Where Is Music Now?

For my humanities class, I am required to take something we discussed in class and do some research, then write up my thoughts about it. Here is an example that I thought would be interesting to share here.

I find it rather curious that a lot of people think that music is all about feeling. Although I acknowledge that emotion is an important part of music, especially for music on the romantic side of the spectrum, I don't think it is the only thing that gives music its value. I think that music can also have meaning in its various levels of structure. Before I was a Humanities major here, I was a music major at Snow College. I have studied a lot of musical structure, from individual chords to the way chords function with each other (or don't function) to overall form. Thus, it sounded a little strange to me last semester when students at the beginning of Music 101 could only think of the feeling of piece as a musical merit.

So what's my point? I think that as far as music, we are still generally romantic, and Dionysus still has the upper hand. It is true that our music is generally less grandiose than 19^th century Romantic music. (Movie music is a notable exception.) It is true that 19^th century Romanticism was still within the common practice period of music, whereas composers from the Impressionist movement on have succeeded in completely overthrowing the rules of harmony and rhythm in art music. However, I would argue that the general musical world is still essentially in a romantic stage. We have yet to see another major classical, Apollonian movement. It seems like what was almost a Dionysus/Apollo pattern in musical history has been broken.

The common practice period of music began with the Baroque period, an essentially romantic, Dionysian movement. Then, the neoclassical period came as a reaction to the perceived excess art and decoration. Reason, balance, refinement, and natural expression were valued in art, music, and thought. When the Snow College chamber orchestra played a piece by Mozart, our instructor told us how the expression was like love at a distance. It's never quite fully expressed like in romantic music. In spite of this seeming lack, Mozart, as we all know, was a genius. Neoclassical music was very well structured, as a rule, and one could make sense of it.

Then in the Romantic era, EVERYTHING was expressed over the top, and old forms were tinkered with or discarded. Then Debussy reacted against the huge sound of Wagner and the like. I still wouldn't say he reverted back to classicism. Though the musical emotion and volume wasn't excessive, he broke away from traditional chord functions and the major/minor system. He turned instead to the old church modes, pentatonic and whole-tone scales, and parallelism. Harmonically, his music was very un-structured. Feelings and impressions were an important aspect of impressionism.

Since the beginning of the 20^th century, we have seen several relatively small musical movements, many of them simultaneous. We saw neo-romanticism, expressionism, and another small neo-classical movement. The latter was a reaction to the former two, a return to reason and balance. Still, it was not a major movement, and it became a joke with some composers like Prokofiev. It may be argued that serialism has a classical slant because it is extremely structured. Still, as I mentioned, it is chaos to the ears. It is based on rules that were set up to render tonality and harmony impossible. It falls under the category of expressionism, which constitutes the expression of raw emotion and psychological turmoil not limited by the rules of harmony. (The Scream is a famous example of expressionism in visual art.) Primitivism was anything but Apollonian. It was characterized by driving rhythms, clashing harmonies, and harsh sounds (like today's popular music in a way). The theme was often focused on primitive, backward life before society was refined. Stravinski's Rite of Spring is a famous example.

I'll skip ahead to current pop music. It all sounds the same after awhile because little of it has a melody with a good contour (if any melody), and little of it has an interesting harmony beyond the old “Pachalbel Canon” chord progression (if any harmony). “But it has a good beat!” Yeah, the same one over and over again. The beat makes you feel a certain way. Is that all that matters? “The music video is awesome!” Does it have to have an image to mean anything? The singer looks good, but can't actually sing without a computer. I think that music reflects its culture. What does our music -- and media in general -- say about us? I think too many young people are too caught up in satisfying the senses quickly instead of really delving into the structure and meaning of things. I think it would do us a lot of good to sit down and listen to a symphony, watch an opera, or read a good book, and then talk about it, just like the Athenians used to discuss their plays and tried to learn something from them.

February Thaw

cool wind, not cold,
a voice from home in the south,
soothing breeze makes you quiet;
let it play with your hair, wrap it around your face.
sounds come smoother except crunchy slush;
cars glide past on bare roads
free from icy sinews.
sun goes to bed later, still light at six,
horizontal clouds cooling,
comfortable orange street lights,
cool blue shadows.
warm lights smile through windows
like baking bread,
like grandmother at rest in her favorite chair.
banks of layered snow receding
reveal mud and bits of green grass.

you want to run barefoot,
jump up and catch the moon,
dance an Irish jig.
you want to run away to the mountains,
hike up to waterfalls,
roast hot dogs,
tell ghost stories around the fire.
you want to lay in the grass,
expose yourself to the sun,
or stare at stars and talk about God and life.
you want to be in love for the sweetness of it
even though it might be another hopeless wish.
you want to breathe a garden's quiet fragrance.

you have forgotten
old snow,
dead leaves still clinging to skeleton branches,
the jacket still hanging on your shoulders,
sidewalks cracked from freezing.
you walk lighter for the music of peace inside,
a small glow of optimism,
not because you're trying to get across the ice patch
without slipping.

Individual vs. the State

So, I thought I'd post one of the essays I wrote for a political philosophy unit in my PHIL 110 class semester. There are four key questions/issues in political philosophy.

1. What is the justification of government authority? Why should a person subordinate my will to another person, institution, or especially government?
2. What is justice? How do we determine if a government is just or not? The aspect of justice we focused on in class was the just distribution of goods (wealth, power, etc.) and burdens (taxation, military service, etc.).
3. Individual vs. State: Where do we draw the line between individual freedom and government control? Which is more important, individual freedom or the needs of society? When they conflict, which should trump the other?
4. Are there circumstances in which it would be immoral to obey the government or in which it would be permissible to break the law? Are we always obligated to obey the law even when it is unjust or immoral?

I'll be focusing more on the third question. Here is the continuum of individual liberty and state collectivism:

INDIVIDUALISM-----------------------------COLLECTIVISM
-----------------------------Democrats &
----------------------------- Republicans-----------------Stalin--------1984
<------------------l------l----l-------------------------------l----l------------------l->
Anarchism---l--Classical Liberalism------Marxism---Totalitarianism
----------Libertarianism

(Don't you love all the "ism"s)
Note that Classical Liberalism and Liberalism are not the same thin. "Liberalism" is applied in different ways in eith case. Here is the difference between Conservatism and Liberalism:

Conservatism: Let society grow naturally. Hands off.
Liberalism: Legislate social progress. Hence the term Progressivism

Note that Democrats and Republicans are in about the same position along the continuum, and that neither are purely Classical Liberal. Both in general legislate aspects of life that Classical Liberalism wouldn't allow for, but they don't agree on which aspects to legislate.

Classical Liberalism: Freedom, liberty, individual freedom from inappropriate government control. Freedom to pursue legitimate individual interests. Human autonomy is considered one of the most basic rights and should only be controlled when it has the potential to cause direct harm to others. The state should not force an individual to act in a certain way, even for his own good, unless doing so would prevent harm to others besides himself. The governmet's domain is only within the public sphere. Each person is considered the proper guardian of his own physical, mental, and spiritual health.
Marxism: Capital (the means of production) is owned by the state.
Marx said that in capitalism, the worker is exploited. In his time, they were to a certain extent. They were paid ridiculously low wages, worked long hours, had no safety standards for protection, and child labor was prevalent. Marx thought that capitalism would inevitably undermine itself and lead to communism. Here's the process as he laid it out: Competition for profit -> Lower wages, machines introduced -> international companies -> failed company owners join the unemployed -> growing, unified embittered worker class -> ka-BOOM! They rise up -> capitalism is discarded ->
Transition:
1. Dictatorship of proletariats (workers) - They clear out the last remnants of capitalism.
2. 1st stage of Communism: Socialism - state ownership of production.
3. Ultimate Communism: People as a whole make economic decisions. (And they all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.)

My paper (after a very long introduction) is a response to Marxism. (Don't let the title scare you) Here goes:

Marxist Theory in Practice

Marx's theory beyond a certain point can only be just that, a theory. It describes how capitalism will evolve into communism, but it does not account for its implications after the proletariat becomes the ruler and common ownership of the means of production have been achieved. It does not account for how economic decisions would be made. If there is no class distinction and if all the people at once own the means of production, how is any kind of decision going to be made? The theory also does not account for what the workers may become when in power. Would they remain workers? Or would they transform into another upper class?

Imagine a society where all the people had equal power in making the economic decisions. For this to be possible, votes or polls would have to be taken for every decision. Someone would have ot administer the polls or votes, and somehow a decision would have to be made about which decisions should be voted on. It would not be possible for the workders to vote on every single decision, or no work would be done. So who would make the other choices if all the people were workers? Then once the polls or votes had been taken, who would gather, count, record, and implement the results? The people assigned to do this would not inherently have any particular power over the others. However, it is conceivable that they would use their position for their advantage. They may tweak the decision in the implementation of it. A Marxist mights say in response that ehy would have no reason to take advantage of their position, being content with no one having an advantage. However, this cannot be left up to chance. Throughout history, we have seen that people do not always behave within a system as expected, and they must be checked. Even if the people in this position did not mean to take advantage of it, they may inadvertently make changes to the voted decision when implementing it. To ensure that this did not happen, an impartial panel would probably have to be set up to make sure changes were made exactly as decreed by the vote. Already we see that not all the people can have absolutely equal power. Some sort of administration would have to evolve to carry out the decision making process. Now, suppose that the majority of the workers, not understanding economic principles, made some unwise economic decisions and put the economy into a precarious position. This situation could perhaps be avoided due to the free public education. Then who would determine the curriculum? Fro all the people to have equal power, educational decisions would have to be determined the same way as economic decisions. If this is the case, we come full circle and find ourselves stuck with the same dilemmas.

Suppose the above scenario was applied to a small society. Now imagine a society with millions of people all with absolutely equal power trying to make and carry out decisions. Even the first stage of the decision making process would be impossible. Imagine trying to herd millions of people to the polls for every economic or education decision. That alone would require someone to have some administrative powers. At best, the millions of people would have to select representatives to make most of the decisions for them, and they could all still vote less often on the more important decisions. This scenario would be not so different from a representative democracy. Now, not only decisions about justice would be made by the delegates, but also decisions about the economy, education, health care, etc.

Now, the Marxist may respond to all of this by saying that Marx did no necessarily intend for there to be no administration at all. He merely said, as quoted by Lawhead, that the "public power will lose its political character" (Lawhead 609). He defined political power as "organised power of one class for oppressing another" (Lawhead 609). The delegates in an administration in a communist society would not necessarily take advantage of their constituents, especially since they were likewise part of the proletariat class.

I contend, however, that those in power would eventually cease to see themselves as workers on the same plane as their constituents. They would be making decisions that affected many aspects of their lives, yet they may not fully understand the workings of all these areas, such as economics, education, health care, etc. They could also take advantage of their position and make decisions that favored themselves or they could exempt themselves from decisions that affected everyone else.

By publicising all these facets of our lives, Marx claims that we would all really be more free. However, this is very unlikely to be the case when his theories are applied because he did not consider some of the implications. Some kind of administration is necessary, so the people could not all have absolutely equal power. Economic decisions would be in the hands of even fewer than before. Those with power would probably cease to be on the same level as the rest of the population, but they would be making decisions that affected and were not necessarily good for them, and they would not be free.

P.S. I didn't write the following in my paper, but I think it's interesting to note who is trying to take over capital in our country (health insurance, GM). Are these guys workers? Or elite? They claim to be facilitating social progress, but they're just making themselves -- the elite -- more powerful.

The Trouble With Political Correctness

My main concern on this subject is that a lot of people with a desire for power are getting too much of it by drumming up paranoia about things that aren't really issues and making us blind to the most crucial matters. They convince us that we need them to fix things that don't really need fixing, and so we let them have that power and lose our free agency. Society's moral compass has been largely ignored and put aside, so people are more open to a new, more appealing set of "morals" set by people who are no better than ourselves and only want power over us. If this keeps going, we will be about as free and happy as a mouse who got conned into a trap by a free piece of plastic cheese.

So, let's start with the question of morality. Did I ever write a note about the "Virtues vs. Values" essay by George Will? Anyway... A lot of people complain about religious virtues and the seemingly unnecessary and out-dated restrictions that come with them. Well, let's review some basic human rights: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Not too hard to remember... They shouldn't be anyway. Well, the old morals generally protect these. Don't kill. Don't steal, etc. The idea is this: If we're going to have our rights protected, we have to take responsibility and follow a certain code. When these rights are protected, some people are a little restricted from doing whatever they want, but society in general is more free and safe. It takes a certain amount of self-discipline to follow a code, and that means we have to change ourselves from our natural state. That is the meaning of virtue. Having a virtue is becoming something, acquiring character. Having a value is just believing one thing is more important than another, not necessarily working to become something.

Where was I going with this? Ah, yes. I think society in general has become rather lazy lately. It's hard to change and discipline yourself and take responsibility for things. Acquiring virtues and character is a long process. So to feel good about ourselves, without having to work too hard, we talk about values. As I said, values could be anything. It think the people who want power, partnered with mass media, have dictated a set of values for us to follow so that they can get that power over us. They use lots of tactics. They label the old virtues that would keep us free as old-fashioned, or else try to eclipse them with "fairness", warm-fuzzies, or paranoia. The result is a spaghetti noddle mess of twisted morals.

For instance [clears throat]:
They freak out about touching an egg of an endangered eagle species, but at the same time, they yell "free choice!" for abortion.
They freak out about global warming and force poor people in third-world countries to use the most expensive -- but green, mind you -- power sources so they can't afford better, more efficient medical care and better living conditions.
They shout "equality!" and come up with a health care system that has never worked for ANYONE. (We're all equally doomed. But we're EQUAL. That's all that matters. Oh, and the government is taking care of everything for you. They know what's best. All you have to do is pay more taxes.)

Are you seeing any parallels here? Let's be all warm and fuzzy and eco-friendly. All we have to do is play down the value of... What was that? Oh yeah. HUMAN LIFE. ...And the government takes over what life is left. So what happened to morality? Wasn't the goal to make human life better and to reduce the mortality rate? Oh, no. That would never do. That means less power and gain for those who are benefiting from these sort of things. Remember, the world is going to END because of the evil humans and their industrious filth! Aaaaugh! (Now if you actually take a close look at scientific evidence, global warming is in no way linked to our CO2 emissions. Global warming cycles actually cause the ocean -- the main source of CO2 -- to release more of it. It's the reverse of what the media is telling you. But that's very inconvenient for guys like Al Gore, so keep it quiet.)

You know, this reminds me very much of the Dark Ages. That's when we mere mortals were considered as low as worms -- except for the elites, who had "Divine Rights" and knew how best to run everybody else's lives. (Let me tell you a secret: THEY'RE MORTAL TOO. Shocker, I know.)

So this brings me to the thing that got me all excited and wanting to write this out. It's rather random, I know. A friend recommended the show Dr. Who to me, so I found a couple of old episodes online just to see what it was like. I came across a series about a dangerous robot that was being used to steal plans and parts for a weapon of mass destruction. This robot was the tool of a group of scientists who wanted to take over society and force everyone to live in the way they thought was best, because they thought they knew better than anyone else how they should live. They called themselves the Elite. Here is an interesting exchange between the Doctor and Professor Kettleworth. The Professor was the creator of the robot. For awhile, he had decided he didn't want any part in the group anymore, but then he went back to it.

The Doctor: Tell me one thing, Professor Kettleworth. Why?
Professor: For years I've been trying to persuade people to stop spoiling this planet, Doctor. Now with the help of my friends, I can MAKE them.
The Doctor: Aren't you forgetting that in science as in morality, the end never justifies the means?

-Dr. Who Episode 75: Robot, Part Three


It may sound terribly old-fashioned and cheesy, but it does give you something to think about. Now, this was a group of scientists who knew their stuff, but they still could not justify killing people and forcing the remaining ones to live a certain way. What about a bunch of politicians, who really don't know their stuff -- except rhetoric -- who want to tell us how to live... and eventually... who should live?

Old Glory

While browsing through pictures of the American Flag on the internet, I got to thinking. I began to remember Girls' Camp a couple of years ago -- I think the summer after my junior year in high school. That was one of the most memorable camps because of the things we learned about our country and our flag. Just thinking about it makes my heart burn within me. We are forever indebted to our God, our ancestors, our veterans, the Founding Fathers, and those who continue to defend us for their sacrifices so that we can live free from oppression and anarchy. We are free to worship, be educated, speak our minds, etc. With all our freedoms, we are entrusted with responsibilities. Some words of a song I learned in elementary school come to mind:

"Freedom isn't free.
You've got to pay the price.
You've got to sacrifice.
For your liberty..."

To be free, we must be responsible. America was set up as a republic, which means that our rights are protected by the rule of Law. As we see in history, this form of government only works as long as the people and government follow the Law and take responsibility for their actions.

As I learned at Girls' Camp, the colors of the flag outline the responsibilities we have to defend liberty.

Red is for the sacrifices of our veterans. This Independence Day, as we watch the fireworks, take part in games and fun, visit with family, or even if any happen to participate in a demonstration, think of those who dropped everything, left loved ones and comfort behind, fought and bled, watched their comrades die, and gave their all so that we could do so.

White is for purity. It is up to every one of us to become clean, moral, virtuous, honest, and to serve God so that we can retain our liberty. In the days closely following the American Revolution, mothers were set on a pedestal because they were seen as the protectors of liberty. America's future depended on the children they brought up and taught in virtue, because the responsibility of freedom would lie on their shoulders. This responsibility has been passed down until now, the fate of liberty lies in our hands. Ether 2:12 reads, "Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall posses it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if thy will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written."

This brings us to the starry blue canton that signifies Heaven and God. If we remember and acknowledge that power which inspired our forefathers, gave us our rights and liberty, and has preserved us to this day, we will have His strength with us to protect us.

I will never forget witnessing the retirement of the Colors that chilly night on Kolob. I hope that I will always treat the flag with respect, remember the things it signifies, and live accordingly.

God bless America!

Random Thoughts About Music

My roommate and I were talking about music the other day, and we agreed that music can explain things that nothing else can. Why is that? The ancient Greeks were kind of leery of purely instrumental music because it was so moving, even without words. They couldn't understand how it produced emotions without any words. It wasn't rational. Do we understand any better today? Well, I was glancing through an article about the Doctrine of Ethos a while back. According to this Greek philosophy, the right kind of music makes the right kind of person, and the wrong kind of music makes the wrong kind of person. This is because music is an imitation of character, rather than a mere representation of character, like other art forms. In a visual art, the color red might signify anger, power, war, or communism. When you're listening to a passage from the forth movement of Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 6, you can feel and relate to the anger, desperation, despair, and other unnamed feelings bearing down on you all at once because you have felt it before or because you have the capacity to feel it.

Well, I guess relating to music all depends on what the composer is trying to convey, and his and the performers' skill. Sometimes, the feeling of the music seems exaggerated or out of place, and then it just makes people laugh. That's alright if it was intentional, of course, but should be intentional. I was watching a chick flick with my roommates about a week ago, and I had to laugh because the music was quite out of place. The hero sees her with another man! Fully diminished 7 chord! Oh my! I don't think it was supposed to be scary -- or funny for that matter. I didn't think they wanted the hero to come across as a creepy stalker, but that's what the music implied.

Speaking of scary movies, I would say they wouldn't be half as frightening without the music. I get pretty annoyed when they play a progression of awful chords that cannot be named, and the tension is building, and I'm expecting the villain to jump out with a knife, and then... nothing happens. I was getting scared for no reason -- except the music.

Now, I guess we ought to take into consideration that everyone has a different character and set of tastes. Some people consider certain kinds of music to be exaggerated or ridiculous, while others can relate to them and enjoy them. Genetically, we have a lot in common, but we don't all have common backgrounds and experiences. Have you ever wondered why your grandparents like music two generations old, but people your age tend to think it's too sappy or cheesy? Naturally, music of that time was a better imitation of experiences people were having then than the ones we're having now.

Still, I have to wonder why strange people like me enjoy old music. As alien as it sounds to modern ears, I enjoy Medieval and Renaissance music. I grew up listening to classical music, and will always love it. I also listen to classic rock. I really don't enjoy a lot of contemporary music. I have unusual tastes, but I know I'm not the only one who listens to orchestral music and classic rock. I think it has to do with my personality, interests, and upbringing. History is one of my main interests, so I get along quite well with music from the past. Along the lines of personality, though, people are amazed to learn that Kansas is my favorite rock group. They're surprised to learn that I even like any rock. I seem like the quiet, conservative type -- and I guess I am. People would probably expect me to like the Sounds of Sunday sort of music. I don't. THe lyrics are great and inspiring, but the music is too wannabe pop music. I just can't take it seriously like I can Handel's Messiah or Bach cantatas. Well, I first liked Kansas because of their lyrics. For the most part, they're deeper and more thought-provoking than most lyrics by pop stars who never graduated high school and never got out of that mentality. Then, as I've been taking music theory classes, I've realized that their music is also deeper. They do much more than your boring old I-IV-V progression. They modulate and borrow chords and pull chords out of thin air -- and they have a violin.

I suppose there are a lot of factors involved in the kinds of music people can relate to -- more than I know how to expound upon. ...And I didn't even go into how music affects character -- if indeed it does. I'm not a psychologist. Maybe music therapy people would know more about this kind of thing. Somebody should do some research and write an essay on it.

Capitalism vs. Socialism

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.