Come on in! Rest a spell!

How To Scoundrel-Proof Your Government

05 04 10'

Written by Jesse Fisher

0 Comments

Somewhere between sleep and consciousness this morning an idea as clear as the sun popped into my mind. It was not about the meaning of life or the origins of the universe – it was about good government. Here’s the thought: It doesn’t matter what kind of government you have as long as you have some mechanism in place that prevents scoundrels from becoming your leaders.

A monarchy can work perfectly fine as long as the person filling the role has the best interest of his subjects at heart. If he truly seeks the welfare and happiness of his people, they will enjoy that to a great extent. The same is the case for a democracy or a republic, although the former would have particular challenges as the majority of the people would have to be immune to flattery and bribery – little chance of that ever happening.

In the United States, the mechanism that was placed by our Founders to prevent scoundrels from achieving office was the Electoral College – a misunderstood and misapplied idea. Electors were to be elected, appointed, or selected by the various states to represent the people of their states in the election of our Commander in Chief. Each state was to decide how that was to be accomplished.

The idea behind the Electoral College was that a natural aristocracy would arise in the USA and that these people of outstanding talent and wisdom would be less susceptible than the general public to bribery and flattery. The assumption was that Electors would be identified from among this group and that they would be able to better discern who would be best suited to be our president.

The Electoral College idea was subverted with the introduction of party politics and nationally coordinated campaigns into our system (an ignorant adoption of a woeful British tradition). Our first Chief Executive, George Washington, warned against such a development. Now, any self-serving scoundrel can work his way up the party machine and find himself elected President. He must only be a good orator, relatively young and handsome, and have mastered the art of making promises the people want to hear. Having the backing of well-healed financiers is also extremely helpful. Can such a person truly have the best interest of the people at heart?

Would that we had a nationally recognized, literal spokesperson for God. Such a person could commune with the All-Knowing directly and then nominate several very qualified candidates who would be least likely to abuse the office. Then, the public could vote directly for the one they prefer. It’s wishful thinking, I know.

Recently, I’ve been toying with an idea that came to me that might offer Americans a desirable alternative — the “No Party” party. This idea could possibly side-step the two-party system where we are all swept up into a grand but fairly meaningless choice between “the lesser of two evils.”

The No-Party party is where each neighborhood would elect the person among them who they feel would be the best person for the job. Then those representatives assemble on the city level and select one among them to represent them on the county level, and so on until a president is elected. In theory, this system would give us the best person for the job, or at least, someone of much greater caliber than those we’ve been electing of late.

Category:

The World

Tagged with:

Share it:

Financial Peace Achieved at Home

03 16 10'

Written by Jesse Fisher

0 Comments

Author’s Note: Most people don’t feel comfortable airing their family’s financial laundry to the world, but I have hope that doing so, in this particular situation, might prove very helpful to family and friends who may read it.

I have had for months a list of “Reasons to Do Well” posted right here next to my computer monitor where I sit and work most of the day. That list has never motivated me to do better, although most of the things on that list are very important to me and are things I really do want to do in this life. But, something was preventing them from being a motivator for me.

It wasn’t until this past weekend, when Celeste and I made a big realization and breakthrough in our relationship, that now I have the motivation to grow my business and bring in more revenue to the family, AND, accomplish the things on my list.

My kids generally have more money in their pockets than I ever do. I work full-time and they spend most of their free time playing computer games and watching TV. No matter how hard I worked and no matter how much money I brought home, I personally saw very little of it, if any. I was seriously feeling like a slave. Talk about an incentive-destroying situation. I couldn’t put my finger on why it felt wrong — it just felt wrong.

Celeste on the other hand, always felt like she and the kids were a burden to me, that providing for them was something I wasn’t particularly excited about doing, even though it was my role — and, I admit, I wasn’t.

See the catch 22 here? The more she pushed me to produce, the more I felt like a slave and the more she felt like a burden — a no-win situation. (Sound familiar? if not, count your blessings!)

So, here’s the “Ahah!” we had. Celeste and I realized that each of us has accepted a stewardship in the marriage — she as Nuturer and I as Provider* (if it bothers you to read that, please stop and read the footnote before continuing so you don’t lose the benefit of what we discovered). Because Celeste is from a very nurturing family, most or all of our surplus cash usually went to her stewardship of nurturing the kids — piano lessons, soccer games, voice lessons, dance, treats, lunches out with the older kids, and orthodontics for everyone.

What we realized, and what has made a huge difference for us, was that both stewardships are worthy of having their own budget. Not just the one. It makes perfect sense! — two stewardships, each with their own budget.

So, I spent several hours crunching the numbers and came up with a family budget that included equal amounts for both stewardships. We are both very excited and hopeful now. I simply can’t express what a huge relief it was for me and how “empowering” it is to know that I now have a budget for my plans for providing food, clothing and shelter for my family.

See how it breaks that catch 22? If I have a budget for my Providing projects, then I don’t feel like a slave, in fact, I want to generate more revenue so that my budget increases as it’s based on a percent of income. Since I don’t feel like a slave, and I’m motivated to bring in more revenue, I don’t make Celeste feel like providing is a burden — because it isn’t now. Make sense?

For example, I’ve spent a great deal of time over the past several months coming up with a design for a new type of garden I learned about called “forest gardening” or “permaculture”. It represents a way for me to provide healthy food for my family with minimal long-term labor and serves as a backup source just in case there’s an extended trucker’s strike or devastating earthquake that leaves the grocery stores empty. Same thing with having bees.

But until this breakthrough we had, I was hopeless that we would ever have enough extra cash for me to make these plans a reality. Now, I do. Makes me want to cry, actually.

Now as couples, you may define your stewardships within the home differently than “Nuturing” and “Providing” but we believe the principles and benefits will apply no matter what you call the two budgets.

*Yes, we both nuture our children, and, we both work to provide for our family. But nurturing our children is of crucial importance to Celeste — she sees that as a fundamental necessity, I see it differently. With economic disintegration apparently looming over our nation, I see my preparedness projects as literally building an ark that very well might save our lives, and I would put every extra penny there if I could. So, the principle here is that each perspective is important and both are worth funding.

Category:

The Living Room

Tagged with:

Share it:

“Capitialism” is NOT a synonym of “Free Enterprise”.

02 16 10'

Written by Jesse Fisher

1 Comment

In the USA, we have come to equate the terms ”Capitalism” and ”Free Enterprise” and use them as synonyms. From our political philosophers to our radio talk show hosts, we erroneously use the two terms interchangeably. For example, Ayn Rand (philospher and author of the amazingly prophetic novel Atlas Shrugged) wrote a definition of capitalism in her book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, which illustrates my point perfectly. She wrote in the first chapter of that work, “Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.” Unfortunately, what she is defining there is “Private free enterprise”, not “Capitalism”. Let me explain.

“Only In America!”

The Germans, and I suspect the Russians and Chinese, do not equate the two terms. Erich Weede, professor of sociology at the University of Bonn, in his book, “Wirtschaft, Staat und Gesellschaft: zur Soziologie der kapitalistischen” in a footnote on page 9, states (in German), “While in Germany the concept of the [free] market economy has become the preferred characterization [ie. label] for western economic systems, the Americans (like the classical German [economists] Weber and Sombart) prefer to use the term ‘capitalism’”. More succinctly put, German scholars in general prefer to refer to Western economic systems as “market economies” rather than “capitalism”, like the Americans do.

Kapitalismus

In fact, as discomforting as it may be, Karl Marx was the first to use “Capitalism” in reference to an economic system in his book, Das Kapital, published in 1867, long after the USA implemented their Free Market system. To Marx, who for all intents and purposes coined the term Capitalism, it meant when ”Capital” (ie. those who control it) hires ”Labor” (the wage-laborers) to produce products that are sold in the marketplace for profit which then reverts back to the owners of the capital. It so happens that Marx’s definition as thus described is in perfect correspondence with the one Rand quotes from the Encyclopedia Brittanica in the same chapter of her book mentioned above.

The Coke Isle

Let me use a metaphor — equating Capitalism and Free Enterprise is like calling the soda pop isle at your grocery store “the Coke isle”. Coke is one of many soda pops found there, but there are many others. Capitalism is ”one way” to organize Capital and Labor within the free market – there are also other ways.

Cooperativism

Cooperativism, as I call it, is one of those other ways. In a cooperative, ”Labor” pools their ”Capital” and uses it to produce products for sale in the marketplace. So, in Cooperativism, ”Labor” and ”Capital” are one and the same. There are no Management vs. Labor conflicts, no strikes for a greater piece of the profits — the workers own the company. [Note for my LDS family & friends: This approach is much more in line, I believe, with the principles behind the LDS doctrine of Consecration than is Capitalism, as it engenders a greater spirit of unity and equality].

Basking in Cooperative Free Enterprise

The Basques of Northern Spain have perfected the cooperative with remarkable results. Starting with a single worker-owned cooperative in the late 1950s, they have expanded to a network of well over 100 such operations which collectively have their own banks, retirement programs, health care, etc. Their network of cooperatives has averaged 7% growth every year, including recessionary periods. Their workers experience no unemployment, they are simply retrained and reassigned to other cooperatives that need help. Sounds wonderful doesn’t it? (If you have interest in learning more about Cooperativism, you may want to read an article by BYU Professor Warner P. Woodworth entitled, “Managing From Below”, Journal of Management, 1986, Vol.12, No. 2, pages 391-402.)

Our Forgotten History

Most Americans are unaware of the competition between Cooperativism and Capitalism in the USA during the 1800s. The Cooperativist movement came over from England and caught fire in America. Unfortunately, the rise of the labor unions as “the solution” to Capital/Labor disputes, the newness of the cooperative movement, and probably the fact that all banks in America are by nature capitalist, led to the widescale abandonment of Cooperative Free Enterprise in America.

Cooperatives Today

There are today, however, many cooperatives in the US, worker-owned and other kinds. They make up only 10% of our GDP in America. Some have names you’d recognize, like Ace Hardware, Land O’ Lakes, Ocean Spray, and REI Sporting Goods.

And HOW is this Relevant?

When your favorite President, the avowed communists in his cabinet, or your own child (parroting their college professors) criticizes the shortcomings of capitalism, you don’t have to get upset, thinking they are criticizing our Free Enterprise system. Capitalism DOES have weaknesses, and thankfully, Cooperativism solves them nicely. Also, the next time Glenn Beck rants on and on about how wonderful “Capitalism” is, just remember to translate his use of that term into “Free Enterprise” and it will all make more sense.

Category:

The Study

Tagged with:

Share it: