As for rich and poor I believe it will always be this way. I do not mind someone being rich, in most cases they took the risks and worked hard. I do not mind helping the poor but I like to do it in my own way and in my own time.

In regards to self-interest: You are correct in stating self-interest as a correct principle but the emphasis is wrong. I’m surprised the Joseph Smith quote has not surfaced in the discussion, speaking of self-aggrandizement he said, “It is a correct principle and may be indulged upon only one rule or plan—and that is to elevate, benefit and bless others first. If you will elevate others, the very work itself will exalt you. Upon no other plan can a man justly and permanently aggrandize himself.”

The emphasis and the ultimate message we should be promoting is not self-interest for the sake of self-interest but in turning our self-interest towards brotherhood and love and sacrifice of our selves for others, that is the message more sorely needed in the world.

In regards to self-interest and rewards: the problem has always been and will remain Job.

True charity has only ever existed in capitalist enterprise.

Are you talking about the pure love of Christ here?

Joke. What Stephen said is exactly what nearly all of us (including some of the most vocal “Christians”) miss. Much of the right wing has taken a legitimate stance (taxation as a means of income distribution is wrong) and turn it into a self-righteous justification of selfish superiority over the lower classes. Not very Christian.

I have always wondered if there isn’t a way (a system) that would preserve liberty while still maintaining a more level playing field. Maybe I’ll have to invent it.

Brandon, you don’t have to invent it; it was “invented” with the foundation of the world. It’s called Christianity–the system where everyone voluntarily seeks the interest of their neighbor above themselves, leading to a just, equitable, and sustainable society where there “are no poor among them.”

This is not a perfect principle.

I agree, and that is why I am trying to explore it from different angles. Since it is not perfect, and is definetly unfair, I am trying to understand why equity and fairness should not be more emphasized or valued.

when natural resources belong to everyone or no one, there is a continual struggle and appeal to authority — use of force — for various players to have their way with the resource.

That seems to be a very strong downside to communal ownership. I have always wondered if there isn’t a way (a system) that would preserve liberty while still maintaining a more level playing field. Maybe I’ll have to invent it.

The problem arises when natural resources have questionable or common ownership. Then we have what is called the tragedy of the commons. When either everyone or no one owns a resource, there is insufficient incentive for individuals to properly care for that resource. The answer is private ownership.

Brandon questions why “the rich” have a disproportionate claim or usage of natural resources. This is not a problem when the claim is based in private property rights. The rich do not generate or maintain wealth simply by owning something, but by doing useful things with their holdings. That entails engaging in mutually beneficial voluntary arrangements with others, including many that are not rich, thus, allowing them to enrich and care for themselves.

This is not a perfect principle. I don’t know, for example, how you’d ever properly allot air as private property. But when natural resources belong to everyone or no one, there is a continual struggle and appeal to authority — use of force — for various players to have their way with the resource. Those with power naturally win these battles without regard for the willingness of others to engage in the exchange.

While the Lord has said that His plan is for the rich to be (willingly) humbled and the poor to be exalted (D&C 104:16), he has also made it clear that the poor have no rightful claim upon the property of others (D&C 56:17). The key is voluntary exchanges involving private property.

7 Seek not for riches but for wisdom; and, behold, the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto you, and then shall you be made rich. Behold, he that hath eternal life is rich.

Life is all about the accumulation of saving knowledge. All of this economic stuff is Satan’s distraction.

“I should really go do my visiting/home teaching, but I’ve had such a busy week and I’m so tired…

I need to do it anyway, I want to do better at serving God and other people, I want to be a better more unselfish person who puts the needs of others above myself, I want to do the right thing even when it’s hard, I want to become more Christlike…

Oh, listen to me, all I can think about is what I want. I am being so self-centered! What is wrong with me? I’m just hopeless! I’d better not do it unless I’m doing it for the right reason”

The prefix “self” in self-interest is traditionally understood as the object of interest, as in “interested in the self.” Some of the ways you use the term imply that you treat “self” as the subject, as in “the one that is interested.” In the second sense, “interest in others” would be a self-interest, as in “the self is interested in others.” However, you are the first person I have hear to use the word that way, so if do use it in that sense, don’t be surprised if you are misunderstood.

I’m 100% with you in your thesis that charity must be voluntary for it to be charity at all.