What is theopolitical economics? Honestly, I came up with the word. From my continual reflections and meditations on truth, I discovered a relationship between government, religion, and economics, and wanted a term to describe this relationship. “Theocratic economics” would be a more accurate derivation, but the term brings to my mind the economics of a government ruled by religion; “political” seemed more appropriate to what I was trying to say.
The purpose of this blog is: freedom of speech; in two ways a) to try to provide people with my perspective of things, and b) to hopefully obtain the perspective of others. As Walter Litman put it, “If we truly wish to understand why freedom is necessary in a civilized society, we must begin by realizing that, because freedom of discussion improves our own opinions, the liberties of other men are our own vital necessity…This is the creative principle of freedom of speech, not that it is a system for the tolerating of error, but that it is a system for finding the truth…That is why civilized men must cherish liberty—as a means of promoting the discovery of truth.” In other words, in my search for truth, it becomes necessary that I hear your opinions and perspectives. Thus, this blog is to share the truths that I have discovered, and hopefully, as a catalyst for obtaining more truths from others. All I ask is that you be cilvilized in your critiques, and to respect my right to believe in what I feel is true.
To kick off the opening of this blog, I present a portion of a post I originally wrote regarding the discovery of this relationship:
“Let me start with a conversation I overheard at work. One person was talking about how he felt religion is ‘unnecessary.’ He made the argument that, sure, 2000 years ago it was, with ‘Thou shalt not kill’ and stuff like that, but today, it’s not necessary. That got me thinking about a lot of things. If religion is so unnecessary, why are people still doing things they shouldn’t do? Sure, it’s not good to kill people, or to commit adultery, or to steal, but people are still doing these things. Two thousand years since the Savior formally established His Church on this earth, and the human race still hasn’t learned anything.
“Another idea was: why should we be good to people? Why do they deserve to be treated kindly? Because their people, was the first thought that came to me, but what does that mean? Does it mean that we shouldn’t be good to animals, or plants? Do they have rights to? Should it be a crime to kill cows, or chickens, or weeds? Why is it that we should be allowed to kill them, and not kill humans? Is it because we’re more highly evolved? Honestly, if we want to go with evolution, then no one deserves to be treated kindly. If you can’t handle it, you must be a lower life form, and deserve to die. Natural selection. Survival of the fittest.
“I was listening to an MP3 CD of W. Cleon Skousen’s The 5000-year Leap, which describes 28 principles of freedom that the Founding Fathers discovered, and tried to build into the Consititution. I thought about the question in a different way: who gives people rights? Why do they have a right to life, and who gave it to them? The Constitution? If so, does that mean we can kill foreigners who are not under the Constitution?
“I answered my own question, and made an amazing realization in the process. Who gives people rights? God does. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men…are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” What makes us more important than cows, chickens, and weeds? We are children of God, His literal offspring, made in His image, and capable of becoming like Him. It seems to me that, without this concept, rights mean nothing. It seems there is a relationship between religion and government.
“Skousen’s book was very intriguing. It talked about how morality is necessary for a free people. As James Madison put it, ‘If men were angels, no government would be necessary.’ We could have anarchy. Everyone could govern themselves, and no one would infringe the inalienable rights of another. But men are not angels. If men were devils, then they would try to take every opportunity to infringe these inalienable rights. This would necessitate a government of masters and tyrants over these devils, in order to keep them in check. But most men are somewhere in between devils and angels, so a government somewhere between anarchy and tyranny is required. This is what the Constitution is all about. Government is tied to religion because both are about human nature.
“This, along with following Peter Shiff’s blog (who predicted this economic recession two years before it happened, and people still aren’t listening to him—reminds me of Joseph Smith in a way), has made me become interested in the relationship between government and religion, and in free-market economics as well. Now, I don’t know too much about free-market economics other than the basic concept of supply and demand, so I’ve decided to read the supposedly definitive work on free-market economics: The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, printed just a few months before the signing of the Declaration of Independence. I’ve started reading it, now that I’m up to date with the Fablehaven and Leven Thumps series. So far, I’ve only read the Introduction, and learned some incredible things.
“It seems that lot of people think that people who want to make a profit are greedy and evil. Adam Smith has a different viewpoint. ‘It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.’ Think of it: when you go to the baker to buy a loaf of bread, he made it not out of benevolence, but out of his own self-interest; he wants to make a profit. In other words, your dinner was supplied by his self-interest.
“This goes back to government and Carl Skousen’s book. ‘The proper role of government is to protect equal rights, not provide equal things.’ ‘Life and liberty are secure only so long as the right of property is secure.’ When Turkey went communist, the government took land from wealthy farm owners, and gave it to peasants. Of course, the peasants were happy that they got land for free, but later on, the government repossessed their land, and made government communal farms. The peasants demanded that they had a right to that land, but if the government took it away from the original wealthy owners, they can take it away from those peasants. Those peasants who would not keep quite lost their liberty, and some of them their lives. It seems a government that can take away property rights becomes tyrannical. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
” ‘We have learned by sad experience that it is the disposition of all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.’ ‘The rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and…cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness. That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.’
“It seems that priesthood is very much related to government, another theo-political connection. John Locke, who heavily influenced the founding fathers, seems to have shared this concept of the people holding the power of government, and that legislators who become tyrannical are absolved of the authority given to them from the people. ‘The reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of their property; and the end why they choose and authorize a legislative, is, that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the members of the society, to limit the power, and moderate the dominion, of every part and member of the society: for since it can never be supposed to be the will of the society, that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designs to secure, by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making; whenever the legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence. Whensoever therefore the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society; and either by ambition, fear, folly or corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands.’
“I also learned why property rights are necessary for a good economy. Communist economies seem to have not done very well, historically. Russia’s was never very good, and the reason why China is doing so well is because they moved to a more capitalist economy (and they had a good transition system). I also found out that Jamestown was an experiment in communism. The Virginia Company founded a group of people to go to America, and start a settlement. But there were two requirements: a) no property rights, and b) a leader would hand out jobs to people. This is essentially communism. Jamestown nearly failed, until they switched to a free-market economy. The Virginia Company also founded the pilgrims who arrived in Plymouth, with the same stipulations. Since the pilgrims were Christians, everything should work out, shouldn’t it? As it turns out, the pilgrims nearly starved as well. Luckily the Indians helped out.
“So what happened? Thankfully, the leader of the Pilgrims kept extensive historical records. Apparently, under the communist system, people would come into his office, and say that they couldn’t work because they were ill, or their back was hurting, or something else, and the harvest was meager, because hardly anyone was working. So he decided to scrap the communist economy, and said that everyone will eat what he grows. He gave them property rights. Suddenly Plymouth flourished.
“Why do property rights matter for prosperity? Because without them, there is no incentive to work harder. A couple that owns their own home will maintain it much more than a couple who is renting their home from a landowner. I see this in myself: my room is pretty clean, but I don’t really clean the kitchen because it isn’t really “mine.” I’m trying to work hard at ARUP because the job was not guaranteed to me by the government—I had to get it myself. This is the problem I saw with many people on my mission who were living off of the government. They would never read The Book of Mormon or come to church, but they didn’t have a job. Instead, they would watch satellite TV on their big-screen plasma TV that they were renting, which was in the living room of a home that was falling apart, while smoking their cigarettes and drinking their beer. They had no incentive to work harder—the government was giving them their TV, food, rent, and beer for free. What else did they need? Certainly not the restored gospel. I told myself that I would never become like that, and it worries me that the government is just giving money away, especially in significant amounts to companies that are failing.
“So it seems that economics, government, and religion are all interrelated, because they all deal with human nature.”
