Physical pain is our body’s natural way of sending us a message that something is wrong.  C.S. Lewis also mentioned spiritual and emotional pain.  These are also indicators to let you know when something is wrong.  When we experience any kind of pain, we are often tempted to seek to get rid of the pain simply for the sake of getting rid of the pain, which is probably the worst thing we can do for the pain.  The pain is an indicator that we need to fix something and taking the pain away, without taking away the cause of the pain can cause serious damage.  The best thing for us to do when we are experiencing pain in our lives, is to evaluate the cause of the pain and seek to solve the cause.

We must also be careful to differentiate between the cause of the pain and the pain itself.  If I have a severe abdominal pain I can do many things to alleviate that pain, but only finding the cause of the pain and fixing that will I truly benefit myself.  In thinking about this, I am reminded of an episode from “Little House on the Prairie” where a young man has the pain of his appendicitis taken away by a so called “faith healer” that was going from town to town deceiving people by having hired people ahead of time to pretend to be healed, and he would gain a following, and their associated tithes.  The problem was that the healer only took away the pain, not the appendicitis.  The boy died as a result, all because the pain was not there to tell him that there was something wrong with his body.

Contemplating pain, I reflected on the other less temporal pains that I have in my life, and wondered what is the cause of these pains.  Like many people experience in our society, I often experience economic pain, also known as poverty, or lack of financial resources.  This type of pain is no different from any other.  It is the way our economic environment tells us that something is wrong.  That there is something that we need to do in order to relieve the pain.

There is a problem in our society when it comes to pain, especially economic pain.  Recently we have seen an attempt by some to address the source of their economic pain by blaming corporate CEO’s and “occupying Wall Street”, blaming their boss, legislators, or their parents.  This approach fails to address the cause of the economic pain.  Just as all attempts by our elected officials to “stimulate” the economy.  The falsely assumes that the solution comes solely from people spending money, so they give away money through government grants and entitlement programs.  This is similar to giving someone with severe adbominal pain some morphine thinking this will solve their problem, instead of helping them to find a cure for what is actually causing the pain.

Exchange is what stimulates the economy and creates wealth, so it is understandable that people could make the mistake and think that if only people had more money, the economy would grow.  However, this would be like saying that because a morphine addict feels pain when his body is going through withdrawals the solution is to continue to give him morphine.

Without money, exchange would be more difficult and cumbersome.  If we wanted to exchange with someone else, we would need to obtain something they require or want in order to gain something they have that we require or want.  This is called bartering and it can still happen today, but money make exchange so much easier and increases how often it happens, that the solution should also not be to get rid of all currency.  The solution is to encourage production, innovation, and value creation.

I have heard Dave Ramsey, on his radio talk-show, speak about how the solution for the recession is each individual taking full responsibility for their own economic situation.  Each individual is can get themselves out of this recession.  He is correct.  Each individual needs to follow the advice of Ghandi and “be the change you wish to see in the world.”

There are many mistakes we all make concerning pain, but two in particular that I think are very prominent in today’s culture.  Because pain is an important part of growth we could assume that we should seek out and experience pain, or that we should avoid helping people who are in pain.

Pain that we experience ourselves should be evaluated for it’s causes so we can progress and improve ourselves.  There will never be any shortage of pain and opportunities for growth in our lives.  Pain is unpleasant for a reason – so that we will not want it in our lives and will want to get rid of its causes.  Life is meant to be enjoyable and pleasant.  Seeking out pain is a waste of time.  Our time is better spent seeking out ways to make life a joy for ourselves and seeking to create a joyful experience for others.

The pain we see in others should be seen as an opportunity to produce, innovate and create value.  Of course in our search to alleviate the pain of others we must make sure that we are not either robbing them of the valuable opportunity to grow by overcoming their own pain, or causing serious damage by eliminating the pain without eliminating the cause, but sometimes pain can be so severe that growth is inhibited.

I remember a time when I was feeling extremely ill.  I had a severe headache and it wasn’t until I took some mild pain medication that my body began to heal itself.  Our bodies are amazing machines which can heal themselves most of the time if given the right environment.  Part of that right environment is to be focusing on the root of the problem and not on the superficial pain.  The same is true about economic pain.  Often people are focusing so much on the pain that they can’t focus on finding a solution.  Having compassion and giving a little temporary assistance may allow some people to get back on their feet again.  However, for some people, what they need most is to dig themselves out.  This can never be decided using a system.  It has to be decided by individuals looking at individual situations – not by institutional employees following policies.

For example:

The hero of her novel Anthem, Equality 7-2521, at the end of the novel, now having named himself Prometheus, comes to believe that instead of living for the state, the brotherhood of mankind, or for others, the highest ideal is actually to live for oneself.  That he, as an individual, has no inherent or a priori obligation to any brotherhood of mankind, to any governmental institution, or to any other individual.  The only obligation he has is to himself.  He states:

I stand here on the summit of the mountain. I lift my head and I spread my arms.  This, my body and spirit, this is the end of the quest.

…

I need no warrant for being, and no word of the sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction.  It is my mind which thinks, and the judgment of my mind is the only searchlight that can find the truth.

…

It is my will which chooses, and the choice of my will is the only edict I must respect.

I find this idea intriguing, but easily taken in a direction which is deception.

My own first fundamental principle is “I am.”  In other words, before everything else, before any other truth or principle, I must recognize and embrace the fact that I exist and have worth first and foremost, to myself.  Anthem played a large part in helping me develop this fundamental principle.

The second of my fundamental principles is “God is.”  By which I mean that no less important, and inseparably related to recognizing and embracing the fact that I exist and have value to myself, is that I recognize and embrace that God exists and that my happiness is of worth to him – hence “I am.”

However, today I was reading another book which is already having a transformational effect on my understanding of truth, The Student Whisperer.  I’m only about 1/3 the way through the book, but it is really inspiring me.  In it one of the two authors, Tiffany Earl, is sharing some excerpts from her study journal, written as a student at George Wythe College.  These are her criticisms of the same messages in Anthem:

Ayn Rand rejected the imitation and simultaneously refected the “real thing.”  She rejected communism with its “two-headed dragon” of terror and force and all its inherent evils, the indignity it bring upon mankind.  And like a person who rejects imitation vanilla as not quite cutting it and at the same time decides to discard all vanilla, Ayn Rand rejects the imitation brotherhood and also throws out the real brotherhood in her writings.  But in her heart of hearts she held to the real, though her words denied it.  Her whole life was dedicated to mankind, lifting them from the yoke of force, terror, Communism.  It’s ironic really.

Actually, I don’t think it’s that ironic if she had truly understood what Ayn Rand felt in her heart of hearts.  I believe Ayn Rand would argue that she did not dedicate her life to mankind, but to her own desire to have a world free from the Communism she experienced as a youth.  She would say she was not motivated by any sense of obligation to mankind, but by her, as she would likely put it, selfish desire to see “communism with its ‘two-headed dragon’ of terror and force” destroyed.

The student, Tiffany Earl makes the erroneous assumption that when Prometheus declares:

I shall call to me all the men and the women whose spirit has not been killed within them and who suffer under the yoke of their brothers.  They will follow me and I shall lead them to my fortress.

That he “actually does feel an obligation to the brotherhood.” And thus sees an apparent contradiction in the book.

However, I see an important difference between wanting others who are like minded and want the intellectual freedom he can offer to be with him and to associate with such people, and a feeling of obligation toward these same people.  He is not making a statement about what he needs, or has an obligation to perform, but a statement about what he wants and what he believes will help him achieve happiness.

The way I see it, this is no different than God.  God does not need anybody to do his work.  He is perfectly able to accomplish, on his own, anything that he wants accomplished.  Nor does he do his work out of a sense of obligation toward us.  My religious beliefs include a doctrine that God wants us to be with Him and enjoy the same things He enjoys – to be like him.  That is the motivation behind everything He does.  Not out of a sense of obligation, nor out of a need of his to have us be like him.  If it’s not immoral for God to be motivated by nothing other than the furthering of his own purposes and will, why would it be immoral for those, whom he wants to be like him, to do the same?

Statement of Principles & Values

Principles vs. Values

• Principles are true ideas expressed in complete statements — descriptions of the natural laws by which God governs the universe.
• Values are personal attributes which I consider to have worth

Principles:

1. I am, that I might have joy.
2. God is.
3. God governs the universe through natural laws and true principles.
4. God’s purpose (his work and glory) is bringing about the immortality and eternal life of his children.
5. Honest and productive exchange builds relationships.
6. Relationships define true prosperity and wealth.
7. True Prosperity and wealth is the natural result of acting to achieve God’s work and glory on behalf of all of His children; and is only obtained for one individual or group of individuals by furthering the eternal happiness of other individuals.
8. Right and wrong, righteousness and wickedness, are defined by truth and virtue, falsehood and vice (not by majority vote, might of resources, physical strength, force of argument, extent of experience, history of tradition, or skill in rationalization).
9. Wickedness is not happiness.
10. The privilege of individual freedom comes with the responsibility of stewardship.
11. Freedom is the result of true faith and trust.
12. Force is the absence of true faith and trust.
13. Individual actions reflect individual values
14. In creating value for (serving) others, we create value for (serve) God.
15. Contention is counterproductive to virtue.

Values:

1. Honesty and Trust
   • Trust is impossible without Honesty. Trust is essential to building relationships.
2. Integrity
   • It is essential that other people are able to trust that how you act reflects what you say you value.
3. Virtue
   • Virtue is directing your thoughts and feelings in such a way that your actions and and the way you live your life promote God’s work and glory
     • Private Virtue is that which leads to your own eternal salvation
     • Public Virtue is that which leads to the eternal salvation of others
4. Charity
   • Charity is the pure love of Christ
5. Courage
   • Courage is being afraid and pursuing virtue anyway
6. Faith/Hope/Optimism
   • Faith is confidence, leading to action, in the principles by which God governs.
7. Divine nature and Individual worth
   • You are a child of Heavenly Father who loves you and has a unique mission for you to accomplish
8. Knowledge/Wisdom/Education
   • The purpose of education is personal improvement
9. Choice and Accountability
   • You are responsible for what happens to you in your life
10. Good Works
    • True happiness comes from giving your heart, might, mind, and strength to accomplishing the work of the Lord.
11. Prosperity
    • Prosperity is the purpose of life – “Men are that they might have joy.”

Federalist 4

I think the most accurate definition of wealth that I came up with is that wealth is the state in which one has the resources to supply all of their own needs and just wants, and enough to provide for the wants and needs of others.  People have two choices to supply their needs and just wants.  They can provide it for themselves, or they can exchange with someone else for it.  This is the basic roots of any society – a co-dependency on the productive capacity of other people.  The problem then arises when either someone else has some good or service that you want, but they don’t really care to have the good or service that you offer; or vice-versa – someone else wants a good or service that you offer, and you don’t really want or need what they have to offer.  This is the beginnings of the concept of money.  Instead of making an exchange for things which we didn’t need or want, we exchanged for a generally accepted form of currency.  It was something that was generally accepted as payment for goods and services.  It increased exchange, but also created the difficulties of erroneous ideas about the nature of money.

Before I go further, when I say “just wants” I mean those things which are not necessary for subsistence, but which are reasonable to want – meaning that the want does not tend toward excess, or idleness, causes no harm to anyone else, and does not hinder one’s ability to be productive.  Wanting something that fits this definition is what I call a just want.  This is how I understand the scripture D&C 82:17

And you are to be equal, or in other words, you are to have equal claims on the properties, for the benefit of managing the concerns of your stewardships, every man according to his wants and his needs, inasmuch as his wants are just.

In order to avoid tedium, I’ll use the term wants when I mean just wants as explained above.

Many people would then decide not to exchange, but the astute individual will not only be looking for goods and services which will supply their own needs and just wants, but the needs and just wants of others.  Even if they don’t need or justly want what is offered in exchange for their services, if what is offered is something that other people need or justly want, they could be of service to other people who may not have the relationship with the provider of those goods and services.

Exchange is a very interesting thing.  You can learn a lot about an individual by observing the exchanges in which they participate.  The exchanges do not have to involve money in order to tell you about the person, in fact money has the effect of obscuring the value being exchanged because it is often mistaken for actual value, instead of the place holder of value created in the past.

Going back to the topic of exchanging for something that you yourself may not need or want, because you feel it is something others may need or want.  When we do this, there is wealth created.  We now have more than enough to provide for our own wants and needs, but we also have enough to provide for the wants and needs of others.

Some people take this to a coclusion that if you have more than your needs, that you have some duty to give it away for nothing to those who are not in as beneficial circumstances.  I disagree.  Getting something for nothing is not only damaging, but if taken literally, it is actually impossible.  You always give up something when you gain something else.  If an individual receives something without giving something in return, they’re character is damaged.  Their self-confidence that they can provide for themselves is damaged.  The stewardship over the exchange is both that of the giver and the receiver.  To be good stewards over our charitable giving, we must do our best to ensure that the other party is not being damaged by receiving something for nothing.

The other axis was a scale of how well off the people/citizens were under whichever institution.  Under 1st best government (US), the people are doing pretty well, which is why anarchists, at least this one, does not want to move to Somalia, and under “n”th best anarchy (Somalia), the people are doing a lot better economically speaking, than they were under “n”th best government.

He was making the argument, that we don’t know whether anarchy under the best circumstances is better than government under the best circumstances, or not – but we do know, because of the example of Somalia, that anarchy under those circumstances is better than the government under those same circumstances.

First of all, I think it is important to differentiate between the intellectual concept “government” and the institution which we call “government.”  The concept of government is simply that there is governing going on – that there is not chaos and there is some semblance of order.  The institution of government that to which we refer when we say “The government is doing such and such …” or “I wish the government would … ” or “I hate the government.”  Whenever we refer to “the government” as if it were an actual thing, we are actually referring to the institution of government, not the concept of governing.

In his talk, he is talking about the institution of government and comparing it to the instituion of anarchy.  Anarchy is another word which must be understood.  The word itself comes from the prefix “an-” which means, without, and the root “arch”, which is the same root of architect (master builder), arch-bishop (master bishop), arch-enemy (chief enemy), monarchy (single ruler), oligarchy (rule of the few), polygarchy (rule of the many), etc. – meaning master, ruler, or chief.  In today’s vernacular, this word has come to mean a bit more than simply without a ruler, but actually to mean, without rule, or order – chaos.  I don’t think that anybody who is intellectually honest can argue that chaos is better than order, so we are going to assume that reasonable anarchists are referring to a social arrangement which is without a central or sovereign ruler or rulers.

Now, I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume that this would automatically lead to chaos, any more than it is reasonable to assume that any ruler automatically leads to tyranny, but I think this is the argument that has gone between political theorists for centuries.  Lack of leadership leads to chaos, which is rebutted by making the argument that any central leadership leads to tyranny.

I happen to see that under the best of circumstances, that there is no difference between anarchy and tyranny.  Both of these are focussing on the societal institutions that are outside of the individual.  There are many in society that want to create a new law whenever anything unpleasant happens because collective effort “should be able to fix this” and that if “those people” would just make better choices, I would be happier, therefore I am going to force them to make better choices.

There are also many in society that don’t want any rules or restrictions on their personal decisions and think that removing all exterior restraints is the secret to personal happiness.  In reality, the secret to personal happiness lies neither in making other people make better choices, nor in removing rules and standards of behavior from our lives.  The secret to personal happiness is in taking personal responsibility for every single thing that happens to you.  This doesn’t mean that you say that everything that happens to you is your own darn fault, though that is probably at least partially the case.  It means that no matter what happens, you take responsibility for having the best response as possible – in fact you actively seek to make the best things happen in your life.

Now about the difficulty of the graph that was presented in the speech.  How do you measure “best” government?  What is the unit of measure?  It cannot be the well being of those being ruled or else your essentially saying, “the who people are well off under government or anarchy are doing well under government or anarchy” which is ciruclar and not a useful conclusion.  In order to have the one axis to compare government to anarchy, there must be an objective way to measure both anarchy and government.  There must be a something about each, separate from the well being of the people, which is common attribute to both, which can at least be measured relativistically (best and worst), in order to measure whether we have “first best” or “300th” best government, or anarchy.  The only thing I have been able to think of is the tendency amoung the people generally to self govern.  However, whether under an institutional and formal governmental system, or under no formal government at all, a willingness in the people who participate is essential for there to be any measure of well being in that society.  I come to the conclusion, once again, that it is not about what institution, or lack thereof, which determines or creates well being in the life of the individual or a cumulative well being in society.  What determines well being and prosperity is the willingness of the individual to self-govern.

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.
Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us.
We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented and fabulous?
Actually who are we not to be?
You are a child of God.
Your playing small doesn’t serve the world.
There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you.
We are all meant to shine as children do.
We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us.
It’s not just in some of us; it’s in everyone.
And when we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same.
As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.

From “A Return to Love”
by Marianne Williamson

I love what Marianne Williamson wrote. It is, I think, the perfect explanation of Principle 2: Faith begins with Self interest.

Many people confuse what I mean by self interest with what I mean by selfishness. Though these two terms share the root of self, they are actually polar opposites of the same idea

. Self-interest is about becoming the best person you can be. It involves believing in yourself, recognizing your strengths and unique abilities. It also involves a realization of your limitations and where you want to improve. I’ve had people reject this principle because they struggle seeing that there is any virtue in a person “just doing what they want.” First of all, there must be a discussion about virtue. What is it and what does it have to do with faith or self interest? Answer: everything.

I define virtue as that which leads an individual toward their highest potential. I believe that highest potential is an omnipotent, perfect God. The converse of virtue is evil, or anything which leads an individual away from reaching their highest potential. That highest potential has nothing to do with destroying yourself, or making of yourself something less than what you have the potential to become. Neither does it have anything to do with pretending to be better than you are and putting on a facade of virtue. It requires that you first of all, want the best for yourself. In order to do anything virtuous, you must begin with wanting the best for yourself. You cannot accomplish anything virtuous without this as your foundation. This is the foundation of faith, which is the foundation of every action. In The Lectures on Faith, Joseph Smith says,

… faith is the assurance which men have of the existence of things which they have not seen, and the principle of action in all intelligent beings.

If men were duly to consider themselves, and turn their thoughts and reflections to the operations of their own minds, they would readily discover that it is faith, and faith only, which is the moving cause of all action in them; that without it, both mind and body would be in a state of inactivity, and all their exertions would cease, both physical and mental.

Faith is one of the most confused words in the English language. To many people, it is the explanation of everything they want to believe in, but to which they don’t have a rational explanation. To me it is a rational confidence that my principle based choices will work out for my ultimate benefit. If my understanding of truth and principles is faulty, then I will learn something about truth and have the choice to apply that knowledge into my life. The nature of truth didn’t change, but my perception of it did and my faith became more perfect because my understanding of what is truly in my self-interest became more perfect.

I recently listened to a talk where somebody explained about a perceived inconsistency between the two major works of Adam Smith: The Theory of Moral Sentiments, and The Wealth of Nations. The Theory of Moral Sentiments talks about a human tendency toward sympathy, while The Wealth of Nations talks about the human propensity for self-interest. It is interesting to me that people see a conflict between these two concepts. Why is self-interest seen as an opposite to sympathy, or seeking the interest of others? It seems to me that any rational individual will see that seeking the interest of others is one of the fastest ways of achieving their own interests. I see these two as essentially dependent on each other.
Now, before we proceed I feel it is important to address something. An appeal to authority is not a rational argument. In other words, just because someone said something, does not make it so. Just because Joseph Smith said that faith is “the principle of action in all intelligent beings” does not make that statement true. I believe it to be true.

Some have come to the conclusion that because each person has a different perception of truth, that truth is relative and changes with each individual. Truth is not relative or subjective. An analogy helps me to keep it straight. The profession of Surveying is about identifying, measuring, and documenting the location and size of areas of land or other property. Each surveyor approaches the measurement of any given property similarly, but using their own instruments and understanding of property law and accurate methods of measuring it. Each surveyor, will come up with a slightly different view of that property. It is not that the nature of the property changed for each surveyor, but that the perspective of each surveyor was slightly different than the others. The more similar the perspective, the more similar the results of their measurements.

Every act is the result of a choice. Every choice is the result of a preference between the options. A preference is a result of a perception of self-interest, or a belief that the chosen action or thought or emotion is most likely to bring about a benefit for the individual making the choice. Faith is the confidence that this is true. If you don’t believe that your action will accomplish the ends wanted when making the decision, you won’t make the action. If the given choice does not lead to the desired result, then that faith is invalidated, and the person learns more about truth.

On some of the footnotes, just remember that I wrote some of them a while ago and my perspective has changed a bit since I wrote them, so I may not feel the same now.

Federalist 3

Federalist 2