Before I begin, I'll just say, this isn't necessarily church doctrine. These are just some of my thoughts. If you want, you can go to a higher source to prove/disprove them.
You might ask, "Isn't the Law of Consecration like socialism? Why is socialism so evil, then?" Because it's godless... Really! In a socialist system, the government attempts to take the place of God because it takes ownership of everything and makes people dependent on it. In the law of consecration, God owns everything -- he does anyway -- but he gives us free agency so we can decide what we do with the things we are stewards of. So what's the difference? The difference between relying on the arm of flesh and the arm of God. In socialism, the government -- along with all that it owns -- is run by imperfect men prone to corruption. On the other hand, when we depend on God,we are in the best hands because He is perfect and wants what is best for us. He also gives us free agency, where socialism does not. That is why we must prepare to live the law of consecration so we can be trusted to make the right choices. In socialism, the government does not trust the people to handle their own affairs or allow them to learn from choices -- but how can we trust a government to run our lives when it is made up of men just as imperfect as ourselves?
I''m not advocating anarchy here. This is where republicanism and capitalism come in. In a republic, the government serves the people by protecting their rights through the powers vested in them by law. The government and the people must answer to law, which is established to protect natural rights. In a democratic republic, the people choose their representatives, directly or indirectly. Consider the meaning of the term "represent". A representative only has the right to do what the represented have the right to do, according to the law. Therefore, the government cannot step over the boundaries of our own rights. It can and should, however, do what we don't have the ability to do to protect ourselves and our rights. Don't get "ability" confused with "rights". In the natural state, a weak man may have the right to protect himself form aggressors, but not the ability. Therefore, his rights are taken away be force. The government protects us from losing our rights through law and the common defense.
Now how does capitalism tie in? Here, the government does not run the economy or own companies. The economy runs on free enterprise, with competition and the whole works. Consumers are free to choose where they spend their money, which drives producers to provide the products and services with the highest quality and the lowest prices -- in other words, the best value. Now, Capitalism isn't perfect. Monopolies tend to show up, which eliminates competition, so the government steps in to get rid of them. The problem with government interference is when the government starts taking ownership of production and service providers and giving out free handouts. This in turn clogs up competition, punishes the best producers for their work by taxing them more, reducing free agency, increasing dependency on the government, and stepping over the bounds of its rights. Can you see any of this these days? Some say that capitalism doesn't really work. Would you call our system unalloyed capitalism? I should say not! Perhaps if we allowed it to work, it would run much smoother.
There is still the question of selfishness, which is often associated with capitalism. Sure, there are some nasty, selfish jerks out there, but again, the government can stop them from violating the rights of others by enforcing the law. That doesn't mean they have to take over the economy.
Here's a question: Would you say that all people living in socialist systems are unselfish? Hard to tell because their choices are limited, and their characters are not tested as much. The government chooses for them -- in other words, makes them be good -- and takes the responsibility for those choices. Does this sound at all familiar? Tell me this: if the people are not allowed to make their own choices, how can they ever learn from the consequences, good or bad? How can they grow and become better? How can they prepare to live the Law of Consecration if they can't learn to make their own decisions? Do you see how critical this is?
In America as it should be, people are allowed to make good and bad choices and face the consequences, from which they can learn from if they so choose. Some bad consequences may come in the form of law enforcement, loss, and unhappiness. Some good consequences come in the form of health, profit, and happiness. Now, some will say that getting profit is selfish. True, if it is gained through dishonesty or depriving others of their rights. Isn't that what the law, through government, should protect us from anyway? This means that people who make those choices face bad consequences. People who seek profit for selfish reasons, even if they get it honestly, face different consequences, including persistent dissatisfaction and unfulfillment. The government should not assume that all wealthy people are selfish, and should not punish them when they do not encroach on the rights of others by taking away what they earned and taking away their free choice in how they use their money. Because WE have no right to take money without consent, even in need, the government has no right to do so.
The great thing about the Law of Consecration is that people will be willing to help each other instead of being forced through taxes, and they will receive the blessings that come from being charitable. It is not true charity if you're being taxed to help others, and you don't receive the positive consequences because it wasn't your choice. Not only that, but we will be prepared and willing to live the law of consecration if we give of our own free will.
Republics and capitalism aren't perfect, but they do not take away our rights and free agency. They prepare us for living the law of consecration.
