at some point, enough people would stop paying them (or at least pay not as much) to make tax increases not cost-effective.

The Lamanites knew this, even if most modern people do not. That was why they only took 50% of the Nephite wealth instead of 100%, while we elect people who are promising increased taxes along with increased government services. As it was, the Lamanites had to post guards to prevent too much of a drain of the economy.

A modern parallel would be the UK’s “Brain Drain” from the 1950′s to the 1970′s. The British, too, found that high, progressive tax rates demotivate the most productive.

I’m not sure what you mean by “the Laffer curve doesn’t actually work.” If you mean that the Laffer Curve is an oversimplified approximation of reality, you may be right. The exact shape and optimal tax rate described by the Laffer Curve varies with price elasticity of government. That optimal tax rate would be higher the less elastic government services are. That elasticity, of course, varies; during war time, for example, the elasticity would often be less than that of peacetime.

However, taking that into account would have over-complicated the picture. Estimates of price elasticity of government range from a low of 0.3 to a high of 3.0. Taking the “middle ground” of unit elasticity between extremes seemed reasonable; I could more easily illustrate the concept without resorting to calculus and more complicated mathematics. I can do the maths, but, as most people cannot, why add confusion?

On the other hand, if you mean that the Laffer Curve and supply-side economics are totally bogus, we are still left with the question at the title of this blog entry: “Why not all?”

If supply-side theory is wrong and people will pay whatever the powers that be demand, the Lamanites could have easily enslaved them all and taken every whit of the Nephites’ wealth–and avoided the extra costs of guarding Lehi-Nephi.

That would have the logical thing to do–yet the Lamanites did not do it. Why? I could find nothing else to explain this but supply-side theory–that is, for those of us who accept the historic nature of the Book of Mormon.

(Well, and the Laffer curve doesn’t actually work. But you probably already knew that.)

When you read the anti-war sections of the Book of Mormon are you going to take pot shots at the Republicans?

Furthermore, that 20 percent is not going to the benefit of our enemies. It is going to provide services that are politically popular, the biggest being national defense, Social Security, and Medicare. You may not be a fan of everything the government does, but Americans, not Russians, Iranians, or Venezuelans, are the ones setting the tax rates and deciding how to spend the revenues. The situation is just not comparable to that described in the Book of Mormon.

Incidentally, when I come to an apologetic website, I don’t expect to see permabloggers taking gratuitous pot shots at faithful members of the church. Or has this become the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Republicanism?