When I was in residency training. A medical student was assigned to be in the ER for a 4th-year medical clerkship. To verify that the students are present, they were required to give a brief and simple eval sheet to one of the attending physicians to fill out, sign and drop in a box that sits in a conspicuous place in the physician work area. Well, this particular medical student decided to have an extra month of vacation and never showed up for the entire month. When it came evaluation review and grade time, this student didn't have any evals in the box and none of the attending physician remembered having seen this student in the department. When this student was confronted on this issue, the student claimed he was there but that none of the attending physicians had fulfilled their responsibility of filling out the evaluation slip.
Now, I'm not sure what happened to this student. Somewhere along the way "making an example" of someone became a bad thing. However, instead of punishing the perpetrator of the crime, the department decided to punish everyone in the name of prevention. So, what the department did was institute a very tedious and painful, computerized, daily log. Now the attendings had to sign off on each student what procedures and what skills the students had learned that day. I'm not against measuring learning, but the increase in tedious red tape in the name of prevention, I agree was an abuse of force.
Instituting laws and regulation for the crimes of others in the name of "regulation" and keeping the public safe is a misuse of constitutional government force.
I agree with Libertarians and Alma 1:17-18 that the government should prevent its citicens from violating the rights of others only by punishing the criminal. The punishment should fit the crime. Prisons should be rehabilitation and skill training centers.
Today, it seems when people and business violate the liberties of others; in an attempt to prevent and protect the public, instead of investigating and punishing the perpetrators; draconian regulations are put in place. These draconian regulations dont really protect but are used to stifle small business because too-big-to-fail big business get waivers or own the patents and licensing on the more restricted production process and machinery.
Accordingly, I also believe that the government should only intervene with force when there is a victim. So, like I said before, marajuana possession should not be criminalized, but drug Distrubution can be prosecuted. Recreational drug abuse is a lie, a fraud, and a theft of a "high" the person did not earn. It is self abuse that makes people weak and steals their motivation. However, recreational drug distributors become an accomplice to the self-abuse and can be prosecuted via the Kevorkian principle.
Some say, "Satan's plan was to force us to obey". Then they use this belief to say that a free society should protect our right to freely sin. Yes, I believe government shouldn't institute regulations to prevent sin, but that doesn't mean sin should be legal. When a person violates the liberties of another, the perpetrator should be forcibly punished and the fear of punishment should be the deterrence.
Back to the saying, "Satan wanted to force us to be obedient". Is absolute involuntary obedience possible? It seems so easy to sin. The only was to force to be obedient would be 1. No veil? (didn't stop Satan) Or 2. No rules? (Korihor's plan) 3. Drug-induced stuppor + hypnotism (CIA MKUltra Program)? Even if I were a total slave, I suppose I could still think a bad thought unless I wasn't allowed to think (#3).
Moro 7:17 for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.
My point is the Book of Mormon in Moroni 7:17 says that Satan persuadeth none to do evil. Does this count for force as well?
2Ne10:23 Therefore, cheer up your hearts, and remember that ye are free to act for yourselves—to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life.
Jacob tells us to "Cheer up" because we are free to choose life death. Therefore, some say we should be as grateful for the opportunity to choose death as we are the opportunity to choose life.
If Satan was going to force us to be good. I guess we should be grateful for and protect the option to sin. However, the scriptures never specifically say Satan wanted to force obedience. What they say is: 1. Satan sought to destroy the agency of man (get rid of rules per Korihor?) 2. Satan claimed he wouldn't lose anyone (false claim?). 3. Satan never persuades to do good (what about force?)
I think it possible that Satan's plan of captivity may not have been to force to be obedient. Maybe Satans plan was throw out the rules and everyone live like savages. There is no sin for animals following their instincts. They are just doing what animals do.
Also, if Satan was to force us to be good, and Jacob says we should be equally "cheerful" about the choice of death as we are for life, shouldn't we be grateful for and protect the opportinity to sin?
I suppose, it all depends on what the default setting was. If good was the default setting, we should be grateful for sin. However, If death is the default setting, we should be grateful for the commandments and the atonement that allow us to escape death.
Which do you think was the default setting? Which new option should cause us to "cheer up".
Before the Fall, for Adam and Eve, Life in the garden was the default setting, and sin was the option that gave them a choice. So, I would say that Adam and Eve were thankful for the FALL. For us, after the Fall, death is the default choice. And commandments and the Atonement give us the choice and the "cheer".
I guess what I'm saying is. Is it correct to say "it was Satan's plan to force us to do good?"
When we properly exercise our agency and Satan is Forcibly bound in the Millennium, and our children grow up without sin unto salvation; will they be less free? Will they have less reason to be cheerful?
Someone balked when I said, " a free man doesn't exercise his agency by choosing sin". This person believed that choosing sin was still exercising agency. In my mind, exercise makes a muscle stronger. In my mind, you increase your agency by obedience and weaken it through sin.