The Best Way to Save the Earth? Capitalism

http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy112.html

Although the friends of the planet might disagree on what they’re for – some care most about the quality of the air we breathe, some want to preserve endangered species, and some extremists wish human beings would leave the scene altogether – they all know what they’re against: capitalism.

Whether the alleged solutions are taxes on gasoline, fines for smokestack pollution, or stepped up enforcement of fishing quotas, the common thread is that free individuals cannot be entrusted to make wise decisions with their private property. Benevolent politicians (taking their cue from the environmentalist experts, of course) must use the power of the government to alter people’s behavior.

So far I’m saying nothing controversial. The tradeoff between jobs and the spotted owl is familiar to all, and indeed the typical environmentalist relishes the material sacrifice necessary to make amends with Mother Nature. (After all, you can’t properly atone for past sins without a little suffering.) But what most people don’t realize is that unbridled capitalism is the best way to achieve the environmentalists’ objectives.

Why are people so easily lead to believe that the government and all its encumbent bureaucracy can do a better job than the self-interested, ruthlessly efficient free market? Has anyone checked the historical record?

I love the irony in this article - those crying for the protection of nature are at the same time demanding that no one have any vested interest in nature (i.e., private ownership), but somehow they expect other people to value natural resources the same way they value their own property. It just doesn't work. All those good intentions are powerless - which is why those with such intentions look to the power of government to force people to act as their intentions would have others act.

Panama Has No Central Bank

http://www.mises.org/story/2533

For a real-world example of how a system of market-chosen monetary policy would work in the absence of a central bank, one need not look to the past; the example exists in present-day Central America, in the Republic of Panama, a country that has lived without a central bank since its independence, with a very successful and stable macroeconomic environment.

The absence of a central bank in Panama has created a completely market-driven money supply. Panama's market has also chosen the US dollar as its de facto currency. The country must buy or obtain their dollars by producing or exporting real goods or services; it cannot create money out of thin air. In this way, at least, the system is similar to the old gold standard. Annual inflation in the past 20 years has averaged 1% and there have been years with price deflation, as well: 1986, 1989, and 2003.

This is a short essay about the argument that we don't need a "federal reserve" or central bank. It doesn't go into a lot of detail about the pitfalls of a central banking system and fiat currency, but it references them clearly. National financial systems can seem horribly complex - and they usually are, when a government agency, beholden to politicians, instead of shareholders, contols monetary policy. Panama provides a good example of how a free market banking system would work.

Security and Liberty

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul383.html

... The Virginia Tech tragedy may not lead directly to more gun control, but I fear it will lead to more people control. Thanks to our media and many government officials, Americans have become conditioned to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem. Whenever something terrible happens, especially when it becomes a national news story, people reflexively demand that government do something. This impulse almost always leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty. It is completely at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and rugged individualism.

... Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.

After the Virginia shootings, the age-old debate is once again on the front page: "if we would just ban the guns, these things wouldn't happen" vs. "if the people had been allowed to be armed, they could have defended themselves". Every tragedy brings the same argument of state control vs. self-control (both for the criminal and the victim). Ron Paul makes a great statement here about the true definition of Freedom, and the unseen risks that come with ceding our responsibility to the state.

"The mania for giving the Government power to meddle with the private affairs of cities or citizens is likely to cause endless trouble, through the rivalry of schools and creeds that are anxious to obtain official recognition, and there is great danger that our people will lose our independence of thought and action which is the cause of much of our greatness, and sink into the helplessness of the Frenchman or German who expects his government to feed him when hungry, clothe him when naked, to prescribe when his child may be born and when he may die, and, in time, to regulate every act of humanity from the cradle to the tomb, including the manner in which he may seek future admission to paradise."

-- Mark Twain

You Are What You Grow

The New York Times Online

... To speak of the farm bill’s influence on the American food system does not begin to describe its full impact — on the environment, on global poverty, even on immigration. By making it possible for American farmers to sell their crops abroad for considerably less than it costs to grow them, the farm bill helps determine the price of corn in Mexico and the price of cotton in Nigeria and therefore whether farmers in those places will survive or be forced off the land, to migrate to the cities — or to the United States. The flow of immigrants north from Mexico since Nafta is inextricably linked to the flow of American corn in the opposite direction, a flood of subsidized grain that the Mexican government estimates has thrown two million Mexican farmers and other agricultural workers off the land since the mid-90s. (More recently, the ethanol boom has led to a spike in corn prices that has left that country reeling from soaring tortilla prices; linking its corn economy to ours has been an unalloyed disaster for Mexico’s eaters as well as its farmers.) You can’t fully comprehend the pressures driving immigration without comprehending what U.S. agricultural policy is doing to rural agriculture in Mexico.

And though we don’t ordinarily think of the farm bill in these terms, few pieces of legislation have as profound an impact on the American landscape and environment. Americans may tell themselves they don’t have a national land-use policy, that the market by and large decides what happens on private property in America, but that’s not exactly true. The smorgasbord of incentives and disincentives built into the farm bill helps decide what happens on nearly half of the private land in America: whether it will be farmed or left wild, whether it will be managed to maximize productivity (and therefore doused with chemicals) or to promote environmental stewardship. The health of the American soil, the purity of its water, the biodiversity and the very look of its landscape owe in no small part to impenetrable titles, programs and formulae buried deep in the farm bill.

Given all this, you would think the farm-bill debate would engage the nation’s political passions every five years, but that hasn’t been the case. If the quintennial antidrama of the “farm bill debate” holds true to form this year, a handful of farm-state legislators will thrash out the mind-numbing details behind closed doors, with virtually nobody else, either in Congress or in the media, paying much attention. Why? Because most of us assume that, true to its name, the farm bill is about “farming,” an increasingly quaint activity that involves no one we know and in which few of us think we have a stake. This leaves our own representatives free to ignore the farm bill, to treat it as a parochial piece of legislation affecting a handful of their Midwestern colleagues. Since we aren’t paying attention, they pay no political price for trading, or even selling, their farm-bill votes. The fact that the bill is deeply encrusted with incomprehensible jargon and prehensile programs dating back to the 1930s makes it almost impossible for the average legislator to understand the bill should he or she try to, much less the average citizen. It’s doubtful this is an accident...

This article mixes two of my favorite topics - the consequences of socialistic government interference in the free market, and the current state of our agricultural food system. It boggles my mind what the "corn industrial complex" has become (see also The Omnivore's Dilemna). If the corn industry had achieved its dominance through the free market, then maybe the current situation could be justified - but it's through the subsidies, price-fixing, protectionism and other socialist policies of the farm bill that such a state has come to pass (not by the merits of corn itself or the growers of it).

No, I don't believe that the farm bill is good or bad based on its effects on poor mexican farmers or the comparative price of carrots - I believe it's fundamentally flawed because it violates principle - and therefore the negative effects are symptoms of the problem, and not as such the reason to change the bill. Painting the plight of those crushed by the power of the mighty corn industry only helps to stir yet more protectionist feelings (on the other side of the fence), further feeding the socialist flames, rather than putting them out.

Democracy or Liberty?

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4933

Our founders intended for us to have a limited republican form of government where rights precede government and there is rule of law. Citizens, as well as government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government intervenes in civil society only to protect its citizens against force and fraud but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange. By contrast, in a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. The law is whatever the government deems it to be. Rights may be granted or taken away...

...In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison wrote, "Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." That's another way of saying that one of the primary dangers of majority rule is that it confers an aura of legitimacy and respectability on acts that would otherwise be deemed tyrannical. Liberty and democracy are not synonymous and could actually be opposites.

I love the seeming contradiction of the title - most people would assume that democracy = liberty. We talk about the two together as if they were inseperable. Unfortunately, most of us are "trained, taught, and educated" that democracy, in and of itself, is the highest form of government possible. It's what we advocate as the cure for oppressed people everywhere - if only all governments would abandon tyranny and become democratic, then their citizens would truly be free...

Without an understanding of the true nature of rights and principles, democracy is nothing more than tyranny of the majority. Freedom is at risk in a pure democracy, because the rights of the minority are forfeit - and every one of us is a minority in one way or another. The smallest minority is the individual. The founders knew this and attempted to create a system where the voice of the people could be heard, while preserving the rights of the individual.

It amazes me how we tout democracy as a panacea for the world's ills, without any mention of the need for the proper constitution and rule of law to protect the minority in any society. But knowing the quality of education that I and so many others have received regarding the proper role of government, I shouldn't be that surprised.

(see principle 12)

In Defense of Income Inequality

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4940

Income inequality used to be a rabble-rousing issue of the left. Now it is being raised by mainstream figures, from the head of the Federal Reserve to President Bush, who are apologetically trying to offer solutions. But what is the actual problem they wish to solve? Certainly, it is not a growth in poverty. To the contrary, between 1979 and 2006--the period during which income inequality has supposedly become more acute--real wages for the median worker rose 11.5%. Even workers in the lowest tenth percentile had an increase of 4%.

No, the alleged problem is not that some are becoming poor--but that others are too rich. The complaint is that while the bottom tier enjoyed a 4% rise in income, the top tier enjoyed a 34% increase. The complaint is that over the past 25 years, the share of income of the top fifth of households climbed from 42% to 50%, while that of the bottom fifth fell from 7% to 5%.

But this development represents an injustice only if we use a perverse standard of evaluation. It is unjust only if we measure someone's economic status not by what he has, but by what others have--i.e., only if he benefits not by making more money, but by making his neighbor have less.

This is the standard of egalitarianism--the standard that demands a uniformity of income, regardless of anyone's ability or effort. It is the standard of envy, whereby a problem exists whenever some have more, of anything, than others. And the egalitarian's solution is to eliminate all such inequalities.

Egalitarianism is the antithesis of the valid tenet of political equality, under which we have equal rights. That is, we have the right to achieve whatever our ambition and talents allow, with no one permitted to forcibly stop us. Egalitarianism, however, is a denial of the individual's right to be left free. It is an abhorrent demand that some people be punished for achieving what others haven't. It is a brazen declaration that an equality of condition must be attained.

Highly recommended essay on the fallacy of egalitarianism, and its role in the public clamor over income inequality. This is only an excerpt - click the link above the quote to read the whole article.

Nonsense Ideas About Economics

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4927

Some U.S. companies have been accused of exploiting Third World workers with poor working conditions and low wages. Say that a U.S. company pays a Cambodian factory worker $3 a day. Do you think that worker had a higher-paying alternative but stupidly chose a lower-paying job instead? I'm betting the $3-a-day job was superior to his next best alternative.

Does offering a worker a wage higher than what he could earn elsewhere make him worse off or better off? If you answered better off, is the term exploitation an appropriate characterization for an act that makes another better off? If pressure at home forces a U.S. company to cease its Cambodian operations, would that worker be worse off or better off?

It might be a convenient expression to say that the U.S. trades with Japan, but is it literally true? Is it the U.S. Congress and President George Bush who trade with the National Diet of Japan, the Japanese legislature and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe? Or, is it U.S. and Japanese private parties, as individuals and corporations, who trade with one another?

Let's break it down further. Which comes closer to the truth: When I purchased my Lexus, did I deal with the U.S. Congress, the Japanese Diet, George Bush and Shinzo Abe, or did I deal with Toyota and its intermediaries? If we erroneously think of international trade as occurring between the U.S. and Japanese governments, then all Americans, as voters, have a say-so. But what is the basis of anyone having a say-so when one American engages in peaceable, voluntary exchange with another person, be they Japanese, Korean, British, Chinese or another American?

Walter Williams gives some good examples of common misunderstandings about economics. The term exploitation is thrown about today without any thought to its accuracy. There can be no exploitation without force, and last time I checked, the only party using force in any of my commercial transactions was the government. Any interference in the free exchange between individuals results in misery and poverty - ironically, the very conditions the socialists claim to be preventing by interfering.

It is this presumption of need to protect people from their own choices that is central to socialist thought. It's the very reason our society is plagued with victimhood, helplessness, and a lack of dignity. How would someone learn to be responsible for their own actions in an environment where the elite (even those democratically elected) are given a mandate to protect us from ourselves? Is it any wonder there's so much legislation governing how men should do business with each other, far beyond the basic premise - that no man should use force against another (either physical or the force of deception).

Economic Inequality: Process and Results

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4803

... many people erroneously use income inequality as a measure of fairness. Income is a result. As such, results cannot establish whether there is fairness or justice.
... For the most part, income is a result of one's productivity and the value that people place on that productivity. Far more important than income inequality, there is productivity inequality. That suggests that if there's anything to be done about income inequality, we should focus on how to give people greater capacity in serving their fellow man, and we should make sure there's a climate of peaceable, voluntary exchange.

A good lesson about the real reasons why some people have a greater income than others (they create more value), and a very plain argument for why redistribution of income is morally unjustifiable.

Losing Sleep over the Trade Deficit?

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4897

I'm told to worry about the trade deficit.

Commentators and populist politicians are wringing their hands. The trade deficit is a "malignant tumor in the intestines of the U.S. economy," says Pat Buchanan. Lou Dobbs is very upset that "We're borrowing about $3 billion a day just to pay for our imports"!

Economists had taught me that the trade deficit is not a big deal. (The budget deficit may be a big one, but that's a different issue.) But with all the pundits and politicians alarmed, I began to wonder if I was out of touch.

Then I thought about my local supermarket. I buy stuff from the Food Emporium every week. I spend thousands of dollars a year there. But the supermarket never buys anything from me. Not one thing...

John Stossel teaches a simple principle of economics clearly, and debunks the fearmongering of politicians and pundits.

Global Warming Heresy

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4941

Suppressing dissent is nothing new. Italian cosmologist Giordano Bruno taught that stars were at different distances from each other surrounded by limitless territory. He was imprisoned in 1592, and eight years later he was tried as a heretic and burned at the stake. Because he disagreed that the Earth was the center of the universe, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. Under the threat of torture, he recanted and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.

Today's version of yesteryear's inquisitors include people like the Weather Channel's Dr. Heidi Cullen, who advocates that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) strip their seal of approval from any TV weatherman expressing skepticism about the predictions of manmade global warming. Columnist Dave Roberts, in his Sept. 19, 2006, online publication, said, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg."

This has become a sore spot for me lately, as I've been discovering a lot of new information about global warming that is less than readily available in the media. Walter Williams, always a good read, makes a clear point about the problem with the brain-off culture that would have you get on board simply because everyone else is doing so. I'm not claiming to have any conclusions about global warming other than this: when someone resorts to force and intimidation to supress dissent, discussion and scientific examination, it's a good indication that their cause doesn't stand on its own merits.

More to come about this topic in the next few days...

Who is Gouging Whom?

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4929

Last Wednesday 79 members of the House of Representatives introduced a bill instituting criminal and civil penalties on any corporation or individual found guilty of gasoline "price gouging." But the real gouger driving up gasoline prices is not the private sector, it is our government.

To "gouge" means to extort, to take by force--something that oil companies and gas stations have no power to do. Unlike a government, which can forcibly take away its citizens' money and dictate their behavior, an oil company can only make us an offer to buy its products, which we are free to reject.

Because sellers must gain the voluntary consent of buyers, and because the market allows freedom of competition, oil and gasoline prices are set, not by the whim of companies, but by economic factors such as supply and demand. If oil companies could set prices at will, surely they would have charged higher prices in the 1990s, when gasoline was under one dollar a gallon!

I'm constantly amazed at those who cry foul over what they see as "price-gouging". I can't remember the last time someone forced me to buy anything! I can think of quite a few examples, however, of times where the force of government was abused to limit my choices or take my money for the "common good".

Take a Stand for the Rights of Physicians

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4930

While Governor Schwarzenegger and California legislators are busy putting forward proposals to socialize health care, one element is profoundly missing: none of these politicians know or care what physicians think of the proposals. It should have occurred to them that physicians are, to say the least, rather central to maintaining good health care. But physicians and their views are obviously considered to be unimportant—an individual's need for healthcare entitles him to the knowledge, ability, careers and lives of physicians. Apparently, physicians are nothing more than a natural resource, like oil reserves—and are to be allocated by the government.

This treatment of physicians is not only a huge economic mistake but an unjust and immoral basis for health care policy. It is precisely because health care is so important that we should be very careful indeed to protect the rights of physicians.

The moral principle of individual rights must be defended in the face of anyone who needs health care and proclaims that he has a right to force someone else to provide it—to him or others. Politicians who tell you that you have a right to health care usually mean that no one should have access to any health care—unless they get it through the government.

Springtime for Taxes

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/springtime_for_taxes.html

Twelve years ago, Estonia became the first country to tax everyone -- companies and individuals -- at the same flat rate. It started at 26 percent, dropped to 22, and will go to 20 in 2009. There are a few deductions for things like mortgage interest, educational expenses, and charitable donations. Very low incomes are exempt.

Unsurprisingly, Estonia is booming. The former Soviet republic used to be poor, with an average income 65 percent below its European neighbors. Today, Estonians are almost as rich as their neighbors, and their economy is growing more than 11 percent a year.

Corporations like a tax system that is low and simple, too, and that leads them to do more business in flat-tax countries. American companies such as Microsoft, Colgate, 3M, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, and Johnson & Johnson opened businesses in Estonia after the flat tax was adopted. Twelve years ago, foreign investment in Estonia made up only 5 percent of GDP, but today, it's up to 20 percent. That means there's more money in the Estonian economy to tax. So while the tax rate dropped, government revenues actually increased.

So why can't we do that here?

Great essay from John Stossel. Not only does it make a case for a flat tax system, but it shows why our politicians are loathe to change the status quo. Our tax code may be obtuse, but it's not hard to understand why such a system gives politicians lots of leverage. If you think you're a victim, you can lobby for a special exemption for whatever unfair burden you suffer from. Nothing looks better on election day than a politician who can claim to have "relieved the burden" of the american taxpayer. How easy would it be to curry favor with voters through tax manipulation if we adopted a flat tax - and eliminated all the exceptions?

I haven't heard anyone yet make a good case for why we shouldn't adopt a flat tax that doesn't hinge upon the idea of redistribution of wealth. Everyone agrees that taxes shouldn't be so hard to file. Most people would agree (except those who depend on it for influence and power) that removing the incentive for politicians to manipulate the tax laws would be a good idea. Of course, most people would hope to pay less taxes under any proposal to change the status quo. Personally, I'm less concerned with how much I'm paying than I am with how clearly the current tax system violates principle and the consequences of such violation.

As for those who would complain about the unfair or disproportionate burden a flat tax would impose on the poor, who prefer a system where the rich would pay a greater portion, I would ask - what is your moral and rational justification for taking by force the wealth of one man to give to another, by virtue of his having less? By what criteria will you make the distinction between rich and poor? What does it do to society to reward failure, and punish success?

How long do you think such a system can sustain itself if it takes from those who have demonstrated their capacity to produce and gives to those who have demonstrated only their capacity to consume?

Why U.S. tax policy makes saving a sucker's game

http://www.slate.com/id/2164050/

If I said to you, "You can have $10,000 to spend now—or $9,500 to spend in 10 years," which would you choose? Probably the $10,000 now. And in doing so, you would be making the same choice many Americans make when deciding whether to save or spend their hard-earned cash.

The problem is how we tax investment gains. Over the past 80 years, the average annual return on Treasury bills (a proxy for savings accounts) has been 3.7 percent per year. Inflation, meanwhile, has averaged 3.1 percent per year. This combination has produced a "real return" of a paltry 0.6 percent per year. If you got to keep that 0.6 percent, you might still have an incentive to save: A $616 real gain on $10,000 in 10 years wouldn't be much, but it would at least be $616 more than you have now. Unless you're so poor that you're exempt from taxes, however, or so flush that you can afford to lock up cash for decades in a tax-deferred annuity or retirement account, you won't be keeping that 0.6 percent. You'll be giving all of it—and probably more—to the government.

I thought this article did a good job of demonstrating just one of the consequences of our current tax system. Having just tried to explain to my wife our tax return this year, I'm extremely frustrated - not at the amount I have to pay, but at the lunacy of the system that has been perverted repeatedly by politicians and the brain-off constituency that clamors for more tax revenue and more exceptions at the same time.

Of course, such negative consequences are not the reason we must overhaul our tax system - they are the symptoms, not the disease. Our tax laws violate natural laws, and the result is tyranny.
(see principles 12+13)

Got Price-Fixed Milk?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz54.html

Schoolchildren may still be taught that our government has "anti-trust" laws to protect consumers from price-fixing. But Washington actually spends far more money setting up and protecting monopoly trusts than "busting" them.

Under a 1937 law, for example, most American dairy farmers participate in a complex system of interlocking subsidies and protection measures that have the effect of keeping the free market from forcing the price of milk ... down.

That’s right. A recent study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture acknowledges federal "dairy programs raise the retail price" of milk. The watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste estimates these government-enforced price-rigging programs cost U.S. consumers at least $1.5 billion per year.

Now, an added 20 cents a gallon is chickenfeed to the rich person. But the grocery budget forms a much higher percentage of the spending of a poor family with kids. So here’s a government program that has it all – it subsidizes rich dairy farmers, while placing the bulk of the burden squarely on the shoulders of poor people trying to feed their kids!

A great article on the consequences of government-manipulated markets. Here's a story of someone who didn't join the protectionist government program (though others tried to force him to do so), and not-so-surprisingly, managed to produce more efficiently and cheaply! Of course, such competition threatens the livelihood of the slackers who refuse to rise to the challenge and innovate - who would rather not compete on the merits of their labor, but use force to prevent anyone else from doing so.

Health Care Is Not A Right

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4880

Most people who oppose socialized medicine do so on the grounds that it is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical; i.e., it is a noble idea -- which just somehow does not work. I do not agree that socialized medicine is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical. Of course, it is impractical -- it does not work -- but I hold that it is impractical because it is immoral. This is not a case of noble in theory but a failure in practice; it is a case of vicious in theory and therefore a disaster in practice. So I'm going to leave it to other speakers to concentrate on the practical flaws in the Clinton health plan. I want to focus on the moral issue at stake. So long as people believe that socialized medicine is a noble plan, there is no way to fight it. You cannot stop a noble plan -- not if it really is noble. The only way you can defeat it is to unmask it -- to show that it is the very opposite of noble. Then at least you have a fighting chance...

I have quite a bit to say about this, as I am strongly opposed to socialized health care. I'll post more about this in the days to come, but I thought this essay was a good introduction to the principles violated by "universal health care", and the perversion of "rights" being fed to us by those who advocate social programs for the "public good".

"Do we need money to live the life we love, or is prosperity the consequence of learning how to live the life we love?

What do you want? Do you want money, or do you want to love your life?"

-- Rick Koerber

"When you understand the principle that liberty - the thing we cherish the most - is only possible when we respect other people's right to control property, based on mutual agreement, you value freedom more and more. If you only give lip service to it, and salute the flag while you're violating private property, the world becomes more and more socialistic and you wonder when they're going to come and do something bad to you."

-- Rick Koerber
Principle 13: Personal Liberty Requires Private Property

"A true capitalist is a steward over all the resources put in his power.
A consumer denies stewardship and thinks ownership is a license to destroy"

-- Rick Koerber

The 13 Principles of Prosperity

from rickkoerber.com

The foundation of the prosperity economics is true economic principles. These principles or natural laws were rediscovered by America’s Founding Fathers. The Founders studied and realized that all prosperous nations on earth (most notably the ancient Israelites and Anglo Saxons) applied these natural laws and experienced demise once the laws were abandoned.

On August 13, 1776 Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Are we not better for what we have hitherto abolished of the feudal system. Has not every restitution of the ancient laws had happy effects. . . . Is it not better now that we return at once to that happy system of our ancestors, the wisest and most perfect ever yet devised by the wit of man as it stood before the eighth century.”

The Founding Fathers believed the ancient natural laws would lead America to a Novus Ordo Seclorum, a “new order of the ages” (a motto found on the Great Seal of the United States). The Founders’ vision of a “new order of the ages” refers to a paradigm shift, a shift to abundance—which consequently leads to prosperity; Novus Ordo Seclorum does not signify a new world order.

The 13 Principles as outlined by Rick Koerber

1. God is the Author of Prosperity
2. Faith Begins with Self-Interest
3. Agency Implies Stewardship
4. Perspective Determines Action
5. People are Assets
6. Human Life Value is the Source and Creator of All Property Value
7. Dollars Follow Value
8. Exchange Creates Wealth
9. Profit is the Tool of Validation
10. Productivity is the Standard
11. Force Destroys Freedom and Prosperity
12. Collective Action Has No Unique Moral Authority
13. Personal Liberty Requires Private Property

I can't say enough about these principles. I post them here because learning about them has changed my life. At first glance, they may not seem like much, but if you're willing to open your mind, to dig deep and discover the message and the meaning behind the simple phrases, you'll find a wealth of knowledge and opportunity. These principles were the result of much study and thought, and they represent the wisdom of the ages. Prosperity is quite simply the natural consequence of living by these principles.

You can read more about the each principle at freecapitalist.com

The Producer Revolution

The Producer Revolution: An Explanation

The Producer Revolution is a change in mindset which leads to changes in actions, which then lead to a transformation of a person’s physical environment, or physical world. Because of this change in mindset, Producers transcend the Consumer Condition where there is never enough, where life isn’t fair, and where the world needs to cooperate in order for them to prosper. They enter a world of self-reliance where prosperity is within their grasp—regardless of circumstance—where people have intrinsic value and material things do not; where prosperity is a result of helping and creating value for other people, rather than taking advantage of people and getting lucky; and where financial abundance is the result of a predictable formula, rather than pure chance.

Disclaimer: I am a member of the Producer Revolution - many of the thoughts posted here come from what I have learned in this organization. I recommend you read the rest of the above essay - it outlines clearly the paradigms of scarcity and abundance. If you really want to change your life (not just your external circumstances but who you are), I would highly recommend you consider joining the Producer Revolution.

Recommended - Week of April 17

When did America become a nation of frightened wimps?
An excellent essay by Steve Olson that dares to ask why we put up with the "security" alarmists.

Making Money Consciously
A thorough essay that challenges the common notions of money. Also references the consumer/producer paradigms (he calls them the moochers/contributors)

10 Things I wish I had never believed
Very brain-on list in the spirit of this blog - "I’m writing this list for you because I wish somebody had sent me this list years ago."

My Escape from the Culture of Fear
Wonderful personal account of fighting the fear demons - "I have been motivating myself with fear!"

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools."

-- Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)
State Tamperings with Money Banks

"Unlike the political opportunist, the true statesman values principle above popularity, and works to create popularity for those political principles which are wise and just."

-- Ezra Taft Benson
The Proper Role of Government

"I do not choose to be a common man. It is my right to be uncommon—if I can. I seek opportunity—not security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act for myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations, and to face the world boldly and say, this I have done. All this is what it means to be an American."

-- Dean Alfange