This one didn’t take me so long. Now that I know what html code to edit out and what to insert for the footnotes, it went a lot smoother.

Federalist 4

I have recently been reading a bit of Aristotle and find some of his conclusions interesting – though dead wrong.  I really enjoy reading people with whom I disagree.  I have the highest occurrences of epiphanies when I do.  For instance, in Politics, Book I, he talks about the art of money-making.  I don’t rember what exactly it was that he said that got my mind pondering it, but it got me thinking about what material wealth is.  It must have been a combination of reading Aristotle and something I heard on a FEE podcast recently – something about nobody saves just for the sake of saving money.  They are always saving for something they want – either a new toy, an unexpected expense or emergency, or something else.  It’s never just for the sake of saving.  I’m not sure on the complete accuracy of that claim, but it did get me thinking about savings, and wealth generation.

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.

I just recently listened again to a talk on the FEE podcast entitled “Self-Governance.” As I was listening the speaker, who is a self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalist, gave Somalia as an example of how anarchy can sometimes be a better option than government. He described a graph where one axis is some “best-to-worst” scale of both options (I’ll address that difficulty in a minute), with the US and Switzerland as an example of 1st Best government and Somalia as an example of “n”th best government (meaning, when Somalia had a government, it was far from the best.)

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.

OK, so the amount of time between 1 and 2 was long, but nothing compared to this.  Here’s Federalist 3 with my personal notes added.

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

Sorry it’s taken so long.  I’ve had the first few annotated since about a year ago, but getting it into a web friendly format is harder than I thought.

Federalist 2

I created a new page that I will be updating as well for those that are interested.

While I’m working on my entry about self-interest, I found a trailer on Youtube that you might enjoy.

I first became enamored with the idea of principles determining everything that happens, good or bad, when I started reading Stephen Covey’s book, “Principle Centered Leadership.“  I loved the concept that if I center my life and choices on principles, I will always be happiest and the most productive possible.

Principles do indeed govern.  Because God has a perfect understanding of principles, he can accomplish anything he wants.  His will is perfectly aligned with principles so he will never want anything that would violate principles.  As I was reading the book, Covey kept referring to his “7 habits of Highly Effective People” and using terms that are in that book.  I felt I was missing some context and decided to read that one before I continued with Principle Centered Leadership.  As I finished both books, I felt a keen desire to align my life better with principles.  It was the only way to make sure that my family and myself would be the happiest we could be.

Let me explain my belief in God, and how my realization about principles is both a result from and a source of my continued belief in the existence and infinite goodness of God.

I grew up in an LDS home, meaning that my parents were active members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (sometimes known as “the Mormons”).  We were taught the precepts of the Church and its history to be just as true as anything else we learned in school.  I never had any reason to doubt what they have taught me growing up, and now that I am an adult, I have a strong conviction that the religious beliefs they taught me are true.  As most good Mormon young men do, at the age of 19 I voluntarily served a full time mission for my church.  I was called and served in the Northeast region of Brazil, in the Brazil, Recife South Mission, after 3 months of training in Provo Utah, which started in July of 1993, until I returned home in August of 1995.

Either by nature or by nurture I am a bit shy.  I have always been reluctant to initiate a conversation with people one on one.  As you can imagine, this was a source of struggle for me on a mission where part of what I am supposed to do is to strike up conversations with people I have never met.  After a bit of soul searching and forcing myself to step outside the realm of comfort, I eventually became competent at making what we called a “street contact.”  This timidity does not extend into a lesson/teaching type setting.  Once I am teaching someone about something I feel somewhat competent my inhibitions seem to disappear and some people feel they can’t get me to shut-up.

One time I was teaching a lesson to a family, and it just occurred to me that I had never had what many other converts to my faith have described as the “moment they knew for sure” that the Church was indeed true.  It really bothered me so much that I felt completely incapacitated to continue teaching.  Since we teach in companionships, my companion completed the lesson and we made an appointment to come back.  All the way back to our apartment I just felt like a hypocrite for teaching people that it was true, when I didn’t really have any experience that I could point to that said, “this is why I know it’s true.”  I reconciled that I could still testify that I believed it was true, but I wanted to know why so I struggled with this for most of my time as a missionary.

One day as I was attending worship services, someone was giving a talk about how happy they were because of the message that the missionaries had shared with them.  They talked about how their life was happier and they lived with hope, rather than despair at all the horrible things that happen in the world.  It clicked.  I had an epiphany.  All of the happiest times in my life, when I felt the most hope, and peace, and love, came as a result of the teachings that I had learned from my parents and the religion in which they brought me up.

Now, what does this have to do with prosperity?  It has everything to do with prosperity.  One of the biggest fallacies in life is that prosperity and wealth mean having an abundance of material possessions.  If you look at the origins of both of those words, you will see that they come not from having a lot of things, but from being truly happy.  Now don’t misunderstand.  There is nothing evil, wicked, mean, bad and nasty about having things.  It is just no substitute for true happiness.  True happiness does not even really come from having other people in your life.

Both the importance of having other people and material things in your life are insignificant and immaterial to wealth and prosperity, if you do not first have that hope and peace that comes from knowing who you truly are – a child of God, with infinite potential for growth; and have some idea of where you want to go and what you want to do when you get there.

Now many protestant Christian religions believe that we only become children of God when we accept Jesus Christ as our Savior.  I believe that accepting the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ is absolutely essential and fundamental for happiness and peace in this life.  All of us are imperfect, make mistakes, and even do evil, wicked, mean, bad and nasty things sometimes.  We often consume more than we produce.  The only people of whom anyone could say otherwise are Christ and various fictional characters, which are really just analogous to Christ.  There is no excuse for it, and no justification for being less than what we have the potential for being, but it is a truth that every individual must come to grips with and accept in order to correct it.  Christ’s atonement is the only way to correct it.

The truth that I have come to know is that all of us are children of God.  As such, we are gods also, or at least can be the moment we recognize our potential, and act to fulfill it.  We become more aware of our potential as we choose to fulfill the potential of which we are already aware.  The more of it we become aware, the more of it we can choose to fulfill.

This is where other people and material possessions come into play.  Material possessions are merely tools that we use to either fulfill our potential, or reduce it.  Using those material possessions to create value for other people is how we fulfill that potential.  Using those material possessions merely to consume value and only for our own personal gratification are how we reduce our potential.

This is not to say that personal gratification is bad, in and of itself.  Man was made to be happy.  Gratification is one way that we can increase our happiness, if it’s source is a knowledge of our divine potential. The only true way to be happy is to know that you are reaching that potential by creating more value in the world than you are consuming.  You literally become a creator … or, a god.

Next post will be about how this whole process begins with the recognition of the importance of I benefit from the process.  In the words of Rick Koerber’s second principle: Faith begins with self-interest.

I am a member of the Free Capitalist Project.  I am also a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the LDS, or Mormon church).  The reason I choose membership in both of these organizations is because I believe the chief issues involved are moral causes.  The morality of being a member of a church should not be surprising to anybody.  That is the whole point of religion, to promote a moral premise.  The other membership may not be so obvious to some, though it is self-evident to me.  This post is an attenpt to explain that moral premise.

Capitalism, to me, is the assumption that all exchange should be free of coersion and deception.  The mission of the Free Capitalist Project (which can be found in the Free Capitalist Primer, a free pdf e-book, which you can obtain at primer.freecapitalist.com) is “to promote freedom and prosperity through civic service, ushering forth a moral revolution to sanction and complete the political achievement of the American revolution.”  The moral issue is made even more clear in the Cause of all Free Capitalists (also found in the Primer), which is, “to advance the revolution through rugged individualism and social strength, based upon the universal principles of prosperity advanced by America’s founding generation (most commonly referenced in the Declaration of Independence and subsequently protected by the Constitution of the United States).  Those who are engaged in this effort fight for capitalism, not as a practical issue, not as an economic issue, but with the most righteous pride, as a moral issue.”

In my mind, Freedom and Liberty are the ultimate virtues.  By Freedom and Liberty, I don’t mean Freedom from consequence, or Liberty to do whatever you want without consequence.  I believe that each of us has a moral duty to do things, but that the individual is the only one who has the authority to ultimately enforce the fulfillment of that duty.  In my faith, we have a scripture that says, “No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned.” D&C 121:41

Of course, the term “priesthood” would only be applicable to those who consider themselves subject to the authority of a priesthood.  In order for us to have a common context and apply the concepts in this scripture, we can substitute the term “authority.”  Therefore the principle involved is that no real power or authority CAN, nor ought it to be maintained simply by virtue of any external authority to the individual.  This is not to say that there ought not to be any recognized authorities.  It is not that authority, in and of itself, is moral, or immoral.  It’s that authority cannot, nor should it be the source of power or influence over other individuals.  If I feel that an individual or group of individuals is failing in their duty, the first thing I should do is think how I could persuade that individual to see how they would want to fulfill their duty – how the fulfilling of their duty is in their self interest.  The moment I presume to use either my own position of authority, or the position of authority of another to coerce that individual to do what I consider to be their duty, that is the moment that I lose any real authority over that person.  I am opperating off of a perceived authority, rather than an actual authority.  Authority is obtained only by consent of those over whom the authority applies.  This is just another way of saying what Thomas Jefferson said more than 200 years ago, when he wrote in the Declaration of Independence that governments “[derive] their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

The moral revolution that must occur has to begin with individuals, standing up for their own freedom and liberty.  This is accomplished by first learning and applying true principles in their own lives.  One of the best ways to do this is through intellectual exchange with other individuals – discussing the works of the great minds of history, and identifying true principles.

The Free Capitalist Project is set up for this very purpose.  The basis of the Free Capitalist Project is the study group, which consists of at least two and up to 10 individuals who get together to study principles.  The study is directed by a set of common principles, called the 13 Principles of Prosperity, which were articulated by the Project’s founder Rick Koerber.  They can also be found in the FCP Primer.

The premise of the Free Capitalist Project is that every other form of freedom is dependent on economic freedom, therefore part of the direction of the study is to help its members obtain economic independence and ultimately financial freedom.  Financial freedom is defined as the state of being where money is never the reason or justification for doing or not doing anything.  Because money is accompanied by a stewardship, money should always be a part of any decision which involves money, but it is never the deciding factor of any decision.  This is not so much about having a lot of money, as it is about a mentality and attitude about life and value.

In my next several posts, I am going to take each of the 13 Principles according to how I understand them.  They should not be construed as the official position or interpretation of the Free Capitalist Project, nor should anyone assume that I am the author or came up with the wording of these principles.  I learned them from Rick Koerber and the 13 Principles are his intellectual property.