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?