Foundation for Economic Education Podcast

I have been listening to the podcast for the "Foundation for Economic Eduction" (FEE)

It has caused me to think about things that I had previously taken for granted.

take a look for yourself.

http://www.fee.org/podcast/rss.xml

My favorites have been:

"Self Governance"

"Does Government Need to enforce Contracts?"

and there are several about Somalia which I found fascinating.

Teaching by example

I’ve been thinking lately about the concept of a good example being the most effective teacher.

In my life there have been things that I have done simply for the purpose of “setting a good example” and I didn’t really enjoy it and it didn’t really teach all that much to those I was wanting to teach. As I thought about it recently, it occurred to me that in order to teach effectively by example, the example must appeal to the desire for self-improvement of those you want to teach. If it looks like you’re miserable doing something that you “should” be doing, or that is “your duty” to do, it is more likely that the lesson being learned is that doing what you should and fulfilling your duty will make you miserable. This is the logical conclusion of the myth of altruism. There is nothing that is done purely without taking into consideration your own preferences. Every deliberate act indicates that you value one thing more than not doing it.

This is not to say that everything for which we set an example is ice cream on Sunday afternoon, or that it needs to look like you’re at an amusement park. It’s often that things that really do help those you want to teach are not easy and are somewhat uncomfortable. The solution is to make sure that you yourself identify why you do it. Everyone loves the feeling of creating more value in the world than they consume. This is the source of all true happiness. Identify it and don’t be ashamed that you gain something from creating value for others. This is how you teach by example. You do it yourself so that others can see the benefits in your life and want the same benefits.

Be Prepared

The Boy Scouts of America have as their motto, “Be Prepared.” If you read in a boy scout handbook you will find a detailed explanation of this philosophy. It deals with being well equipped to deal with any situation. Growing up I had always felt that this meant “Be prepared for the worst possible situation.” It never occurred to me that this also meant be prepared for the best possible situation, and every situation in between.

There is a very fun, and often very competitive, tradition in my wife’s family of playing games at family get-togethers. Among the favorites are old fashioned card games. I learned to play just about every card game in my first two years of marriage.

I have a reputation in the family of frequently losing at these card games. I sometimes do well, but mostly I lose. I’ve never really been concerned about this because winning at games has never been something that I have valued a whole lot … until I had an epiphany on our last visit. Several times during the night I had a good hand which could have led to a victory, if I had been interested in learning the strategy to make it so. The only problem was I didn’t play with the intent to win. I was content to drop out of bidding wars and I didn’t pay close attention to what cards had been played to know what would be best for me to play. Had I played more aggressively, the result of the game would have been drastically changed in my favor.

The analogy to my own life became apparent to me that night. The biggest reason I don’t win at card games is because I don’t start out with the intent to do so. I don’t prepare for winning. In fact, it would be more accurate to say that I started out fully prepared to lose.

As a young man, I learned to cope with losing. I’ve never considered myself an extremely competitive person. I was taught it was important to know how to lose gracefully, which is a generally good trait to have, so I put a lot of effort into knowing how to lose well. I didn’t really pay much attention to knowing how to win because it didn’t happen all that often. It never occurred to me that the reason I didn’t win often was because I wasn’t preparing myself for it.

As I though Is this a bad thing? Isn’t it a good character trait to know how to be gracious when we lose? Of course it is, but losing well is not our goal. If our goal is anything other than winning, why do we play? And if our goal is to win, this is best accomplished by preparing ourselves to win, which is what I started to do that night.

I made a conscious effort to prepare myself emotionally to win. I didn’t just give up the bid because someone might have a better hand than me. If I wanted the bid and thought I had the hand of cards to back it up, I went for it. Do you know what the result was? I started winning!

This is a powerful metaphor to life, and teaches a true principle: We gain that for which we best prepare ourselves to obtain. If I only prepare myself for disappointment, I will be more likely to be disappointed.

In the movie “Facing the Giants” there is a story that teaches a powerful message about preparing for what you want. A man who walks the halls of the school after the students are gone, comes to the head coach and tells him a story about two men who prayed for rain, and only one of them went out and prepared his fields to receive it. It was the one who went and prepared his fields that was blessed with rain. The coach taught the team a powerful lesson in response. He taught them to prepare themselves to praise God, no matter the outcome. Notice that he didn’t teach them to have an attitude of, “God, to prove that I’m going to praise you whether we win or lose, I’m going to lose on purpose.” That would be ridiculous. As with any good sports program, they planned to win. The way they made sure they were gracious if they happened to lose was to prepare themselves to praise God no matter what happens, in everything.

Finding Answers

Since I spend a lot of time in the car recently, I have had many opportunities to listen to my ipod and podcasts.

Free Capitalist radio has kept me in listening material previously, but I have now listened to every live show at least once and have sought out other uplifting and principle based podcasts. One that I really enjoy is “BYU recent talks” podcast. This morning I listened to a talk by Joseph Fielding McConkie entitled “Finding Answers” which I thought resonated with what Rick talks about with individualism vs. tribalism.

Too often I find myself looking to others to answer the hard questions of life for me. There’s nothing wrong with asking for help in discovering an answer, but I sometimes just want someone to give me the answer instead of help me learn through the process of finding it.

Endulge a math geek wannabe, OK?

I have been exploring the following idea for almost a year now and would like some feedback.

Every innovation and inspiration that comes to the mind of any man has a dual nature. It has both the potential for virtue and the potential for evil. These two natures are not mutually exclusive. As the potential for virtue increases, so does the potential for evil. This also has a relationship between the potential positive or negative consequences that accompany that innovation and/or inspiration.

Being a bit of a math geek (not as much as I could be if I had been more dedicated in school … but I digress) I have described it to myself in mathematical relationships because it is how my mind wraps itself around some abstract concepts. It makes sense to me if I see it as a hyperbolic sine function. If you could do with an refresher or explanation of what that means … I’m not enough of a math geek to give it justice, but Wikipedia does a good job.

I say that the positive or negative consequences associated with any given innovation or inspiration has a hyperbolic sine relationship to the potential for virtue and evil.

So … what does that mean? Goooood question. I hope I can answer that.

It means that you can take any given innovation or inspiration that comes to the mind of any man, and you will see that the positive consequences, or the negative consequences that result from that innovation or inspiration, are directly related to the potential for virtue or evil that the given innovation has. Stewardship comes into play when the person makes a choice about how to use that innovation. Positive consequences will result and be directly dependent on the degree to which the potential for virtue is exercised. Negative consequences will result and be directly dependent on the degree to which the potential for evil is exercised.

Here is what it looks like to me.

Did that make any sense at all to anyone but me?

Spending Money and Production

A good friend of mine, Stephen Palmer, recently posted several excellent essays on his blog “The Cause of Liberty.” I highly recommend a look-see at these essays. One of my favorites is “The Deception of Consumption.”

This essay got me thinking and I’m just going to start throwing out thoughts and hopefully it will stimulate some intellectual exchange.

Is the spending of money consumption or production? I think that like most other acts, it is not inherently either one. Always assuming that there is no deception or coersion involved, when I spend the money, I am engaging in some sort of exchange. I am creating value with another party. However, when was my creation of value? Was it when I handed over the currency, or when I did what it took to earn the currency?

I am currently employed as a Detailer at a Steel Building Systems company. When I perform my duties as a detailer, I am creating value for the company. Because I have limited utility for a steel building, they instead engage in an exchange by giving me receipts (currency) for the value I created. These receipts are not really valuable for anything useful themselves, only as a medium of exchange because of what they represent - the value I created. I’m toying with the notion that the act of spending that money, no matter what for, cannot be a creation of value, only the consumption of it.

I think of Spiderman 2 when MJ gets mad at Harry and his solution is “I want to buy you something.” If I want to create value for someone, is there creation of value in purchasing something or in understanding what would create value for them and doing it. I submit that spending money is usually a lazy attempt at creating value. The creation of value could involve the spending of money, but it is not the spending of money that creates the value.

Political Parties - The Kings of Republics

In mormon culture there is a story of an ancient American king named Mosiah. Whether you agree with mormon doctrine or not, the story of King Mosiah teaches some important principles about good government that are worth exploring.

Mosiah, like his father Benjamin before him, was a good man that provided for his own living while serving in the position of king. When Mosiah reached an age where it was time to place a new king on the thrown, the voice of the people chose one of his sons, who would not accept the thrown. Because he knew of the potential for harm that a monarchy presents, Mosiah felt that it would be the perfect opportunity to establish a new form of government. He said the following about kings:

"Therefore, if it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God, and judge this people according to his commandments, yea, if ye could have men for your kings who would do even as my father Benjamin did for this people – I say unto you, if this could always be the case then it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you."

He explains three conditions where kings would be "expedient" or beneficial.

1. They would be just men
2. They would establish the laws of God (or what the American founding fathers referred to, in the Declaration of Independence as"the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.")
3. They would judge the people according to the commandments of the Lord (or strategies to best benefit from these principles)

These conditions coincide with the three different aspects of government, namely the executive authority, the legislative authority, and the judicial authority; and are not unique to monarchies – they are equally important for any ruling body. Our leaders must be just, principle driven men and women. They must establish laws (or define collective strategies) based on true principles or natural laws. They must judge according to these strategies using true principles.

King Mosiah adds:

"Now I say unto you, that because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you."

Not all men are just; therefore King Mosiah proposed a different form of government as a solution rather than having a king, or kings. The form of government that King Mosiah proposed has many similarities to that defined in the United States Constitution. Like Mosiah, the American founding fathers knew the dangers inherent in trusting one man or a few men with all the responsibilities of governing a people. They formed a government where the principles in the Constitution would be the standard, and the people would be endowed with the final say, through a republican form of government. However, we are currently ruled, not by principles or by the voice of the people, or even by the Constitution in many cases, but by two political parties. We do elect our representatives, but their actions in office are mostly controlled by these political parties. For example: In order to have a bill come on the floor, it is required to have a rule assigned to it by the committee on rules. This committee is controlled by the majority party. This is one of the many benefits of a party being in the majority in either house of congress and why the two political parties that have "major party" status fight so vehemently over control of congress. In order to be elected to a major national office, such as President of the United States, political party support has become necessary in order to win. Some say, "This is the way our system works. We should work within it to elect principled men and women into office." This is similar to telling those ruled by an unprincipled Monarch, to use the monarchical system to place a principled individual on the thrown.

King Mosiah spoke concerning the difficulties of removing an unprincipled king:

"And behold, now I say unto you, ye cannot dethrone an iniquitous king save it be through much contention, and the shedding of much blood. For behold, he has his friends in iniquity, and he keepeth his guards about him; and he teareth up the laws of those who have reigned in righteousness before him; and he trampleth under his feet the commandments of God; and he enacteth laws, and sendeth them forth among his people, yea, laws after the manner of his own wickedness; and whosoever doth not obey his laws he causeth to be destroyed; and whosoever doth rebel against him he will send his armies against them to war, and if he can he will destroy them; and thus an unrighteous king doth pervert the ways of all righteousness."

Just as a monarchy protects and keeps an "iniquitous" or unprincipled king in power, political party rule protects and keeps men and women in office, whether or not they are principled, as long as they follow party lines. This actually has the hidden effect of favoring unprincipled men and women, because if their main goal is to stay in office, they are willing to violate principle to do so, whereas principled individuals would rather sacrifice party support than violate principles. In political parties, because the whole purpose of a political party is to elect individuals, decisions are often made based on polls and party unity, rather than on principles. Both major political parties are more concerned with getting their representatives re-elected than with principles of good government; and if you cross your party, you lose their support. While this is currently the way that the system does work, it is not how the system has to work. In fact, the system would function better if it did not work this way. Because we do still live in a country where, constitutionally, the people have the last say; it is only our own ignorance, misunderstanding, and fear which prevent us from doing it differently.

These human weaknesses are demonstrated by those who promote the idea that if someone votes for a third party candidate, or an unaffiliated candidate, they are somehow either "splitting" either the conservative or liberal vote, or wasting their vote entirely; in either case, being disloyal to either so-called "conservatism" or so-called "liberalism". Those with this mentality seem to be more concerned about their chosen party winning or losing political power than about principled men and women being elected to office. A vote for a third party or unaffiliated candidate would no more be splitting the vote than voting for a major party candidate. Why should the major parties get to decide whom all "conservatives" or "liberals" should vote for? Is belonging to the Republican Party or Democratic Party a sign that you are more worthy of a vote?

We should vote for principled men and women. Whether or not they belong to a so-called third party, or any party at all, is at most only slightly relevant. Once principled men and women are elected into office (which does happen) are they given the powers necessary to accomplish principled objectives? In 1981, W. Cleon Skousen, in an article titled "Why We Must Reform Congress by 1983" [http://www.latterdayconservative.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=158] demonstrates how, even though elected by the people, these powers are not theirs:

But even with a two-party system, the power of political bosses who regulate the internal structure of the Congress, can be extremely harmful to the legislative process as the Founders envisioned it.

...

Many Congressmen have pointed out in speeches and books that the most corruptive and corrosive factor which prevents the "will of the people" from getting through the legislative channels in the people's House of Representatives is the fact that five positions which are always held by the majority party are like massive legislative valves that shut off any bills the leaders of the majority do not approve. On the other hand, procedures have been developed so that they can virtually coerce the Congress into accepting a considerable amount of legislation which might otherwise be rejected.

Congressman John Rhodes says the six critical positions which operate like feudal fiefdoms in the House of Representatives are at present as follows:

1. The Speaker of the House
2. The Majority Leader
3. The Majority Whip
4. The Caucus Chairman
5. The Chairman of the House Administration Committee
6. The Chairman of the House Rules Committee

The necessary controls are not given to principled men and women in a system that is controlled by political parties. When principled men and women do get elected, the system in the Senate and House of Representatives is such that, if they are dependent on party support for re-election, it makes little difference whether they are principled or not. If they don't toe the party line they won't be able to accomplish much at all.

A friend said recently, in reference to the 16th and 17th Amendments:

"How do you think these kinds of messed up changes were enacted in the first place? Why, through the election of unprincipled people by a frightened and/or ignorant electorate, that's how!"

Precisely! And the same people have set up and continue to maintain a system where party support is essential to get anything passed. Getting principled men and women elected who are not primarily influenced by party affiliation would be the solution. The only thing keeping this from happening is the fear which motivates the "don't split the vote" and "don't waste your vote" crowds.

The manifestation of this fear influenced my first experiences with the political process:

My first opportunity to voice my opinion in a national election was the year that President George H. W. Bush was running against then Governor Bill Clinton, and Ross Perot. I felt a sense of duty to be informed. I watched the debates. I listened to the news programs on the mainstream media. I asked my parents' views and opinions. I asked adults, who I felt safe asking, their opinions.
"Now, some may argue that the mainstream media is anything but an objective viewpoint to judge a race from, but I was 18 and had been trained taught and educated to believe that the media was supposed to be unbiased and objective. Well, now I know better and am a more informed voter.
"To make a long story short, I didn't want to vote for President Bush because of the stories in the media; I didn't want to vote for Bill Clinton because he seemed more interested in appearing to have the right answers than in actually having good answers and believing them. Ross Perot was the only one who seemed to have good, principle based answers. He seemed to be the best candidate. That's who I voted for.
"I soon felt the wrath of the party affiliated zealots. While I rarely told anyone how I voted, there were enough backlashes against those who "split the conservative vote" I didn't think it was a good idea to invite it on me personally. I was in immense emotional turmoil over my decision to vote for the person who I honestly felt was the best candidate.
"I have, as a result, never registered with any political party. In my cynicism, I felt that political parties in general were a huge detriment to honest people voting their conscience. I felt that I was alone in this sentiment and that there was nothing that I could do about it except continue to vote my conscience. I was in the victim mentality of consumerism and had a mildly cynical view of politics in general, until I went to a seminar by George Wythe College where a student of the college explained Federalist 10 and how it addressed factions and their potential for corruption and bad government. As soon as I heard this explanation, I had a burning desire to read Federalist 10. In the process of researching this, I also encountered George Washington's farewell address. Both of these documents were a breath of fresh air. They both explain about the potential for harm that political parties create. This I already understood from personal experience, but had not been able to put into words. These two documents helped me to articulate what I felt were the evils of political parties."

Let's clarify a bit. Adams, Madison, Hamilton, and many of our founding fathers belonged to political parties. Affiliating with a political party is not a bad thing, in and of itself. Political parties are nothing more than like minded individuals who meet together to bring about a common goal. This is desirable and defended by the first amendment. Many good things are accomplished through like-minded individuals combining resources. What is undesirable is when these groups of like-minded individuals, otherwise known as "factions," obtain and fight over disproportionate control of the legislative, executive, and judicial processes. As the adage goes, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

This is the despotism to which George Washington referred when he said:

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension ... is itself a frightful despotism." [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Washington%27s_Farewell_Address]

We should not support a system which gives power to faction over principle, even if it is "how the system works." To do so is to say, "There's nothing I can do about it."

Now that we've discussed the problem, and addressed what the solution is not; as part of the Producer Revolution and the Free Capitalist Project, the question is, "What do we do about it?"; "Therefore, what?" That is a difficult question to answer, but the solution begins with voting your conscience without letting party affiliation restrict your choices.

Any coordinated action to remedy the problem should begin at the level closest to the voters. Take the opportunity to host or attend classes on the Constitution; find productive ways to fulfill your stewardship as a citizen of the United States of America; and most importantly educate yourself about all the candidates for any given office, decide which is the most principled individual, and vote for them, no matter what party affiliation they have, or don't have.

Whether you agree with this solution or not, ask yourself how you can best help educate yourself and those who lie within your circle of influence, about the dangers of a system that is dominated and controlled by party affiliation rather than principles of good government, and then take action.

Therefore, what?