Jerome Horowitz is a lawyer and a member of the Church. His book The Elders of Israel and the Constitution was recommended by Ezra Taft Benson at the General Conference, April 1972, p. 50. (Pdf)
Quotes by Jerome Horowitz:
The erosion of [our] freedom is mainly in the areas of government regulation of [our] economic activities and appropriation through heavy taxation of a major part of the fruit of [our] labors for the purpose of giving [our] property to other individuals. If [we] would look in those directions, [we] would easily fine many major ways in which freedom in the United States is being rapidly diminished. This rapid diminution of freedom in the United States arises out of adoption of a philosophy that it is the responsibility of government to promote prosperity through regulation of the economy and to look after the welfare of the people instead of just protect them in their freedom. Socialism is the word usually used today to describe this philosophy.
The political system of democracy, in the sense of unrestricted control by the will of the majority, militates against the fundamental requirement of a religious citizenry. This is because the underlying philosophy of democracy has deeply anti-religious overtones, since it implies that right or wrong can be determined by the will of the majority. On the other hand, the American constitutional system is based on recognition of God as the source of correct eternal principles of government, and as the source of unalienable rights.
Attempts have been made for many years by those who would destroy freedom to give a false impression of what capitalism means. They have tried to promote the image of a capitalist as a wealthy, heartless tycoon greedily increasing his wealth by taking advantage of his poor struggling employees.
Unfortunately, many well meaning people, particularly those aware of instances where employers have been less than generous with their employees, have accepted one of the various forms of this class struggle concept of capitalism. In doing so they have failed to realize that they were falling for a cleverly planted idea. The two concepts are not so connected. The fact that some employers take advantage of their employees does not mean that capitalism is the system under which greedy bosses take advantage of poor struggling workers.
A similar illogical conclusion is that free agency is bad because some people abuse it. In fact, this really is a variation of Lucifer’s argument that it is to people’s advantage not to be free. He argued that people would best be served by protecting them from the unwise choices they would make if they were given the right to choose. This is, of course, also one of the basic arguments in favor of socialism—that because the people cannot be relied upon to make right choices, government planners should make right choices for them.
The real definition of capitalism is that it’s the free agency economic system and the only economic system under which men can be free.
A somewhat oversimplified definition of capitalism, but one sufficiently accurate for present purposes is that capitalism is the economic and social system under which an individual’s free agency includes not only his person, but also his property. It doesn’t matter whether he’s the boss or the worker, or whether the fruit of his efforts comes to him as wages or profits. Actually, the implications of capitalism are more far reaching than the above simplified definition may seem to indicate. Most government regulation and control of people is through laws pertaining to their property rights. Under capitalism those laws are kept to a minimum with the result that in a capitalistic society a person has the right to live the sort of life he chooses with a minimum of compulsion.
One of the most insidious aspects of government paternalism is that it deprives people of the will to be free. By means of continued doses of government welfare, people are transformed from lovers of freedom, motivated by a spirit of independence, to seekers after security unsure of their ability to stand on their own feet with the help of God. They are willing to forget about freedom if the government will promise them security .. This condition is little different in principle from a willingness to barter one’s own freedom in exchange for a promise of security from a master—in other words to sell oneself into slavery. Slaves have their lives and a considerable freedom of movement if they convince their masters they will do only what their masters wish. Any property they have would be subject to the control of their masters but this is not of great importance to a slave because he is fed, clothed and housed by his master anyhow.
Sometimes one wonders why the collectivists turn one’s attention toward Sweden, because the Swedish example disproves one of their basic assumptions. This is the assumption that crime is the outgrowth of poverty and an economically deprived childhood. Since Sweden provides “cradle-to-grave security,” if their assumption were correct, crime should have been all but eliminated there, especially among the young. Yet, as indicated in these articles, the reverse is true. Crime has been increasing rapidly, especially among the young. When one takes a more objective balanced view of the fruits of partial socialism in Sweden, one finds that the Swedish experiment is really additional evidence that Joseph Smith was right and socialism is not a sound doctrine.