The first question Mary asks is whether God has ever intervened in the monetary and economic control of society.  While I think “control” may not be the right word, I understand the intent of the question, and the answer is yes.  By inspiring the founding of the United States as a republic, God knew that it would result in a free market capitalist society.  Any time a true republic is in place in a society, capitalism is the resulting economic system…that is, until we screw it up.

Capitalism has gotten a bad rap over generations by those who oppose it (those who, in my estimation, have nefarious intentions).  We have been conditioned to associate capitalism with rampant greed and lawlessness; however, nothing could be further from the truth.  I won’t go into long exposition of capitalism here, but suffice it to say that when the laws of a society are properly founded on truth—that is, when they recognize the supremacy of our creator and the nature of our creation as equal with one another—there can be no room for unbridled greed.  Well, in fact greed can certainly still exist, but it cannot exist at the expense of the rights and liberties of individuals in society.  So as long as an individual (a business person, let’s say) respects the equality of his fellow citizens and does not engage in practices that give him/her unjust advantage over them (i.e. making him/her superior to his fellow citizens), then (s)he can be as greedy as (s)he wants.  It may not be the most Christian attitude, but we’re not talking about legislating Christianity, only equality.

So, in that sense, God has definitely intervened in monetary and economic “control” (influence is probably a better term), at least as much as He is able to exert and still respect the agency that is inherent to our intelligence (it can’t be taken away, even by God).

Mary’s comment that “we have the best economy in the world” couldn’t be more right in my mind, and that strength is a direct result of the constitution of our nation (meaning the establishment, not the document) as a proper republic.  The founding fathers were inspired by our Creator in that constitution (as the resulting documents reflect), but they weren’t perfect, so they were incorrect in a few key definitions that have opened the door for attacks against our constitution.  That’s why it’s necessary now to establish the kind of organization of which the Higher Law speaks.  The “best economy in the world” is crumbling quickly under the weight of entitlement programs, special interest demands, back-room political dealings and other secret works that are all designed to set man unequal to man.  They are programs and systems that cannot be sustained, and yet the infrastructure that imposes these systems on society is so deeply rooted and engrained and so secretive in its origins and intents that no normal political process can derail it.  That system is what the scriptures refer to as “the Beast.”

Lastly, whether she knows it or not, Mary summarizes the purpose of the Higher Law beautifully:

I think it all comes down to being honest in your business, with others, and developing your talents so that you can provide for your family. It is within the family that we are able to grow and develop our talents. Teach your kids to work hard and within our society there are ways to succeed. The “beast” won’t have a chance if future generations are taught correct principles while they are young.

I couldn’t give a stronger “AMEN!” to any statement.  Here’s the only problem…

It’s apparent that Mary is part of a community that still understands and believes the things she says.  She has probably (I hate to make assumptions) grown up in a family that believes those things and taught her accordingly.  Unfortunately, an ever growing majority of the world does not understand, embrace or even accept what Mary understands.  Even right here in the United States the tide is turning against this way of thinking.  The notions of “family,” “equality,” and “correct principles” are facing threat of extinction—some more perilously than others at present—if nothing is done about it.

God, in His infinite wisdom, knew this time would come.  That’s exactly why He prepared the Higher Law, including the time and means of its advent, from the beginning, long before the establishment of the United States or even the creation of this world.  So from that perspective, maybe it’s not so far-fetched to think that it could, in fact, be true.  The Higher Law is not a message to LDS people, or Christian people, or even religious people; it’s a message to all people.  And it’s not an LDS message to all people, or a Christian message to all people, or even a religious message to all people; it’s an equality message to all people, a message of truth to all people regarding economic and political institutions and practices.   Such a message cannot come from a religion or religion in general because it simply would not be given objective consideration by the broad audience for which it was intended if it was associated with any one religion or religious creed.

So to revisit Mary’s initial question, the answer is actually “yes, but…”  God indeed has intervened in monetary and economic systems of the world throughout history, or has at least tried to as much as the citizens have allowed Him to; however (a fancy “but”), most important isn’t a look back at history, but at the present and to the future.  God’s involvement hasn’t been as apparent, perhaps, in the past because, according to His own designs and plans, it simply wasn’t yet time for it.

The Higher Law is evidence that that time is now.

My daily Book of Mormon reading is currently in the book of Helaman.  This morning I was effectively slapped in the face by one of the most obvious examples we have in scripture illustrating the difference between prophets who are called and given the gift of prophecy for the delivering of important instructions and messages, and prophets who are similarly called, but also have the mantle of ecclesiastical authority for the administration of the ordinances of salvation.  Granted, there is a thin line between them, which is why in the case of the former, the Lord always calls someone righteous and obedient enough not to overstep it.

Beginning in chapter 13, just prior to the chapter title, it reads as follows:

The prophecy of Samuel, the Lamanite, to the Nephites. Comprising chapters 13 through 15 inclusive.

Then, in the actual heading for chapter 13 it speaks of Samuel’s prophecies to the Nephites concerning their impending destruction if they do not repent.  The pursuant chapters tell the story of Samuel’s calling by God, the assignment he is given, his prophecies about the birth of the Savior, the destruction of the Nephites, and the subsequent reaction of the Nephites.

There is much to be learned from these chapters regarding the nature of the calling of prophets and God’s methods and order of delivering important messages to His children.

In the opening verses of Helaman 13, we learn that Samuel was already a righteous man because, as far as we know, he took it upon himself to preach repentance to the Nephites.  Being a Lamanite, he obviously had become converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ and was more than likely led by the Spirit to begin preaching repentance.  The point of all this is that Samuel was obviously a righteous man and obedient to the direction he was given by the Holy Ghost.  For a Lamanite to place himself, for the sake of preaching repentance, in such peril among those who were historically the sworn enemies of the Lamanites must have taken exceptional courage and faithfulness.  Surely he must have thought that his very life could be in danger, but he went anyway.

Meeting with no success in spiritually reaching the Nephites, however, he decides to return back to his own land; but the Lord has other plans for him.  In verse 3, the Lord speaks to him and tells him to return to the Nephites and prophesy according to the dictates of the Spirit.  Being obedient, Samuel returns.  He is turned away at the gate, so to speak, meaning that he isn’t even allowed to enter back into the city.

Samuel knows he was given a divine charge, however, so he doesn’t just give up and leave.  He climbs up on the wall of the city and shouts the message he is given by the Lord to the Nephites.  In the end, some of them believe him, but most of them get angry and actually try to kill him before he jumps down and flees, never to be heard from again as far as we know.

Now, this isn’t intended to be recounting of the story of Samuel, but rather an illustration of an important point of understanding.  The interesting thing to note here, at the end of Samuel’s part of the story (as we read in chapter 16) is that those of the Nephites who believe him seek to be baptized, but who do they seek out?  Not Samuel–the prophet who delivered the message that led to their conversion–but Nephi, the prophet who held the authority to perform the ordinances of salvation.

So this becomes a pretty obvious example (one of many, I would argue) that the Lord calls whomever He will when He needs them and by whatever means He deems necessary.  Their calling is always given explicitly, including the constraints and limits of their authority.  Though these chapters don’t explicitly record what the Lord said to Samuel in calling him, it’s safe to assume that either he was told very explicitly and those specific instructions were simply abridged out of the Book of Mormon record that we have (it is an abridgement after all, don’t forget), or at least that Samuel understood the nature of his own calling and the limits of his own authority.  These assumptions are safe to make because he at no time tries to gather followers to himself, he does not invite them to be baptized by him, and when the converts seek to be baptized, he is nowhere to be found (as far as the record shows).

So what do we learn from this story?

At this particular time in history, there were at least two prophets: Samuel and Nephi.  Only one of them—Nephi—had authority to baptize and administer the ordinances of the gospel.  Samuel understood this.  Still, Samuel’s calling was as a prophet.  He was specifically called and given authority to deliver a message to the world (specifically the Nephites).  This is not a case of someone receiving the gift of prophecy for their own benefit; this is a very obvious case of someone being given a stewardship that pertains to a broader collection of God’s children, but is still limited in scope not to include religious ordinances.

Now, it’s pretty apparent that Samuel’s message was very much “religious” in nature.  He prophesied specifically about repentance and the birth of the Savior.  So this doesn’t exactly match up perfectly with the movement of The Higher Law and those who have been called to start it—or does it?

Much of the fear and objection being directed at the movement and the author of the blog is that it claims to be non-religious while dealing with religious things (like visions, revelations, facsimile 2, etc.); and yet, apart from the source of the movement, which is claimed to be from translation of facsimile 2, and the experiences that are part of translation (according to the author), there is no religious instruction whatsoever in any portion of the messages on the blog.  There is no call for “followers,” there is no claim of religious authority, there is no evidence of what would normally be associated with apostate or sectarian movements (i.e. subjugation of followers to the “new prophet,” calls for sacrificial offerings of money, property, etc.) , and there is nothing in the messages that detracts or changes the core doctrines of the LDS church in the least.   The author is very adamant that his calling is non-religious, by design, for the purpose of uniting the people of the Earth as much as possible in a common goal, which is more the opposition of political and economic tyranny than anything religious.  In fact, the notion of religion—or at least any one religion—is conspicuously absent from the messages except whatever connections we make ourselves.

On the contrary, consider Samuel.  The prophet of the church in his day was Nephi (or as close an equation as one can make in those circumstances); yet he was called as a prophet to deliver an expressly religious message, unbeknownst to Nephi (as far as we know).  Even if Nephi was aware of Samuel (and I wouldn’t doubt it), he made no comment of it and Samuel’s calling was not given through Nephi, but by God directly to Samuel for a specific, limited purpose; but that purpose was still very much “religious.”  (I quote that term because the reality is our historical human compartmentalizing of religion, science, etc. is actually very myopic and narrow-minded).  So in comparison, according to the objections being raised on The Higher Law, Samuel actually would have to be considered to have been more dangerous than the author of the blog.  He would have been the one on the road to apostasy (not if, but when see comment #8), because he was claiming prophetic authority that stretched into the realm of religion.

The point of all this should be clear: While there is only one prophet, seer and revelator for the Church on the Earth at any given time, by no means does that preclude the possibility of other prophetic and divine callings with specific intention and limitations, for specific purposes that apply to a community or the world at large (not just the individual).  Further, considering the consistent and overt specificity of the author in expressing non-religious intent and scope, I would think that he would be considered even less of a danger to anything pertaining to the LDS church, including personal testimony of it.

The author’s position, however, is that the movement being started, by God’s direction, is not a religious movement.  It is a movement founded and directed by God, but it is intended to unite the people of the Earth under a common set of core truths, most of which are reflected in the U.S. Declaration of Independence: that God exists, that He created us, and that we are endowed with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness.  (For those who didn’t know, property was originally in the Declaration as well, but was removed at the last minute by the founders for fear of misinterpretation regarding slavery.)

This post aims to dismantle the arguments and accusations being leveled by these LDS people.  They are correct in their assertion that the Prophet of the Church is still the Prophet of the Church.  No one is claiming otherwise; however, their claim that only the Prophet of the Church can receive this kind of revelation is completely misguided.

First and foremost, it really doesn’t matter what anyone believes about the movement of The Higher Law.  In the end, belief amounts to nothing.  The Lord does not expect us to believe; He expects us to know.  That’s what prayer and pondering are for, with scriptures as a guide in obtaining the proper spirit in order to be instructed, not by the scriptures, but by the Spirit.  As anyone who has been a missionary will tell you, scriptures don’t convert, missionaries don’t convert, even prophets don’t convert; only the Holy Ghost converts, but only when the receiver allows the Holy Ghost to do the teaching.

Now, don’t get me wrong: the scriptures are a powerful tool for conversion, inasmuch as they put us in the proper frame of mind and heart in which the Spirit can teach us.  So, I’m going to use the scriptures to make a point.

In the time of the Old Testament, between the periods of about 640 BC and 598 BC, there were numerous prophets, including Nahum, Jeremiah, Daniel, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Obadiah, Ezekiel, and a prophetess named Huldah.  Anyone familiar with the Old Testament will recognize the names of many of these prophets as the names of books from the Old Testament.  The chronology of their lives was such that many of them overlapped.  It was a time when there were literally many prophets in the old world at the same time.

During this same period—about 600 BC—another prophet was called by God to take his family and flee from their home and everything they knew and loved to avoid the impending destruction of Jerusalem.  This prophet and his family were guided, by divine messengers and aids, to the New World.  Obviously (for those familiar with it), that prophet was Lehi and the result of his obedience to his calling can’t be denied (i.e. the Book of Mormon).

I don’t mean to sound condescending to readers, but I’m making an important point, and it is NOT that the author of The Higher Law blog is another prophet called to lead a new branch of the Church.  The point I’m making is that God calls people to do certain things at certain times according to His will, and He communicates with them in whatever ways He sees fit, regardless of who the current prophet of the Church is.

History, even Church history, is full of, and I would say even founded on evidence of continuing revelation, the founding of this Nation being one stark example of that.  Who are we to dictate to God how that revelation will take place and to whom?  Obviously, through Joseph Smith the Church was founded as the order of revelation and direction for the Church.  That does not mean that only the current prophet of the Church is entitled to revelation and angelic visitation (if that were true, Joseph Smith would not have ever been visited).

With all that in mind, here’s the most important thing to understand about the author and the movement (the author has been very clear about this): It is not a “religious” movement.  The author makes no claims whatsoever of religious authority, which is to say authority to dictate God’s will as it pertains to the affairs of the church and the ordinances of salvation.  That is the sole stewardship and responsibility of the President of the Church, currently Thomas S. Monson (who, incidentally I fully sustain as a Prophet, Seer and Revelator and the only man on earth who holds and exercises all the priesthood keys).

Read closely this quote by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland:

“Against such times as come in our modern day, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are commissioned by God and sustained by you as prophets, seers, and revelators, with the President of the Church sustained as the prophet, seer, and revelator, the senior Apostle, and as such the only man authorized to exercise all of the revelatory and administrative keys for the Church (emphasis added).”

The same can be said of the account of Hiram Page in Doctrine & Covenants.  Again, in this case, he was claiming to receive revelation pertaining to the “order of the Church.”  Section 28 instructs that only Joseph Smith (and by extension the current Prophet) receives revelation for the Church (see section headings).

You also have to recognize what it means to be a prophet and what it means to be a seer (see section 2-C, question “What is a seer?”).

We in the Church tend to automatically assume that these gifts of prophecy and seership are reserved only for the President of the Church.  That’s just not true.  It is absolutely true that the President of the Church is the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church and the only one authorized to receive revelation and commandments for the Church and the only one who holds and exercises all the keys pertaining to the ordinances of salvation; but that does not mean that God does not and will not grant those gifts of prophecy and seership to others, within specific constraints and for specific purposes.  In this case, those constraints are non-religious by design for the purpose of starting something that can be immediately appealing to a much broader audience than religion can reach in today’s world, or at least any one specific religion.

We’re kidding ourselves if we believe that the Church will be able to fill the whole Earth and that everyone will have adequate opportunity to be exposed to the fullness of the Gospel if left only up to the Church’s formal missionary efforts.   It has to move faster than that, and the fact that the work to be accomplished during the Millenium will be undertaken in large measure by people who are NOT members of the Church has been given much commentary by many Church leaders, including Brigham Young.  How else would the Lord prepare the rest of His children to receive the gospel if not by creating a movement of socio-economic and political origin and intent that can unite people under a common banner that is not religious (do your homework on the difference between the Church of God and the Kingdom of God)?  To my mind, it makes perfect sense:  Get people united so they can begin to talk openly about and jointly explore such concepts as truth, right and correctness as they pertain to unalienable rights, the nature and order of law, the pillars of economics, etc.  The natural progression, for those of sincere heart, would be to seek after all truth regardless of where it’s found (and yes, there is truth in other religions as well as science and other non-religious disciplines), which inevitably leads to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  But on a mass scale, in our current world, as fast as things are falling into disorder and degradation, this kind of movement cannot begin with religion, even if it inevitably ends there.

Another important factor to consider—a hint if you will—is the origin of the facsimile number 2.   Unlike the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants and even the Book of Moses, the Book of Abraham was not received by divine messengers or by revelation; it was purchased by the Church.  I don’t want to try to read too much into this, but I have experienced enough to know that almost nothing happens by chance in these matters and the manner by which the book came into Joseph Smith’s hands was, in my opinion, by design to help fortify the barrier that must exist between the message inscribed in the facsimile and the LDS Church.  Although the Church owns it and Joseph interpreted a portion of it, the message of it is specifically and intentionally NOT meant to be associated specifically with the LDS church.  If it had been given by revelation, it would be easier for opponents to claim association with the Church and pass it off as fraud or fiction; but, if it was purchased by the Church (as it could have been by any other person or organization), and if its translation was facilitated by someone not officially acting for the Church, then its overall intent as an invitation to the entire world to recognize God’s hand in all aspects of their lives becomes much less objectionable.  After all, any church or person could have bought the facsimile and any person could have been called to translate it.  It just so happens that a member of the Church is most likely to 1) be very accustomed to the idea of God’s interest in our lives at all levels, 2) be somewhat accustomed to the idea of revelation and communication from God and to seek it out with sincerity and real intent, 3) have some familiarity with the facsimile, and 4) be pure enough in desire and intent to do whatever God asks without nefarious motivation.  The combination of those things makes a member of the Church a most likely candidate by virtue of spiritual preparation, but not necessarily by virtue of membership in the Church.

Finally, a question: why not? Why can’t God call whomever He wants to do whatever is necessary according to His wisdom and designs?  Obviously, He can.  The only real question on the subject is, has He?  In the end, all the evidence, testimony and scriptures in the world can’t convince anyone whether it is true or not.  That determination is between God and the individual, and the responsibility is on that individual to throw aside all preconceptions and prejudices and be sincere in their appeal to God to know if it is true.  I will never know if you have been able to achieve that level of completely open sincerity, only you can know that.  All I can do is tell you that it’s true.  Don’t take my word for it, though.  Even if you can’t take my word for the truth of it all (and I am adamant that you should not just take my word for it), at least give the possibility of it sincere, honest consideration and prayer (after having shed your fears and preconceptions).  Don’t just dismiss it off-hand, certainly not until you’ve had a chance to read the actual translations once they are published.

There really isn’t much else to say on the matter.  Whether or not you discover the truth of it is of little importance to me except that I would hate to see anyone miss out on the great events about to take place because of something as petty and preventable as closed-mindedness.  Your belief will do little to fortify my conviction, nor will your doubt weaken it.  I can only testify, as I have, that it’s true.  The rest is up to you.

P.S. If by some chance the Prophet comes out with any direct comment in opposition to this movement or the author of the blog, I will be the first to abandon the whole thing and do as the primary children and follow the Prophet.  I promise, though, that will not happen.

On the surface, this is a big story because it potentially hails the end of the lengendary privacy of Swiss banking.  That would be fairly big news in and of itself; but when you consider the other alarming trends in the world, a more dangerous shadow movement is shown in its proper light.

Consider this: If prevailing world circumstances can be sufficiently manipulated to effectively force UBS to bail on the defining characteristic of Swiss banking–secrecy–it serves to place one more arrow in the quiver of those who have as their grand design the collapse of all world goverments and institutions and the birth of a new “one world” order of government, which of course, places at the top of that government those who delivered it.  This particular arrow is that of accountability.

In this particular case, UBS employees have been accused of (and in some cases have admitted to) aiding wealthy Americans in hiding money in UBS accounts for the purpose of avoiding the requisite tax on said money.  Had this been an American bank, with American customers only–entirely on-shore–this would not have been so problematic.  But considering the state of the American economy at present, and considering that this scandal leaves the American shores and involves a Swiss bank, the only way accountabilty can be enforced is to threaten UBS to comply with the demands of American law makers and enforcers by providing detailed account information about these American customers, which flies completely in the face of the self-appointed mandate of Swiss banking.

You can see, then, that the obvious next step for the one-worlders–who have infiltrated to the highest levels of American and foreign governments (don’t kid yourself into thinking they haven’t…Obama)–is to propose a preventative measure for this kind of fraud by unifying the banking systems of the world into a single bank, on a single monetary currency, in order to be able to “watchdog” this kind of tax evasion and prevent it from happening.

Sounds crazy, eh?  Watch it happen.

Now, the real moral of this story is this: Accountability is a constant.  It will be enforced regardless of the measures we take to avoid it.  Sooner or later, the piper will be paid.  We can see by this example that when people stop taking accountability for themselves (avoiding taxes), the end result is the loss of liberty for everyone.  So while people are responsible and accountable, the banking instruments that allow for privacy remain in place because the trust that those instruments will not be abused remains unbroken; however, once that trust is broken in attempt to hide from accountability, accountability will find a new angle from which to exact its due–loss of privacy in banking.

Funny how the ones griping about loss of privacy and civil liberties are also the same ones who are implicated in these kinds of liberty-stealing endeavors (see Tom Daschle).

Yeah, yeah…it’s a conspiracy theory.  Maybe a stretch.  But watch…it will happen.

One of the great contributions that Newton provided for the world of science–the world in general, really–was the presentation of the Laws of Thermodynamics.  The second of these laws deals with entropy, specifically stating that the amount of entropy of systems tends to increase over time, and that the more complex a system is, the stronger this tendency is, due to the amount of useful energy required to maintain the complexity of the system.  In other words, the longer a system operates, the more it tends to break down, and the more complex the system is, the faster it will tend to break down.

Entropy increase is caused by the tendency of heat (energy) to disperse, spreading from the point of origin out to the cold regions surrounding it, thereby warming the colder regions, and cooling the warmer regions until the system reaches a point of energetic equilibrium, or in effect, status quo.  At this point, the system still has energy (see the first Law of Thermodynamics dealing with the conservation of energy), but absent the dynamic tension provided by the disparate temperatures (hot and cold), the energy of the system becomes increasingly useless, that is, not useful for actual production (work).  The system becomes stagnant and begins to decay and die.

The concept of entropy is not unique to physics.  Information theory, mathematics, medicine, and sociology all identify the phenomenon of entropy within the context of their respective disciplines.  It’s reasonable to deduce that entropy is not simply a characteristic of physical or social systems, but is the description of a characteristic of immutable natural law that applies to all levels of organization.

Given that sociology recognizes the inevitability of social entropy, we should examine all social constructs to understand the energies that power them, and thereby be prepared and able to overcome the inevitability of entropic decay.  One such social construct is economics.

Economics has as its “fundamental concern…the material standard of living of society as a whole and how that is affected by particular decisions made by individuals and institutions” (Sowell, 2007).  So, if we are to understand what makes economies strong or weak, grow or recede, work or not work, we have to examine the decisions being made by those in positions of economic influence, bearing the tendecies of systemic decay–entropy–always in mind.

So, how does entropy apply to economy? First, we have to identify the systems involved.

Despite the foul-crying of liberals and socialists (which cries are deceptions meant only to hide their true intent, but we’ll come back to that), the systems of economy are the classes of society.  Much debate can be waged over definitions of classes and the thresholds that separate one class from another, but for the purposes of this argument, we’ll identify only two, separated by an age-old standard: the haves, and the have-nots.  Obviously this is also grossly oversimplified, because depending on perspective and the specifics of what (i.e. have what, or have not what), anyone could rightly be identified in either class.  That being understood and conceded, regardless of the what, there is in human society always a division between those who have and those who have not.

Now, given these two classes, lets examine the decisions that might be made by those in governing positions relative to each of these classes.

In the first case, we’ll look at socialism, which has as one of its defining characteristics the redistribution of wealth. In other words, socialists believe that the natural separation between haves and have-nots is actually not natural, or if it is natural, that it is not fair to the have-nots.  So, in the interest of balancing this inequity, they feel they are justified in taking some portion of the what from those who have and giving it freely to the have-nots.  Now, no matter how much of the what is given to the have-nots, there will always be something that they have not : they have not earned that which they now have.  They did not work to produce it, it was simply taken from those who have and given to them.

And thus begins the decay.

Economic energy–heat–originates with those who produce.  Their having is directly correspondent to their production.  Given that any individual, no matter how productive, is still only one person, there is an inherent physical limit on that person’s productivity, and therefore a cap on how much they can earn (have).  If the person hopes to break beyond that limit, he/she must involve others who are also productive, and hopefully create a synergy, in which the output of their combined productivity is greater than the sum of the parts, and they can all share in the fruits of their production and have together.  All are benefited, their productivity (work or useful energy) grows, and with it increases the “material standard of living” of those involved.  As long as they remain productive, and continue to increase productivity, they will remain a source of economic energy, an economic “hot spot,” so to speak.

If, however, socialist policy is in place, this growth cannot take place.  In these circumstances, as soon as the haves have grown beyond a certain threshold (as defined by the socialists, of course), the fruits of their productivity are no longer their reward, but are removed from them and become the reward of those who are not producing on their own, i.e. those in economic freeze.  The socialist belief (so they say) is that by “spreading the wealth around,” those who are in economic freeze will thaw and become productive and begin to create their own warmth.  This may be true in some cases, but only on the smallest of scales.  The new-found what that the have-nots have been given may provide means for them to acquire goods that they would not have had if left to their own ambitions (or lack thereof), and that infusion of capital into the market may provide some small measure of warmth; but as with the ice melting in a glass in a warm room, the cold of the ice does emanate outwards from the glass, but only for a matter of moments and centimeters–an imperceptible amount in a room even as small as a few square feet.

Economic entropy increases.

Heat is removed from its place of origin and infused into the cold regions, slightly warming the cold and cooling the hot until the entire system is “equal” (the proclaimed but fraudulent goal of socialism).  Never mind that the system which was once hot and dynamic and growing is now stagnant, useless and at best, lukewarm…and gradually cooling.

This won’t matter to the socialist governors who were the originators of this decay to begin with, because they will now be at the top of the social food chain as they reap the fruits of what they have sown, extracting increasingly more in “administrative fees” (i.e. taxes) for distributing the wealth of an ever decreasing productivity base.

This is the socialist agenda, and this is the inevitable result.  It matters little if the socialist is truly motivated by power-greed, laziness, or is simply misled by hyper-emotional blindness, the end is the same.  The only difference being that the lazy and misled ultimately end up under the thumb of the power-greedy that they voted for.  The division between the haves and have-nots is still intact, only now its insurmountable–a formidable wall of concrete and barbed wire. Some might call it an Iron Curtain.

One need only study the socialist societies of the past to see that the result is always the same.  There has never been a socialist regime in any form that has endured.  They have either stagnated and died, been overthrown by revolution, or degenerated into fascism, totalitarianism and ultimately, destruction.  In point of fact, they are all on this same continuum, only differing in the measure of their decay, which as we now know, even in economics, has a name:

Entropy.

References

Sowell, Thomas. (2007). Basic Economics: A common sense guide to the economy (third edition). New York:Basic Books