Victory? Vatican releases “Prophecy”

By Flavia Krause-Jackson and Lorenzo Totaro (Bloomberg) | Nov. 20 (Bloomberg) — Pope Benedict XVI was the first to predict the crisis in the global financial system, a “prophecy” dating to a paper he wrote when he was a cardinal, Italian Finance Minister Giulio Tremonti said.

“The prediction that an undisciplined economy would collapse by its own rules can be found” in an article written by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who became pope in April 2005, Tremonti said yesterday at Milan’s Cattolica University.

German-born Ratzinger in 1985 presented a paper entitled “Market Economy and Ethics” at a Rome event dedicated to the Church and the economy. The future pope said a decline in ethics “can actually cause the laws of the market to collapse.”

Pope Benedict in an Oct. 7 speech reflected on crashing markets and concluded that “money vanishes, it is nothing” and warned that “the only solid reality is the word of God.”

The Vatican’s official newspaper, l’Osservatore Romano, on the same day criticized the free-market model for having “grown too much and badly in the past two decades.”>>>>Read the Full Article

Pass the Gas!

By Ammon Nelson.

WEST VALLEY CITY, UT | 3 September 2008 | The recent gas price hikes have brought out an interesting phenomenon in some religious communities as attendance in church on Sunday has reportedly dwindled.  Some may use this as yet another reason why the government must do something to “fix” the economy, but there is a trend that illustrates some important principles, if we take the time to analyze the situation. Carrie Moore of the Deseret News reports:

A story published earlier this month in The Baytown Sun described how Maranatha Church leaders made the offer to everyone in the community, including non-church participants: show up before any of the church’s 10:45 a.m. Sunday services through July and August for a free raffle ticket.  Entrants must be at least 16 years old, and the tickets will be submitted in a drawing to win free gas.

If attendance at church is dwindling, there is a reason for it, and higher gas prices merely serve to accentuate the consequences.  It is not the cause of the low attendance.  The cause is the Brain Off Conspiracy – people failing to take responsibility for their own value judgments and playing the victim saying, “It’s not my fault.  I just can’t afford to come to church.  Gas prices are too high.”

Key Points

• While church attendance can and often does help people gain a better relationship with God, it is not necessary and natural that people attend church to do so.  It is a made and imagined idea that in order to “get them to Jesus” as one pastor quoted in the article stated, people must attend church.  There are millions of people around the world who have close relationships with God, without attending church on Sunday.
• God is the author of prosperity and principles govern – While attending church can help people turn to the author of prosperity and learn about true principles, giving away something for nothing in a raffle creates a false incentive, and gives the idea that the gas is the thing of value, rather than the relationship with God, the clergy and other members of the congregation.
• Agency implies stewardship – the people who fail to attend church on Sunday are merely demonstrating how much they value going to church.  Those who attend church on Sunday demonstrate what they value as well.  In order to be truly happy, we must first take responsibility for our own value judgments and choices.
• Human Life Value is the source and creator of all Property Value – If people value coming to church more than the cost it takes to get there they will come.  By holding a raffle for free gas, it teaches that free gasoline has more potential to make people happy than the friendships gained at church and the message being shared at church.  The value of going to church is in the person giving the sermon or teaching the lesson; and the people who are there and share common beliefs.
• Faith—being the principle of action in all intelligent beings—begins with self-interest.  The best way to promote something, like church attendance, is to demonstrate how that cause is in the self-interest of those you want to persuade.

Conclusion

Offering raffle tickets for free gas to get people in the pews replaces the intended incentive of helping people improve their relationship with God and true principles with a desire for “free gas.”  The value in any religious meeting is in the message being shared and in the association with like minded individuals.

Action Steps:

1. Evaluate your motivations for everything you do and see if you do it because you can rationally explain how it is making you a better person, or if there is some other motivation.
2. If attendance in a group that you value, like your local church congregation, is low; brainstorm with your leader of ways you could help improve the actual content and substance of the meetings and effectively get the message out to better appeal to individuals’ self-interest to persuade people to attend.

Principles 1 (1, 2, 4, 6)

Sources:

Carrie A. Moore, Empty tank, empty pews? High gas prices lead churches to get creative, Deseret News, July 26, 2008.

Ammon Nelson was born the second of ten children. Raised in West Valley City, he graduated from Granger High School in 1992 and served an LDS mission to the Northeast region of Brazil. He graduated from Salt Lake Community College in 2000 and from the University of Idaho, in Moscow, ID, in 2003. He enjoys discussing philosophy, performing and learning music, and spending time with his family. He currently lives in West Valley City with his wife, the former Heather Mann, and their six children. He works for the Nucor Building Systems of Brigham City, Utah, and has been a part of the FreeCapitalist Project since September 2006.

Rocky Mountain Powerless

TAYLORSVILLE, UT | 27 August 2008 | It is a fundamental necessity in any free society that both the government and the people recognize that the proper role of government is protector of human rights, not grantor of those rights. God is the author of prosperity. Human rights spring from the prosperity that he has authored, and from no other source. Once a people begin to turn to the government for anything other than protection of rights, they give their freedom to that government. Once the governing body aims to do anything other than protect rights, it begins believing that it is the source of freedoms and assumes authority that does not belong to it. Unearned, misplaced power is intoxicating to both its wielder and its beneficiaries.

In the words of Ludwig von Mises, 

There is an inherent tendency in all governmental power to recognize no restraints on its operation and to extend the sphere of its dominance as much as possible. To control everything, to leave no room for anything to happen of its own accord without the interference of the authorities – this is the goal for which every ruler secretly strives.

Even the least educated in regards to freedom and its foundations recognize this tendency, especially when the lengthy arm of governmental power affects their person. Yet, for all of society’s complaints about ever increasing government control, they continue to hand freedoms to their rulers in exchange for favors and handouts that seldom bring the expected results.

A story in the news last week shows a perfect example of this non-profitable exchange. The Salt Lake Tribune reported Tuesday that after an arduous process, Rocky Mountain Power (RMP) finally received approval for a rate hike. RMP originally asked for a rate hike of $160 million and then reduced that request to $74.4 million. After looking at third party findings that “argued the company deserved an increase of only $8.5 million”, the Utah Public Service Commission “decided the company was entitled to raise its rates $33.3 million.” That Rocky Mountain Power should even have to ask permission to set pricings is a sad statement about government intervention leading to lost freedom. And, not surprisingly, the rate hike isn’t anywhere near the amount RMP says it needs to be able to maintain profit margins and keep up with the demand from growing Utah communities.

While the story in the Tribune focused a great deal on how the rate hike will affect the end consumers’ pocketbooks, it is more important to focus on how government involvement and interference in what should be a private company will lead to that company’s demise.

Key Points

• The government’s interference in this situation is not an all out compulsory dominion over Rocky Mountain Power. Like most utility companies, RMP inadvertently agreed to government intervention by accepting tax breaks, grants, and subsidies.
• Whether or not the company fully acknowledged that help would have strings attached, it likely underestimated the degree of control that the government would exercise.
• Today, as it feels that control in its fullness, it finds itself greatly hindered in its ability to operate freely and protect its self-interest.
• When one gives up all or part of their agency to another, they are not excused from the accompanying stewardship, even if the loss of agency hampers their ability to fulfill that stewardship. Responsibility lies solely with the original steward, regardless of the regulations and bureaucracy that they may now face.
• Rocky Mountain Power now finds itself in the predicament of needing funds that exceed its projected budgets. So long as the government dictates allowable profit margins to the company, the company remains in jeopardy.
• The irony here is that the government wants companies like RMP to meet consumer demands at a price that seems reasonable to the consumer. In trying to regulate that price, they limit supply—a company that is short on resources will not be able to produce sufficiently. They also limit the ability of the company to meet the consumer demand, which will eventually drive prices higher.
• As has happened in the medical field and in many other areas, government intervention has artificially suppressed prices and has led the consumer to expect services for less than they cost to provide. Requests to raise prices are painted as attacks on consumers, but letting the status quo drive the power company out of business isn’t a viable option either. Where’s the utility in a defunct company?
• Government intervention in public utilities has become so common place that most fail to see the dangers in it. And, when utility companies fail, it will be to the government that the people run.

Conclusion

Utility companies have grown to rely on the crutch of the government, and in so doing have cut themselves short. So long as this practice continues, they will never know their own capabilities and potential nor will they know the true taste of freedom. In speaking to Congress on August 12, 1974, Gerald Ford echoed sentiments of Jefferson in saying, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.” Rocky Mountain Power’s choice of dependence and the consequent lack of freedom could cause them to lose everything that they have.

Action Items

1. Take a look at your attitudes regarding utility companies and other industries that have become dependent on the government’s help. Do you see the inherent dangers, or do you simply accept the current set up as the way things are?
2. Open a discussion with your peers in the FreeCapitalist Project on the proper role of government. Discuss how companies that appear to be inseparably intertwined with the government could wean themselves from dependency. Discuss the beneficial effects that self-reliance would have on those businesses.
3. Consider areas in which you are less self-reliant than you should be (especially areas where lack of self-reliance leads to dependence on government). What steps can you take to be more self-reliant in those areas?
4. Consider the freedoms you would lose by failing to maintain self-reliance in those areas.

MRFC Principles:  (1, 3, 9, 11)

Sources

Steven Oberbeck, Rocky Mountain Power gets OK for rate hike — but not near what it wanted, Salt Lake Tribune, August 12, 2008.

Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism in the Classical Tradition, Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2000.

In Praise of the Invisible!

HIGHLAND, UT | 21 August 2008 | Pop quiz! What do William F. Buckley, Tom Lantos, Charlton Heston, Tim Russert, Jesse Helms, Tony Snow, and Alexander Solzhenitsyn have in common? If you’re paying any attention of to the news this year, you would recognize at least a couple of these names on the death lists for the year. And you’d be absolutely correct. All of these individuals have passed away this year. Extra Credit: what does a writer, a Democratic Representative of Congress, a former Democrat and believer in gun control turned NRA president, a moderate Democratic journalist, a Republican Senator, a speech writer, and a former Soviet labor prisoner also have in common? They were all stalwarts in the Cause of Liberty in this country and around the world.

In an August 10, 2008, American Thinker piece, Bruce Walker memorialized these seven icons and then lamented, in ways people often do when a list of greats depart this earth, that they were irreplaceable. Walker concludes his essay:

We live in an age filled with convenient platitudes.…We can no longer smell the stench of sin or of dishonor. We have lost our sense of moral purpose in life. We can replace almost anything in our lives—human organs, currency and credit, electronic records and documents—but ultimately these things do not define life.

What matters in life is the yearning of the human spirit for goodness and truth and the courage and grit to make that yearning into deeds and words that matter. Men who personify these values, unlike hearts and dollars, are irreplaceable. It is not they who have died: They are immortal. It is rather us who die each time one of these rare few leave this world. We have forgotten, in our busy rush to nowhere, how to replace the irreplaceable.

Throughout his essay he reflects upon this question: Do the institutions these great men arose from produce more such souls today? His answer is always the same. “If they do, these [newly produced icons] are invisible.” Well, maybe invisible is what we need.

Key Points

• Being invisible means waking up and turning your own brain on.
• Being invisible means recognizing your self-interest in determining a definite major purpose for your life.
• Being invisible means living a life of self-reliance based upon true civic service that begins first with fixing yourself, politically, economically, and most important morally.
• Being invisible means turning outward to effect lasting change in your neighborhood and community by entering into voluntary mutual value-creation based upon individual self-interest.
• Being invisible means building communities of principled individuals by helping others to awaken and to fix themselves.

Conclusion

The Founding generation of this nation was a population of only three million common farmers. They came to or were born in this land to work the land and to build society upon the principles of freedom they understood and subsequently discovered. A small, statistically significant number of these regular people (about 3% of the population) effectively changed the course of history in the matter of only a few years. The political revolution they achieved has directly or indirectly affected every nation in the world. But the moral crisis we face today is challenging those political achievements. The call for a moral revolution is real and it is immenent.

But the great tribal leaders—those memorialized by Mr Walker and many others—stood at their respective helms intending to inspire the masses and still our world is in a downward slope into a “shallow, silly, and scared society” where principles are discarded for the whims of polling data and focus groups. Heads of the tribe, no matter how great they are, will never generate the change our society is looking for. The moral revolution must come again from a small, statistically significant group of people. When they begin to change their lives, amazing things can result. It is time for the invisible to rise up with principled living to effect the kind of life Mr. Walker recognizes as important. Perhaps Walker is right. Perhaps the next wave of greats is invisible.

Action Items

1. Begin your awakening process, by finding a wise, brain-on mentor, or listening to FreeCapitalist Radio.
2. Learn to read—study with a purpose.
3. Begin to associate with like-minded individuals and discuss your ideas.
4. Start a blog where you explore your ideas in the written world.
5. Discover your Definite Major Purpose and begin today to work towards achieving that purpose.
6. Resolve to stand up for truth in all places and in all situations (it will save your soul, and it might just save the nation).

MRFC Principles: 1 (1, 2, 4)

Sources

Bruce Walker, Replacing the Irreplaceable, The American Thinker, August 10, 2008.

The Wrong Approach to Rebuilding Iraq

TAYLORSVILLE, UT | 12 August 2008 | As the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report on Iraq’s stockpile of resources, outrage erupted on the Senate floor. And that outrage will most likely spill over into the minds and hearts of many Americans.

The reason for the outrage—while Americans have been paying the lion’s share of the bill for Iraqi reconstruction, Iraq has been building up a budget surplus that is projected to reach $80 billion by year’s end. Since 2003 the “United States has put about $48 billion toward reconstruction.” Spending by Iraq for its own reconstruction has been significantly less. Rising oil prices have caused Iraq’s revenues to soar, yet they are spending American taxpayer money to rebuild their nation. “The export of crude oil accounted for 94 percent of Iraq’s revenues from 2005 to 2007, the GAO reported.”

The outrage is understandable. The war and reconstruction have been costly. Despite buzz that the war has been all about oil money, major oil contracts have been handed out almost exclusively to non-American companies. Additionally, Americans were told that this was a cost they would not be responsible for. “Bush administration officials said on the eve of the war that Iraqi oil money would pay for reconstruction.” Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz is quoted as telling the House Appropriations committee, “We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.’”

With an already troubled economy, many Americans have questioned covering the cost of the war itself, let alone the costs of rebuilding. Sen. Carl Levin says, “It is inexcusable for U.S. taxpayers to continue to foot the bill for projects the Iraqis are fully capable of funding themselves.” And, while I agree that this should not be the duty of the American tax payer, I would say that it is equally inexcusable for us to push Iraqis to use government dollars for projects that should be privately funded. If Iraq is to ever have true freedom (something we don’t even have here), our focus cannot be the amount of money they do or don’t have. Our focus has to be adherence to the principles that form and guarantee freedom.

Key Points

• War and its devastations create a uniquely strenuous circumstance. The needs of the people are magnified as basic utilities, systems, and resources are rendered inoperable. Regardless of circumstance, principle is ignorant of need. God is the author of prosperity and He does not play dice with the universe. Principles govern at all times and in all conditions. When need is used as the basis for policy decisions, principle is discarded and freedom and prosperity will consequently die. It is when needs are greatest that principle must be adhered to if lasting solutions are to be found.
• For example, it would have been much more convenient for our Founders to avoid war with Great Britain and just remain subject to the crown than to stand for that which they knew to be right. Yet, had they chosen any path other than the principled one, we would not be the country we are today with the freedoms we enjoy.
• The Iraqi Government will never be able to stand and protect a free people if it is built on a flawed foundation. There are two major flaws being ignored in this foundation:
  • Encouraging the government of a prospective free nation to be the owner of oil reserves and incomes (or of any “public” property).
  • Establishing the habit of using government incomes to meet the needs of the people.
• Both of these flaws are plays taken straight out of the communist handbook. E.C. Riegel said, “When government undertakes to solve man’s problem for him it undertakes the mastery of society and it cannot be both master and servant.”

Conclusion

It is a difficult thing to perceive that the American Government can help establish a proper framework and set a proper example of freedom when we have strayed so far here at home.

Even if the Founding Fathers had chosen to enter a war like this (which they would not have chosen), they would clearly see the dangerous precedent being set here. While it has long been that oil and its revenues have been the property of the Iraqi government, this practice should be abolished in the process of setting up a free nation. Ownership of oil and its subsequent revenues should be private. James Madison said, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” I have never had to endure the immediate ravages of war and therefore have no concrete understanding of what it would be like. Regardless of the calamities, however, I believe that if I were an Iraqi, my request would be simple: “Let freedom ring, and let it ring completely.”

Action Items

1. Recognize teaching opportunities as you hear others complain that the Iraqi Government isn’t covering the cost of reconstruction. Share how freedom can’t be achieved by creating a socialistic welfare state.
2. Ponder difficult moments of need in your life. Do you stick to principle, regardless of the gravity of the situation?
3. Consider how you offer help to others. Do you teach them to help themselves, or do you create dependence?

MRFC Principles: 1 (1, 3, 13)

Sources

CNN, Iraq’s oil-fueled surplus could hit $80 billion, report says, CNN.com, August 6, 2008

Robert H. Reid, US officials defend Iraqi budget surplus, Associated Press, August 6, 2008

E.C. Riegel, Private Enterprise Money, a Non-Political Money System, 1944 (For more of Riegel’s writings, click here).

James Madison, speaking on the house floor, concerning a $15,000 appropriation for French refugees from San Domingo, 1794.

(Matthew Pilling is a member of the FreeCapitalist movement known as the Canadian Capitalist. Despite his time in the Great White North, Matthew loves America and all that it stands for. He lives with his wife and two children in Taylorsville and works in finance.)

Why the Pickens Plan Won’t Work

HIGHLAND, UT | 23 July 2008| One of the hottest topics in the marketplace of ideas is America’s growing concern with energy. Many say that oil production peaked in 2005 and will soon dry up. Others say that petroleum based internal combustion engines, though not very efficient, are here to stay. Many are looking for alternative sources of oil, such as shale or from algae while others argue that these sources are not feasible for the country’s needs. And there is the ubiquitous clamoring that our current “dependence” upon foreign oil is draining our coffers dry. One of the latest to come on the scene for the current crisis of alternative solutions, is a man named T. Boone Pickens.

With a name like T. Boone Pickens: if you picture a Texas oil tycoon millionaire philanthropist, you would be correct. Though his plan is new, Pickens is not new to the energy industry. The son of an oil producer and a degree in geology, no doubt to aid him in understanding where oil, natural gas and other energy sources may be found in the earth, Pickens was the founder of Mesa Petroleum, which grew to become “one of the largest and most well known independent exploration and production companies in the United States” under his stewardship. Simply put, Pickens’ background and experience definitely qualifies him to be listened to regarding an alternative plan.

His plan is to use one of the world’s greatest wind resources to generate enough electricity to power other energy plants and to provide a portion of America’s electricity needs, thus relieving the need to operate these plants with oil, so the oil demand in the country would drop and more oil could also be used to produce fuel for our vehicles. The Plan also provides for alternative sources of automobile fuel, such as natural gas and ultimately electricity. The plan appears quite legitimate, in and of itself. But it contains a serious flaw that will prove it ultimate failure, and perhaps the failure of our great nation.

Principles govern in the affairs of man. A plan that violates those principles may prove quite successful in the short-term, but will ultimately spell the doom of all those involved. In this regard, Pickens doesn’t really appear to violate principle in the plan itself: wind, natural gas, and other sources of energy are as viable as any other on earth. And left up to a good capitalist, say, another Henry Ford or Steve Jobs, these alternatives could definitely become the next hysteria in transportation. The major flaws of the Pickens Plan is the implementation.

Pickens has been in Washington D.C.all this week, lobbying elected officials and testifying before committees, looking for “permission” to carry forth his plan. This corporatist approach to solving this nation’s challenges violates the Principles of Prosperity and will ultimately end in ruins.

Key Points

• Those who seek the protection of government believe government provides prosperity. Those who understand where true prosperity comes from will then gain the faith necessary to act appropriately. Pickens reveals his faith in government rather than God:

It can all be accomplished with private investment but needs government support by clearing the way for action, which means help on providing the transmission right of way, the appropriate renewals of the renewable energy tax credits, among other things.

• In reality, the plan, any plan, only needs one thing from government: to get itself out of the way and allow informed citizens to voluntarily create the solutions the country seeks.
• Faith is the opposite of fear. again, a thorough understanding of God as the true source of prosperity puts the course in perspective and creates a level of certainty. This builds faith which aids an individual to action. Pickens wants to have the government force its citizens to follow his plan. He lacks the faith that people will see this for themselves. If an intended market does not recognize its self-interest in a given market item, the only way to get that intended market to buy into it is by force. The better solution for Pickens would be to create the project more locally and have it prove its legitimacy and allow it to catch on in the rest of the country. To his credit, he is currently building the largest wind farm in the world which will have the productive capability of four coal-fire plants. Perhaps, however, he feels this is too slow.
• By attaching stewardship (the responsibility of failure) to the collective body, the Pickens Plan creates a fissure in agency. No one will act responsibly enough to ensure success. This allows an escape hatch to exist in case of failure. And when it crashes, too many otherwise responsible parties will echo Atlas Shrugs’, “It’s not my fault.” This gets people off the hook but it does not create a formula for success.

Conclusion

The intended implementation process of the Pickens Plan is the product of a collective attitude within the American society that says business success can only happen with government’s blessing. This is the result of decades of fascist and other socialist influence over not just government’s psyche, but that of the general population as well. Thus, the truth of the FreeCapitalist statement: Everyone is trained, taught, and educated in the scarcity paradigm. That psyche is the flame that has fueled our society from the Great Depression right down to the next big bail out and the next government-enforced great idea. On paper, the Pickens Plan looks really good, but these violations of principle will spell the ultimate doom. The Founders created a country in which rugged individualism and social strength, based upon the universal principles of prosperity, would move this country forward in success. Anything short of that, anything that replaces faith with fear, is at best a counterfeit and will not work.

Action Items

1. Review the Pickens Plan for yourself and decide whether the energy portion of the plan is something you could support.
2. Communicate with your Congressman your position regarding any government involvement in this Plan.
3. If you have an idea you’ve contemplated bringing to market, study Principle 1 (God is the author of prosperity) and Principle 2 (Faith begins with self-interest) until you have built enough faith in yourself and in others to bring your idea to market according to principle.

MRFC Principles:  1  (1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13)

Sources

The Man with the Plan,PickensPlan.com.

The Plan,PickensPlan.com.

T. Boone Pickens’ energy plan gets play in Washington, Dallas Business Journal, July 23, 2008.

C. Rick Koerber, A Call for Revolution,The FreeCapitalist Project Primer, p. 19.

Obamacons and Hillraisers

SALT LAKE CITY, UT | 15 July 2008| Obamacons vs. Hillraisers. No, it’s not the title of another Transformers movie. It’s a new set of camps that have come up out of the carnage that is this year’s election. And, neither group is quite what you would expect when you consider typical party politics.Reaching across party lines has taken on a new meaning. In a world where opposition to everything held dear by the “other party” is almost a supreme mandate, one wouldn’t expect to see ‘donkeys in elephant’s clothing’ or to play ‘pin the tail on the elephant’, but such is the case this year. As both major political parties draw closer to their national conventions, there are rising factions within each party that are so disgruntled with their presumptive candidates that they are willing to jump ship. And, jumping ship doesn’t just mean staying home and not voting for the candidate you don’t like. It actually means throwing your support behind the other party’s candidate.

Republicans that are considering voting for Obama have come to be known as Obamacons. Obamacons tend to fear that McCain would bring another 4 years of Bush-like policies. This group is made up mostly of libertarian-minded members of the Republican Party who oppose the Iraq war. But, the group also includes such unlikely members as conservative writers and supply-siders1 (people who believe in lowering taxes as a means to stimulate the economy).

Democrats who raised at least $100,000 for the Clinton campaign have come to be known as Hillraisers. While many have pledged their support to Obama and the Democratic Party, a large number of Hillraisers are saying that the buck stops here and are now holding talks with key McCain fundraisers. 2

Obamacons have justified their change-over to the campaign of change by saying such things as “Obama is saying the wrong things on taxes but…it (is only) electioneering” 1 and “…As a man, I find Mr. Obama to be prudent, thoughtful, and courageous. His life story embodies the conservative values that go to the core of my beliefs.”1 But, do his proposed policies embody those values? Can you really believe that he will turn from his “electioneering” tax proposals, and suddenly embrace conservative values if elected?

Hillraisers are generally women who saw things through Hillary’s eyes and are upset by what they perceive as sexist treatment by the media. “What really hurt women the most was to look back and see all this gender bias,” said founder of the Esprit clothing store chain Susie Tompkins Buell.3 Whether you believe there was unfair treatment by the media or not, it hardly seems rational to jump party lines over such an upset. If Laura Bush or Condoleezza Rice (or any other female conservative) had been the woman only woman in the race, would these same women complain of unfair, sexist media bias? Hasn’t there been just as much unfair treatment of McCain by the media?

Key Points

• Our right to exercise agency in selecting our leaders comes with a major stewardship. It involves so much more than showing up in the final election rounds to select ‘box a” or “box b.” Obamacons and Hillraisers are getting involved before the final rounds, but they are doing so without regard for principles or stewardship.
• People believe that supporting (or blocking) a new tribal head is the solution to the problem. It is not. The real solution to the problem lies in “we the people” coming to understand and live by principle. Principles do govern. Failure to make principles the guiding standard when making major decisions (in politics or otherwise) will never truly solve anything and will always lead to unwanted consequences. Like the bitter old woman who has burned through numerous husbands wondering why there aren’t any good men in the world, these two groups must come to the realization that no hero figure (or magic policy) can ever make them happy. Until they discover that the need for change lies within them, they will always be unhappy—even if their first choice for candidate had won.
• Both Obamacons and disgruntled Hillraisers apparently have so little connection to principles that they are tossed about by their own emotional whims, without concern for the true ramifications of their actions and choices. They’ll end up with a candidate that they don’t truly support and will wonder why their vindictive actions somehow didn’t relieve their dismay.

Conclusion

Even with principles as your guide, it can be incredibly difficult to cut through the campaign year speeches and see what a candidate really stands for. That is especially true when candidates’ firm viewpoints seem to depend solely on the audience they are speaking to. But, when your decision to change horses (or elephants or donkeys, for that matter) mid-stream solely because of emotional frustrations, you can be sure that your decision won’t get you where you want to go. It shows an immaturity and inability to place higher value on principles than on childish whims and tantrums. Our agency to choose the leaders of this country and influence policies is a huge responsibility that should never be wielded in spiteful vengeance. If our love of country comes second to our desire to punish the cruel world, then we are the ones that ought to be punished.

Action Items

1. Consider how you decide who to vote for. Is your decision based on principle or on issues and their accompanying emotions?
2. Spend time studying the 13 Principles of Prosperity.
3. Listen to the both candidates’ solutions to major election year issues (health care, war in Iraq, energy crisis and fuel shortage, etc). Determine where their solutions follow principle and where they violate principle.
4. Choose a candidate to vote for based on their ability to follow principles rather than on sound-bytes and hype.

MRFC Principles: (1, 2, 3, 4)

Sources

1—Mr. Right?, The New Republic, June 25, 2008

2—“Hillraisers” To Meet With Avid John McCain Supporter, Carly Fiorina, DigitalJournal.com, July 7, 2008

3—Clinton diehards throw support behind McCain, The Independent, July 8, 2008

How Do You Celebrate Independence?

HIGHLAND, UT | 4 July 2008 | Ah! The Fourth of July! That great mid-summer holiday. Full of parades and beauty pageants, fireworks, barbecues, 10k races, pancake breakfasts in the park, and flag raising ceremonies. This is what this holiday is all about, right? Oh, and thinking about the signing of the Declaration of Independence (whatever that is). I sure am glad those guys did that in summertime so we could have such an awesome party.

Independence Day is also a day to reflect. Do we recognize the price our Founders paid to win their independence? Do we know of the struggle leading up to that great event? What do we know about those men? Do we buy in to the image so prevalent today that they were philandering old men or have we done our homework and recognize their virtue? Do we just spend our day lounging around, getting drunk, and exercising the inner urge to blow things up?

The Founders started a revolution, but they did not complete it. They recognized it would take many generations to complete what they started. Yes, they were able to validate their declaration of political sovereignty; but their revolution was so much more. They subsequently created a government to transcend the ages, one which had never been tried before. One which honored the individual and allowed the individual to govern himself.

The Founders revolution included three areas. The first, most well-known is the political revolution, discussed above. The basic premise is that man is able to govern himself and doesn’t need a king or elected officials to tell him what to think and how to act. How are you doing? Do you govern yourself or do you allow others (political leaders, bosses, Kommissars*, etc.) to control your life? Second, this revolution was one of religious freedom, or freedom of conscience. Finally, to be a citizen of a nation an individual did not have to be the member of a certain church. He could choose for himself, according to the personal belief system within his own mind. The third portion of the revolution is economic. Through capitalism people can freely exchange with one another, individuals can do more than just live paycheck to paycheck. They are free to discover their life’s missions and to pursue those with that same freedom of conscience and to strive to leave the world better than when they entered it.

This revolution—all three portions of it—are not intended only as a collective revolution; it is a personal revolution. So how are you doing? Do you understand the purpose of the revolution? Do you live the revolution, or are you just living paycheck to paycheck, getting up when others say you should, going places others say you should, thinking the ideas others say you should? Or do you practice your own autonomy? Are you actively engaged in a personal revolution? Do you celebrate independence all year long, or is it a 0.27% of the year?

MRFC Principle:

*German spelling used intentionally for effect.

Dangerous Disease Sweeping the Nation: Lack of Insurance

HIGHLAND, UT | 30 April 2008| Life on planet Earth is fraught with danger. All things and all people living upon the face thereof are mortal and therefore susceptible to death. There are many things that can kill a human being. But until John Bonifield of CNN.com reported on the disease of “lack of insurance” it was unknown that it took its toll on so many individuals. Bonifield reveals that as many as 50 million Americans suffer from this disease; however, his article from April 25 concentrated on the suffering of one man.

The one man is Mark Windsor (52) of Atlanta. And not to make light of Windsor’s real suffering, he has dealt with a rare bone cancer for half his life. By the report, Windsor has had a tough life. Cancer is never easy. Most people contracting cancer suffer great pain and usually end up losing their life altogether within a much shorter period of time than 25 years. Personally, a big hats off to Mr. Windsor. God has blessed him with a much longer life than perhaps he had expected.

This CNN report (there’s your first clue) is full of slanted bias. It is obvious that Mr Windsor is simply a pawn in Mr Bonifield’s much grander scheme of inciting readers to emotionally support a nationalized health care where sufferers like Mark Windsor could get the treatment they “deserve.” This article will not tackle the merits or the follies of a nationalized health care system. That is a discussion for another time. Suffice it to say, that simply put, a nationalized system is immoral and unjust. Far more pressing to this article are the principles that reveal the agency of man and the stewardship of his own life.

Key Points

• Mr. Bonifield reports: “The reason [Windsor] didn’t get care sooner—he couldn’t afford it, because he didn’t have insurance.”
  This reasoning, in the FreeCapitalist frame of mind is called the consumer paradigm. Consumers make decisions based on money, either the lack of it or the abundance of it in the individual’s life. It may be true that Windsor did not have insurance. It may be true that without that insurance he could not afford the treatment. However, it was Windsor’s decision not to be insured. The opposite of the consumer paradigm is the investor/producer paradigm. This person does not allow money to dictate his decisions. He understands that a problem has many solutions, some that require no money out of his pocket directly. A person in this paradigm understands his stewardship and acts accordingly.
• “While he’s found help from a few generous doctors, his efforts to survive have often been desperate. And now he’s learned, largely in vain.”
  Mr. Bonifield does not quote Mr. Windsor directly here, so we can’t tell from the article if this is Windsor’s sentiments or Bonifield’s interpretation and assumption. However, again, appealing to the producer paradigm: one who fully understands that life is his own stewardship and he is a creature of action (i.e., agency), takes responsibility for his agency. In this case, he recognizes that life, whether short or long, painless or painful is his life to make it what he what he can. Was Mr. Windsor’s efforts in vain? Absolutely not. Windsor’s “desperate” attempts to save his life, kept him alive for many more years than those who give up to the disease.
• Bonifield reports Windsor’s condition of the “brutal treatments” Windsor has received. He quotes Windsor: “I don’t know if my body is capable of doing any more. I’m tired. I’ve had a lot of operations in my life. And this radiation treatment wasn’t much better on it. it’s now taken to taste away. My smell is horrible. I feel nauseated every day. And I just don’t think this ever had to get to this.”
  Anyone who has personally witnessed the radiation and chemotherapy treatments of cancer patients recognizes these sentiments. This is not the result of lacking insurance. This is the result of a horrible disease, the treatment of which kills nearly as many patients as the disease itself.
  This is simply dishonest reporting. Insurance does not improve the devastating effects of chemo- and radiation therapy of cancer patients. Had Bonifield had more pure motivations for his story, he may have chosen a different approach to Windsor’s statements.
• “The American Cancer Society says uninsured patients are 60 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis.”
  This claim was unverifiable. However, a perusal of the American Cancer Society’s website did indicate that these uninsured patients indeed suffered more than the insured. The figures presented in Bonifield’s article were not located on the site although Bonifield provided a link to other cancer news stories.
• “Just when Windsor’s lack of insurance started killing him is difficult to say.”
  Again, this is just dishonest journalism. It was not his lack of insurance that did anything of the sort. If anything, Windsor’s lack of insurance is the symptom of another disease that also stopped him from getting the treatment he needed for so long. His belief that he could not afford insurance before the sign of cancer every manifested itself inside his body and caused him therefore not to protect himself financially for such a disaster is the same illness that stopped him from getting treatment, namely the consumer paradigm.
• Finally, “The radiation Windsor is receiving will only prolong his life, not save it.”
  Ultimately, everything good anyone does in this life only serves to prolong his life. In the end, everyone dies. It is the nature of exist on this planet. Whether a treatment cures an illness or simply makes living with it a little more bearable, it ultimately only prolongs the life of the treated. In the article, Windsor expressed some bitterness to his condition. And while all sympathy, or empathy, may be due him in his state, a better answer is available. God, the author of prosperity, has provided a longer life for Mr Windsor than he otherwise might have enjoyed. Windsor was finally able to obtain the long sought-after treatment and his life was prolonged. Rather than be bitter about it, why not thank God and prove it through a productive existence whether short or long?

Conclusion

This article is more about the author’s and his employers bias toward a nationalized health care than it is toward revealing the blight of the profiled cancer patient. He is using emotionalism and sensationalism, not to mention journalistic inaccuracies, to manipulate the reader into believing the only solution to the current rash of illnesses in the world is to have the government fully capture the medical industry.

This life is full of peril, not just for the uninsured. Each individual possesses the innate stewardship of prolonging his own life. No one is entitled to a life free of pain and disease. The socialist mantra, however, would have us think otherwise. Some do live healthy, pain free, and trouble free lives. Many more of us, though, suffer trials throughout our existence. What we do with our lives is more important that the trials we must go through.

Action Steps

1. Because life is unsure, insure.
2. Study the two paradigms as set forth in the FreeCapitalist Project. Refer to the FreeCapitalist Primer or get a good start by reviewing the 13 Principles of Prosperity™ on this website.
3. Be cognizant of the bias in media so you may recognize their motives when they are not what appears on the surface.

MRFC Principles: (1, 2, 3, 4, 11)

Resources

John Bonifield, “Dying for lack of insurance” cnn.com, April 25, 2008.

American Cancer Society, “Late-stage Diagnosis More Likely Among Uninsured,” February 18, 2008

FreeCapitalist Primer (hard copy available at www.freecapitalist.com; online version at primer.freecapitalist.com)

Secretary Paulson Proposes Changes in Treasury, Fed

HIGHLAND, UT | 1 April 2008 | Economic policy is often shaped by the emergencies of the day. As far back as the Civil War (1863), our current policy situation began to take shape. This is followed by several others through America’s history until we stand today, faced with the Federal Reserve possibly increasing its power, an act one Accent Radio Network talk show host compared to a fire department arriving at a blazing fire only to hook their hoses to the nearest gasoline station (refer to Jerry Hughes, “Straight Talk” March 31, 2008). Today’s proposal by Secretary Henry Paulson of the Treasury Department’s “regulatory overhaul” explained history thus:

The regulatory basis for depository institutions evolved gradually in response to a series of financial crises and other important social, economic, and political events: Congress established the national bank charter in 1863 during the Civil War, the Federal Reserve System in 1913 in response to various episodes of financial instability, and the federal deposit insurance system and specialized insured depository charters (e.g., thrifts and credit unions) during the Great Depression. Changes were made to the regulatory system for insured depository institutions in the intervening years in response to other financial crises (e.g., the thrift crises of the 1980s) or as enhancements (e.g., the Gramm-Leach-Blily Act of 1999 (“GLB Act”)); but, for the most part the underlying structure resembles what existed in the 1930s (Treasury Financial Blueprint, march 2008, p. 2).

This practice is highly dangerous. Trying times when emotions are high and fear abounds, call for measures that usually see the rights of man gleefully surrendered to a collective with a gun in exchange for what the individual thinks is security. Our Founding Fathers plainly taught, however, that security and freedom are usually opposites of the same pole. Yet, over the last 80 years, the American public has been skillfully duped into craving security almost to the point of addiction. Today’s news by both the Treasury Department and the Fed reveals one more link in the chain designed to carefully lead America into the warm hands of socialism.

Key Points

• Though common belief says there are natural times in economies where severe instabilities reign, government intervention is the major contributory factor.

Today, government measures constitute the major impediments to economic growth in the United States. Tariffs, and other restriction on international trade, high tax burdens and a complex and inequitable tax structure, regulatory commissions, government price and wage fixing, and a host of other measures give individuals an incentive to misuse and misdirect resources, and distort the investment of new savings. What we urgently need, for both economic stability and growth, is a reduction of government intervention not an increase (Friedman, 38).

• There seems to be a social cycle where crisis breeds fear, which breeds emergency government measures to save the day, which restricts the ability to exchange, which breeds more crisis.
• Each time the government steps in to save the day, a little piece of freedom erodes from the individual.
• The Treasury Department’s recent proposal to “modernize” the regulatory processes is simply one more step in the above mentioned cycle. Secretary Paulson does explain that the study began before last summer’s crises began and that most measures would not be put in place until after the current crisis has subsided. He has also attempted to explain that the current proposal is not to increase regulations, simply streamline them. However, the Treasure Proposal does call for a new department: the Mortgage Origination Commission (MOC). In the proposal’s words:

…a new federal commission, the Mortgage Origination Commission (“MOC”), should be created. The President should appoint a Director for the MOC for a four to six year term. The Director would chair a seven-person board comprised of the principals (or their designees) of the Federal Reserve, the OCC, the OTS, the FDIC, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Conference of State Bank Supervisors. Federal legislation should set forth (or provide authority to the MOC to develop) uniform minimum licensing qualification standards for state mortgage market participants. These should include personal conduct and disciplinary history, minimum educational requirements, testing criteria and procedures, and appropriate license revocation standards. The MOC would also evaluate, rate, and report on the adequacy of each state’s system for licensing and regulation of participants in the mortgage origination process. These evaluations would grade the overall adequacy of a state system by descriptive categories indicative of a system’s strength or weakness. These evaluations could provide further information regarding whether mortgages originated in a state should be viewed cautiously before being securitized. The public nature of these evaluations should provide strong incentives for states to address weaknesses and strengthen their own systems (Treasury Financial Blueprint, March 2008, p. 6-7).

• This increases the federal government’s powers beyond their original intent, which is a violation of many of the Principles of Prosperity™. First by taking the rights away from individuals (Principle 12); second, by placing those regulations within the confines of punitive action (Principle 11); third, by relieving each individual of his stewardship to increase his/her own Human Life Value by increasing his knowledge of the actions performed. (Principles 3 and 4).
• Furthermore, this process of crisis-fear-government intervention-relinquishing of personal freedom, etc., distorts the recognition that God is the author of prosperity and places that authorship on government entities. This causes the individual to think that the pathway to prosperity lies within the permissions set by government rather than recognizing that principles govern these processes and that God does not play dice with the universe. The universe is one of order and predictability, not one of chaos and confusion.
   

Conclusion

The current financial crisis is one which the government cannot curb or stave off. Government can only shift the thrust of the crisis’ pain upon different groups of people. This is unjust and unnecessary. Companies like Bear Stearns that have recently revealed their woes do not need a bail out. Home owners who are currently unable to pay their mortgages do not need a government-mandated stay in the foreclosure process. Banks that foolishly loaned money to people they knew would not be able to pay do not need government bail outs. The country does not need more regulation. The government (that’s every individual, from the President, the bureaucrats, Congress, and common citizen alike) needs to understand that the best form of regulation—according to correct, irrevocable principles—is the crisis we are now in. If allowed to plod through this crisis, the bankers, investors, home owners, and others will learn to regulate themselves in the best possible way. Take that away by allowing government to save the day, and all we get is a perpetually dumb society that won’t be able to solve the next crisis, or the next crisis, or the next, and so forth.
 

Action Steps

1. Read Milton Friedman’s chapter on “The Control of Money” in Capitalism and Freedom.
2. Discuss with your friends and neighbors the historical nature of the crisis pattern above and resolve to control your own fear in the face of today’s matters.
    

Resource(s)

Lawder, David and Mark Felsenthal. “Treasury pitches regulatory overhaul.” Reuters, March 31, 2008.

“U.S. Treasury Department. “The Department of the Treasury Blueprint for a Modernized Financial Regulatory Structure” March 2008
Friedman, Milton. Capitalism and Freedom, 1962, Chicago, University of Chicago Press

MRFC Principles:  (1, 3, 4, 11, 12)