Believing In Liberty

There is a long tradition of liberty in this country.  It was a desire for greater liberty that moved early revolutionaries to challenge the greatest empire in the world.  Liberty was the central focus of our nation’s founding documents.  Liberty has, in times past, inspired brave men and women to take up arms in defense of family, faith, and freedom.  Many have willingly sacrificed their God-given right to life, in order to protect liberty for future generations.  History has repeatedly proven that no army can defeat a people motivated by this desire to secure or defend liberty at all costs.  Recall the inspirational words of the patriot, Patrick Henry, “give me liberty or give me death!”  This sentiment is not bound by the American tradition.  Classical antiquity had the famous, republican stoic, Cato, who, in the famed revolutionary-era play by Joseph Addison cries out:

It is not now time to talk of aught
But chains or conquest, liberty or death [i]

The black flags carried by the defenders of Barcelona during the year-long Siege of Barcelona in 1713, read “Live Free or Die” (a motto adopted by the state of New Hampshire in 1945).  The national motto of Greece is “Liberty or Death”.  Honduras’s motto reads, “Free, sovereign and independent”.  San Marino’s motto is most succinct, “Liberty”.  Liberty is a universally desired right, if not always an inheritance.
Because of the exalted status of this natural right you would think it quite an easy task to convince people to fully embrace liberty; yet too often it is treated as a nebulous idea.  We define liberty by its synonym, freedom, but ignore the practical implications of what it means to live in a free society.
So what does it really mean to be free?
I contend that liberty and freedom are best understood in terms of how humans act and interact with each other.  This mechanism of human action is best exemplified in the market process.  By nature, all beings are self-interested creatures.  Even when we give charitably of our substance, we must admit to the gratification we feel when lifting others up.  Adam Smith remarked on what he saw as the nexus between self-interest and charity,

How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others and render their happiness necessary to him though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. [ii]

We are motivated to take actions that we perceive will have profitable outcomes for us personally; and, as a result, society at large benefits.  Sometimes this is measured in dollars and cents; other times there is an emotional or spiritual dividend.  Furthermore, when two parties meet to discuss how they might fill each other’s needs, they do so with the understanding that either of the two can walk away from the bargaining table at any time.  This process is absolutely essential to liberty.  When we speak of restrictions or infringements upon our liberties, we’re often referring, in a practical sense, to our inability to transact business, freely associate, keep and direct our resources, or live in peace enjoying the fruits of our labors.  These are essential cogs in the wheel of free enterprise.  Free enterprise, as a system, is founded on three basic elements:
1)     Private Property Rights

• The right to own property is a derivative of our right to life because our lives are spent making decisions about how to direct our faculties, which are our primary possession. 
• Our labor, mixed with resources, creates a homestead right to physical property.  This concept moved humanity beyond the hunter/gatherer age through to the agricultural, industrial, and technological revolutions.

2)     Freedom of Choice

• In acknowledging that each person has their own value scale and that value itself is subjective, we must admit also that the choices individuals make in directing their labor and resources, i.e. voluntary exchanges, should be left to them. 
• Appropriating private property for the “greater good” is an illegitimate violation of personal liberty.

3)     Self-Regulating Markets

• Adam Smith used the phrase “invisible hand” to describe the process of self-interested buyers and sellers seeking to optimize their outcomes by analyzing factors such as supply & demand.  Fully functioning markets have the least degree of coercive external interference.
• Government interference in markets creates malinvestments which send the wrong signals to producers and consumers, usually in the form of a distorted price mechanism.  Inevitably, this leads to a boom/bust cycle, unduly harming the most vulnerable members of society.

Many programs, supported by conservatives and liberals alike, fly in the face of the tenets of free enterprise.  Consider the strong support for public roads, regulation of food safety, social security, licensure laws, and public utilities.  While obviously very convenient, these programs are bought and paid for with at least a measure of liberty.
Is it worth it?  Many believe some minimal trade-off of individual liberty for collective security or convenience is justified.  While it is true that viable solutions to today’s problems may be proposed by civil servants, it takes a lot more discipline, and an inclination towards greater personal responsibility, to allow the system of free enterprise to reveal the best solutions.
Prison inmates are provided three square meals a day, a job, a roof over their heads, leisure time, protection, and education… all free of charge; but most would trade all of these conveniences for their freedom.  How ironic that those who benefit the most from a multitude of free government services would be willing to give them up in exchange for their freedom.  The more government provides for us, the less we are responsible for ourselves, and our addiction to convenience and safety moves us ever closer to a state of bondage.
So, the question I pose is this:  Do you really believe in liberty?  Do you believe that free enterprise is the best system for bringing prosperity to the greatest number of people?  Do you believe entrepreneurship, innovation, and ingenuity can solve society’s problems?  If so, you’re ready to see liberty move from theory to practice.  Welcome to the movement.
Author’s Note:  In our next few installments we will discuss why free enterprise is the solution to society’s problems, and what practical steps we can take in Utah to advance a system of free enterprise. 
[i] Addison, Cato – A Tragedy, Act II, Scene 4
[ii] Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, 1759, pt.I, sec.I, ch.I, par.I

With all the fighting over the legalization of gay marriage, I thought I would inject a little common sense into the debate and make a suggestion that I see as a win-win for both parties.

Statutory marriage has only existed in the United States since the late nineteenth century. Its only purpose is social engineering, so I proposed returning marriage to the private sphere, thereby relieving the state of its responsibility for administering, certifying, regulating, or mediating marriage.

Here's why this works.

1) We reduce the size of the bureaucracy.
2) There is no implicit or explicit mandate for private individuals, churches, or organizations to recognize the unions.
3) Gay couples can choose from a wide variety of privately chartered, professional secular or religious ministers to perform the service for them and provide them with a legally binding contract that outlines the parameters of the partnership.
4) Religions are free to perform or abstain from performing the ceremonies.
5) Corporations with private charters can set their own policies and let the market reward or punish them accordingly for their level of accommodation for gay marriage.
6) The contractual relationship between gay partners can provide for hospital visitation, inheritance, coordination of benefits, etc without the state injecting itself to deny rights to anyone.
7) Freedom and liberty are expanded for everyone, giving all parties a voice and a choice.

There you go...problem solved.

For Socialism, A Path To Victory

In 2006 I was in Brazil, visiting the South American headquarters of Eli Lilly, with a group of graduate business students from BYU. The company was gracious enough to provide their Regional President to brief us on the state of affairs in the industry and give us a tour of the factory. During the information session following the tour, this executive lauded the Brazilian government's efforts to keep prescription drugs affordable for all Brazilians. He highlighted a recent law passed as part of their universal healthcare mandate that fixed a maximum price of $10 USD for any standard size prescription of any medicine. He remarked that none of the international pharma companies raised objections because "they are not in it for profits, but truly care about patient health". While the second half of this statement may or may not be true, I was smart enough to recognize that no company operates at a loss out of a sense of moral duty. They had to be making their profit somewhere. I raised my hand and asked how it is that big pharma can afford to stay in business when the sales price of their product is below their overhead. He vacillated a bit making reference to international adjustments, so I called him out and asked, "Isn't it true that by accepting so easily the imposition of price controls, Eli Lilly already has a plan for offsetting any opportunity cost of continuing to operate in Brazil? In other words, haven't you just shifted the costs to countries with free markets for healthcare, such as the United States?" He bluntly answered, "Yes, in fact, that's exactly what we've done." No one in the group I was with even seemed to care, so I followed up with a more revealing question: "Are you saying the United States is subsidizing the cost of prescription drugs for Brazil and other countries that have adopted socialist models for healthcare delivery?" Again he gave no argument, "That's correct." He then moved on to other unrelated questions without delay.

I was pretty shocked, at the time, by the casual acceptance of such a paradigm. Now...not so much. I understand now how international companies play the shell game to maximize profits, ironically at the expense of countries with free markets. Big banks do it through international currency swaps and derivatives, linking the fates of multiple countries and their populations' livelihoods to the strength of the last free market - America; then, holding America morally responsible to "do the right thing" for everybody and bailout companies and countries that become "too big to fail". They know that our commitment here to the free market is their golden goose and that it doesn't matter how many other markets adopt socialism, so long as the goose keeps laying her eggs. In doing so, these foreign sovereigns have put their sovereignty and any semblance of freedom on the altar of the almighty dollar.

However, there is a largely unrealized event on the horizon. Whether it is coordinated, or even intentional, is irrelevant; the entropic nature of achievement is taking hold and we're witnessing the devolution of higher economic orders to the lowest common denominators of unified force and selfishness. This is the path to victory for socialism. It is by this process that collective and personal desires are satisfied at the expense of other individuals or groups, with the sanction and enforcement of institutional power. Though many, myself included, long for a libertarian dynamic, it is one that is easily exploited when adopted piecemeal, along with socialist reforms. In other words if the United States is only the least socialist, centralized power, then we are the most vulnerable to plunder by economies which have adopted a fuller socialist vision because they can take advantage of our general attitudes towards defending free enterprise in dealing with international actors.

Here's an example in more general terms:

Company A is an international company which sells widgets. These widgets are inelastic, so they retain a fairly constant demand regardless of economic conditions. Access to widgets has been deemed by many leaders/activists as "a right" which should be enforced/protected. Company A sees this as a positive step. Any regulation that enshrines their product as a necessity of life essentially guarantees the company's survival if they can protect their patents and intellectual property. In order to continue selling widgets at a steady clip Company A simply decides to reallocate product, costs, and profits to maximize margins. In this way international business functions much like a hydraulic tube, where prices act as pressure on the tube, moving money from one chamber to another. The amount of fluid in the tube is constant but it is moved around in different proportions. Those countries with price controls get their widgets discounted while those with free markets pay more. In a healthy market, price controls would drive out products as the company is seeking a predetermined profit. However, if the company can simply get their profit elsewhere, then it pays to continue selling in spite of price controls. It is important that Company A's lobbyists are active protecting the uniqueness of their widgets while at the same time fighting to cast them as indispensable. They run the risk of having the recipe for their widgets simply co-opted or confiscated if they don't have government to protect it, so they enlist the strongest country in the world to do it for them under the guise of property rights.

These widgets could represent cars, education, cell phones, healthcare, foods, or any number of consumer goods & services. Are you starting to see the great irony here? Essentially our commitment in the United States to being "mostly free" increases our susceptability to economic exploitation by countries which have chosen the path of plunder. Taken to its logical end, this can only end badly; as the free market, producer nations discover that it's easier to plunder others than to expend energy supporting others. Eventually, there are no producers to carry the load and worldwide consolidation and coercion begins.

The only way to fend off this attack is to treat companies and countries the same. This begins with a proper understanding of property rights and their role in preserving liberty. This is not as simple as one might think; just google Hohfeldian Analysis. Nevertheless, a property right, by the classical definition, is laying claim to previously untitled land or materials; thus "homesteading". Right can also be established through exchange, purchase, or conveyance of titled property, as in an inheritance/bequest. Patents do not fit this definition, partly because they deny others the right to use their mind and body to produce similar goods independently utilizing natural scientific laws. This is nothing short of government granted monopoly privilege. There is no way to establish homesteaded property rights to ideas and products as history is replete with examples of independent invention. Regardless, even if prior art can be proven, there can be no tort where there is no physical invasion. Simply saying someone used their brain the wrong way does not constitute a harm to someone else. Two people on opposite sides of the globe can arrive at the same conclusions about how to mix their labor with materials to arrive at some optimal outcome. Just like Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz discovering calculus in isolation, there should be no restriction on thought, it is an inherent aspect of all natural rights. If then we strip companies of monopoly privilege in the form of patents, we remove their ability to redistribute their profits independent of consequential new competition for higher market prices in the free market economies. They would have to compete toe-to-toe with other similarly formulated or constructed products no longer locked out of the market by the patent office. This would lead to a more market driven price sheet globally and force socialist countries to choose between pushing innovative products away from their market or removing price controls. This would rebalance the global market, create disincentives for central economic planning, and put innovation back at the forefront of the global market. At that point which ever country can do it better, faster, cheaper (in any combination) will win the day and the consumer is the greatest beneficiary.

For those who fall back on the tired argument of research being stifled by a lack of patent protection, couldn't you reverse the argument and say that research by other companies or individuals to improve upon products which never move past concept into development is equally stifled? Is it fair that someone could be granted a 12 year patent for a life-saving drug that never moves past concept and into product development or introduction to the market? What about a new technology that eliminates greenhouse gasses but is squatted on by an oil company because it would put them out of business? How much better would the world be today if everyone (individual or company) were allowed to pursue marginal profits through the introduction to the market of new technologies. More entrepreneurs means lower prices, quicker technological turnover, better quality, and optimally functioning markets. It very well may be that the elimination of patents could revolutionize the world, and prove, once and for all, the superiority of the capitalist system to socialist experiments. As it stands, socialism's path to victory is clear.

Reality Check

This is what happens when the process is transparent and fair.

My Comment Board Exchange With A Devoted Keynesian

A letter to the editor recently appeared in the Deseret News (Utah Newspaper) proposing an alternative to the presumptive Republican candidate, Romney. The comment board lit up and I engaged a well-known liberal in a back and forth that I thought was pretty representative of the Keynes vs. Hayek debate that has been going on the last few years.

Keynesian:

Interesting contrast between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney--Paul has the courage to say exactly what he really believes, while Romney--well, etch-a-sketch says it all. I admire Paul tremendously. The problem is that Paul's dead wrong on economics. Mr. King points out that Paul's views are shaped by those of von Mises and Hayek and Bastiat--true enough. But they're essentially wrong about everything. At the heart of libertarianism is the notion that the invisible hand of free markets will, if left alone, find a perfect equilibrium, with full employment and no inflation, all needs met and all citizens free and happy. It's as unrealistic as the Marxist notion that impersonal historical forces will, through a process of dialectical materialism, result in a dictatorship of the proleteriat, all needs met, all goods held in common. I think history shows how wrong both arguments are. People in power will, almost always, become corrupted by it, and money is power. There's little difference between Soviet style autocracy and corporate rapacity. Both institutionalize the abuse of power. That's why I prefer a government with built-in checks and balances.

Another Commenter:

@Keynesian
I don't think you can say the Austrian economists (people like Mises, Hayek) have been wrong about everything. Read what the Austrians were saying before the collapse of housing prices. They were telling everyone of the coming collapse and recession several years before the fact. I (and I think many Americans) agree with them for their criticisms of deficit financing and subsidies to corporations, whether they be oil or ethanol or solar or whatever. The dollar of today has lost about 95% of its value against the dollar of 1913, when the Federal Reserve was created. How can you say they have been wrong about the dangers of the central bank, and the devaluation of the currency? Austrians claim that when a currency is destroyed, wealth is transferred from the poor and middle class to the upper class. Can't we see this happening today?

Me:

Keynesian sure knows how to stuff a straw man.

"At the heart of libertarianism is the notion that the invisible hand of free markets will, if left alone, find a perfect equilibrium, with full employment and no inflation, all needs met and all citizens free and happy." -Actually the heart of libertarianism is the non-agression principle. Libertarianism is much more focused on this point because all else flows from this. The notion of the "invisible hand of free markets" is not a libertarian construct, never has been; in fact, a functioning market is very visible, even transparent, because it's not obfuscated by malinvestments, coercion, and, insitutionalized corruption. Furthermore, there is no Austrian economist that believes we can't have ups and downs in the business cycle, but inflation, by definition, only exists in fiat money systems, so yeah...they're spot on there. Lastly, happiness is never guaranteed, but all citizens can be free, and that condition alone gives the greatest number the best chance to pursue happiness.

Also, you were asking someone to name Austrian economists who accurately forecasted the economic collapse. Fortunately, Walter Block has already documented a list of 29 economists with citations.

Keynesian:

Potayto potahto. To deny the utopianist underpinnings of libertarianism is to deny the essential appeal of the philosophy. Yes, libertarians believe in business cycles, but the libertarian notion of a 'business cycle' includes downturns that look an awful lot like The Great Depression. The libertarian solution is to do nothing, because markets will self-correct, providing, given enough time, all sorts of pretty rainbows and frolicking bunnies. And while inflation is theoretically impossible, well, that's the beauty of libertarianism. Since it has never, by definition, been tried anywhere, you can theorize all sorts of wonderful outcomes.
As for the Walter Block article, I'm familiar with it, and it's really not impressive. A bunch of economists predicted that a housing bubble would burst. They also predicted, with impressive accuracy, an unbroken string of sunsets occurring in the west. The biggest laugh-line in the article, however, is Block's 'if only we had listened!' lament. What would it have mattered? The Austrian school solution, basically to any economic catastrophe, is inaction.

Me:

Inflation is not only "theoretically impossible" under a gold standard (or any other specie standard) it is just impossible...it's not a theory, it's logic; so there is no need to have a "utopian" libertarian experiment to arrive at that conclusion, just think it through.

The downturn of the The Great Depression had absolutely nothing to do with libertarianism; the vast majority of that period was overseen by Roosevelt and his Keynesian "solutions". It was a period mired in confiscatory economic policy, introduction of fiat money, expansion of government, and international conflict. If you look at the period prior to the G.D. there were plenty of shocks in the economy, but none as severe because government didn't attempt to interject itself at every step as the solution.

The Austrian solution is not inaction, unless you characterize market growth at the expense of government growth as such. Nevertheless, the typical Keynesian response to criticism when their central planning fails (as it has repeatedly) is "it would have been a lot worse".

"I guess we'll never know", right?

Government Explained to an Alien

This great video highlights how acclimated we've become to the idea of rulers over us.  Here's a thought...what if no one ruled over us and we had to be responsible for ourselves?

How To Get Elected As A Delegate

This is a general article aimed at helping aspiring delegates get elected. Having been a state delegate multiple times, including this year, I know what it takes. I live in Utah which is totally in the can for Romney, yet I and several of my friends have been able to get elected as delegates despite our support of Ron Paul.

Here's how you do it.

Step 1: Call neighbors and friends in your precinct and ask them to attend their neighborhood caucus meetings and support you as a candidate for state delegate. If you are not willing to do this, then you will more than likely lose and the movement cannot afford to waste its precious, dedicated supporters on failed bids, so take some time to lay a little groundwork and make some calls. It's not difficult and it pays huge dividends.

Step 2: Craft a message. It's up to you whether you will be open in your support for Ron Paul or more principles-based, but make sure your message is tailored to your audience without sacrificing your integrity. Speak from the heart with passion. My speech focused on out of control spending creating a real problem for my children's generation. I also appealed to the very low approval rating of congress in saying I wanted to wipe the slate clean on incumbents. That was a very popular message.

Remember, state delegates don't vote for Presidential candidates, so if someone asks whom you support, you can answer confidently that the office of state delegate is concerned with electing state level officers such as governor, senator, attorney general, etc. and that you would prefer to focus on those races. However, state delegates do elect national delegates and that is important as it is the national delegates that will attend the party's national convention and choose a Republican candidate.

Step 3: Coordinate with other known liberty candidates in your precinct to make sure you have a strategy. You do not want to have too many liberty candidates running if the race will be tight against an establishment candidate. Think Aaron Burr/John Adams or Bob Dole/Ross Perot...you don't want to split the vote. If your elections require a majority and you don't get one on the first ballot, you should try to cooordinate with the other candidates nominated to see if the ones with the lower vote totals want to drop out and support your candidacy instead. This is politics at the grassroots level. Make some deals, play the game. The goal is not necessarily to get elected yourself, but to make sure liberty delegates dominate the caucuses, so be willing to throw your support behind a stronger candidate if you're lacking the votes.

Step 4: Get someone to nominate you that is a trusted member of the community. Even if you're allowed to nominate yourself, it is more effective to have someone get behind you and it looks less self-serving.

Step 5: If you're interested in voting in the national election for the party you need to be elected as a national delegate. Usually you don't need to be a state delegate to run for national delegate. However, the race for national delegate is usually a state-wide popularity contest so unless you have a lot of name recognition you might consider seeking out more well-known figures of the liberty movement in your state. You can connect with these people through your state's Campaign for Liberty office, Facebook groups relating to Ron Paul, Meetup groups, etc. Whatever it takes to find these people, coordination is the key to getting delegates.

I hope this information helps. Bear in mind that I've outlined here the process for Utah, but every state is a little bit different so check with your state's C4L coordinator or the state party offices to get your specific guidelines. Feel free to PM me if you have further questions.

For Liberty!

Riles

Actor Bill Murray to CNBC: 'I think we ought to be personally responsible' - The Hill's Floor Action

Actor Bill Murray to CNBC: 'I think we ought to be personally responsible' - The Hill's Floor Action

Finally, someone from Hollywood talking some sense. He actually makes passing reference to pioneer women who pushed broken down handcarts up hills as the paragon of personal responsibility...a perfect LDSECON metaphor. Thanks Bill!

My Litmus Test

I've decided that a person is unfit for the office of the presidency if they cannot demonstrate a basic understanding of austrian economics. For the last century only this branch of social science has an explanation for the cycle of booms and busts experienced as a result of monetary manipulation. Conservatives are unanimous in their public pronouncements against Keynesianism but there are few if any that are willing to throw off the shackles of controlled economies and unleash the free market. This is either a function of economic inertia, wherein, the difficulty of returning to a free market becomes more difficult and exponentially more painful with each passing year; or, these people don't really believe in free markets in the first place and are simply pandering.

Having said that, I think all of the remaining candidates have the capacity to understand the basics of human action or praxeology (as the larger discipline of Austrian Economics is more properly referred to by its founding fathers) if not the will. I remember during one of the early debates, Michele Bachmann talking about taking some von Mises to the beach for reading material and Gingrich hinting at a gold commission to study the return to sound currency. This is a testament to not only how much Ron Paul has accomplished, but how much we've fallen. He has been the lone voice crying in the wilderness for the better part of three decades and certainly the only one espousing the forgotten geniuses of market dynamics. Fortunately, the principles are not difficult to understand, because they are rooted in basic logic. If a=b and b=c. Then a=c. That's as difficult as the math in economics should ever be. Superimposing random variables on aggregate measurements of individual action, then presuming to divine the future from empirical evidence supposes that men are a collective mind, conditioned to operate in concert according to the past, and devoid of free will to change their actions according as their desire for different outcomes determines them.

Stated otherwise, it is impossible to predict, in an interdependent system, the impact of decisions made by a single actor within the system. The Butterfly Effect or Domino Effect can project the effects of small initial decisions far into the future, perhaps even exponentially so.

That computer you decide not to buy, might be the difference between profitability and loss for a shopkeeper, which may hasten his decision to close the business, which would cause employees to lose jobs, which may cause them to lose their homes, which may cause the price of homes locally to fall, which could slow down housing starts, putting even more laborers out of work, increasing the demand on charities to provide basic services, ad infinitum. However, the decision to save the $1000 might buy an unemployed researcher another month of rent and ramen in his studio apartment, where he's been carefully developing a cure for the common cold. We literally have no idea and it is impossible to know just how consequential and far reaching our seemingly inconsequential decisions are.

For this reason it is imperative that we learn to respect natural systems, in all their complex efficiency, and resolve to avoid meddling. It's time we recognized that the powerful forces of the free market cannot be controlled but by theft and plunder; that the damages of malinvestment lead to social unrest and discontent. It's time we make logic our litmus test for office.

Ron Paul & Mormonism

I am writing this post to give you some tools to advocate for liberty when you come in contact with members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons).

Quick background. I joined said church in 1997 after deep study, reflection, and prayer. I consider myself extremely devout. About that same time another church member turned me on to a book called The Law, which I'm sure many of you have read. This became part of a more comprehensive path to enlightenment and awakening. My religious conversion was coupled with a philosophical conversion to libertarianism which made my transformation more complete. I have spent the last 14 years reconciling the two belief systems which I describe as really one in the same, as all truth is part of the gospel in my mind. I believe the primal longing for liberty is inherent in many faiths, so hopefully non LDS readers will relate to the principle contained herein.

I want to highlight a couple points about my religion and political stances that may help some of you as you come in contact with Mormons who are unfamiliar with or have a negative opinion of Dr. Ron Paul. In the primaries this year there are two Mormons running, which in my view is historic that our country has begun to move past many of the shallow mischaracterizations of and prejudices against this religion. With these two candidates comes a lot of support from affinity-based voters. These are Mormons who will simply vote for Huntsman or Romney (most likely the latter) based on nothing more than a common faith, regardless of whether the candidates political viewpoints square with basic tenets of their faith. This is an attempt to enlist you in using gentle persuasion to convince Mormons that Ron Paul is the best candidate.

Here are a couple examples:

1) Mormons believe that a pre-mortal battle was waged in heaven. This pre-mortal battle, referenced by Isaiah and Jeremiah in the Old Testament, was an intellectual battle of ideologies. The two opposing forces lined up on the side of liberty or coercion. This conflict is described in several places within LDS scripture: Moses 4:1-4, Abraham 3, 2Nephi2:27, and elsewhere. Furthermore general authorities of the church, such as Ezra Taft Benson, have warned about the disastrous outcomes of infringing on God-given natural rights. If you are confronted by Mormons trying to justify somehow the use of government force to compel obedience to such things as The Patriot Act, Conscripted Military Service, Public Welfare, The War on Drugs, etc. gently remind them of this basic belief and ask them to study further and reconsider their stance.

2) Related to the first issue but for some reason separated from it by neo-cons is the issue of force employed in pre-emptive war. Besides the numerous admonitions by Christ to "turn the other cheek", or "love your enemies; The Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants have something to say on this point as well. Unfortunately, the finer details of the doctrine taught require readers to actually think about the implications of the scriptures, so they get glossed over many times by casual readers. One could engage a Mormon on this issue by pointing out that D&C 98:16 admonishes the saints to "renounce war and proclaim peace", which is something the leadership of the church, if not the laity, does constantly despite the seeming deafness of many listeners. Moses 6:15 portrays Satan as the author of warfare and bloodshed. Alma chapters 43 and 46 acknowledge the justification of war IN DEFENSE only of family, religion, and freedom. The Book of Mormon prophet, Mormon, lamented the savagery of his people who had become bloodthirsty and desirous of pre-emptive slaughter and other heinous war crimes and cries out "They are without order and without mercy" (Moroni 9:18). Instead he "utterly refused to go up (meaning to their enemies' lands) against [his] enemies" (Mormon 3:16). The best example is the Book of Mormon prophet, Gidgiddoni, who in expressing the will of God in counseling his people against pre-emptive war said "The Lord forbid; for if we should go up (again, to their enemies' land) against them the Lord would deliver us into their hands; therefore we will prepare ourselves in the center of our lands, and we will gather all our armies together, and we will not go against them, but we will wait till they shall come against us; therefore as the Lord liveth, if we do this he will deliver them into our hands." (3Nephi3:20-21) There are many more examples than this, but sufficeth to say the scriptures clearly speak out against pre-emptive warmongering.

I want to reiterate that I am not trying to convert anyone to "Mormonism" on this site. I simply want to give you tools to find common ground and advocate for Dr. Paul when you come in contact with Mormons willing to listen to the message and consider it. If you are faced with any doctrinal rejoinders, feel free to hit me up. God bless you in your efforts!

8.5% Unemployment Rate Is A Bald Faced Lie

Here is a great link to a some charts that show that the government is cooking the books on unemployment reporting. Since the government compares workforce participation against employment levels, it stands to reason that the more people the government can take out of the workforce through manipulation of data, the better the unemployment figures are going to look. It just so happens that as we're approaching an election that unemployment figures are magically improving. Well not really...

Check it out.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/real-jobless-rate-114-realistic-labor-force-participation-rate

Of Greeks, Banks, and Economic Imperialism

The Euro was a bad idea from the get go. I know that's no revelation for most people who follow this. You can't take the tool of currency manipulation away from sovereign nations and expect them all to hold hands and play nice. One is always going to try to benefit at the expense of another. A unified Europe was an ambitious plan, one that if successful would have equalized the international trade markets and given Europe the purchasing power of the US, but carried such inherent risk that the only predictable beneficiaries would be the banks, who set themselves up to win regardless of the score at the end of the game.

Since the economic torture room called the great recession has prodded the truth out of its Greek prisoners - that the party is over - there is a choice to be made and it's really the same choice that just about every struggling middle class family facing foreclosure needs to make. Do we continue burning through our productive capacity to support a mountain of debt or do we hit the reset button? The average person faces the specter of poor credit for a period of time where they will be forced to rent their home and live below their means in order to scratch and claw their way back to fiscal responsibility. Greece faces the same decision, on a much larger scale of course, but essentially comparable. What Iceland proved is that you can say "Yes!" to all the offers of credit coming in the mail, then flip your creditors the bird when it comes time to pay. A couple banks will bear the brunt of the blame/pain - in this case MF Global, while others will exercise credit default swaps and move on to the next sucker. Furthermore, creditors will not stay away nearly as long as they threatened. Once a country is no longer burdened by a crippling debt service, they are actually more likely to pay a small debt, so the first creditor in the door would be fairly secure and can earn a healthy return by lending to a formerly irresponsible borrower at high rates.

While I do think Papandreiu's referendum move was political, it was also smart to, like Pontius Pilate, give his people a say in their future so he could wash his hands of whichever decision is made. I don't think anyone wants to be the guy in charge when faced with two bad alternatives. If I was a Greek citizen I'd vote to go back to the Drachma and reinstate the Greek central bank, break from the Euro, default on the debt, and start from scratch. Creditors would come back eventually and the Greeks could pat themselves on the back for pulling one over on the economic imperialists running the show in Brussels.

Of course, I don't believe this will happen as I think the relentless pressure of the EuroZone partners will scare Greeks enough to make them adopt wicked austerity, in which case, they're just delaying the inevitable collapse long enough to pay back some well-connected bankers and give the Germans more economic and political power than they already have, which is considerable. In other words a more orderly, long-term default is still a default but at least it doesn't trigger dominoes and allows the Euros to build their "firewall".

Regardless of the decision made, the Dollar is only going to get stronger because it is the least bad alternative, not because of any fundamental strength in the US economy. This bodes well for precious metals and commodities in general in the long run, but I think it will be a wild ride in the short term, with several dives to come and plenty of opportunities to beef up the portfolio with real strength.

It's also a good time to reconsider what prophets and apostles have told us for years about being prepared personally for the inevitable collapse of Babylon. Get your house in order. Beef up your personal security portfolio with food, fuel, medical supplies, tools, and guns. With these five categories covered you'll survive any Mad Max scenario and give yourself and your family a feeling of comfort and peace.

My Take on President Obama's "Job Speech" - 09/08/2011

In the president's speech last night, he conceded the following:

1) America was founded on rugged individualism.
2) We need to tax cuts to stimulate spending and hiring.
3) We need to shrink the size of government.
4) We need to do away with onerous and redundant regulations to free up businesses and give the market more certainty.
5) We need to close loopholes, which implies simplifying the tax code and moving away from the lobbyist-controlled corporatocracy that exists now, where his own buddies, Warren Buffett and Jeff Immelt (GE), pay almost no taxes as a pro rata share of income.

I, and every other, conservative/libertarian American should be encouraged that the President has become aware of the above truths. It is a testament to just how far we've fallen as a result of the failed policies of both parties.

However, not to be overly conciliatory, President Obama was quick to qualify all of his concessions with a "double down" on big-government, Keynesian, labor theory of value fiscal policy, which almost immediately negated any respect he seemed to have for the idea of limited, constitutional government:

1) We have a shared fiduciary responsibility for the financial well-being of all Americans.
2) We need to spend more money at the federal level on infrastructure. (additional stimulus)
3) By ignoring the Constitution we now have Social Security, Medicare, Interstate Roads, Railroads, National Parks, etc. Therefore, we can't be so stingy about our adherence to the Constitution.
4) Government is better at creating jobs than the private sector and needs to do more of it.
5) Collective bargaining is a right that needs to be protected.

The assumptions that must be granted for the above proposals to be effective/true are many and varied, but can basically be reduced to the following statist maxims:

Those in government are smarter than you. Government is the source of your rights and has the authority to define them, so there is no need for a code of law to enumerate those rights. Profit belongs to labor, not entrepreneurs. Government is better at educating children, creating jobs, organizing large scale projects, judging the worthiness of charitable pursuits and administering charitable funds.

President Obama demonstrated last night that he is an exceptional speaker who wields considerable power over an audience and has mastered the debate tactic of softly conceding small points to win larger arguments and delivering rhetorical darts with precision. He will be very formidable in a general election, not because he is a capable executive, but because he knows how to speak what the people want to hear... I'll feed you. I'll clothe you. I'll keep you safe.

Bread and Circuses...

A government created job is like...

...hitting into a double play.

...choosing a cup of pee over a cup of tea.

...killing a single dandelion in a pristine yard with Roundup.

...putting a Picaso in a single-wide trailer.

...cutting down a tree to make a pencil.

...filling a hot air balloon with a Bic.

...brushing your teeth with pumice.

Inspiring Video

The Voice of the People

Notice To My Creditors

To Whom It May Concern:

I hereby demand that you increase my line of credit. The reason for this is that I want to be able to make the existing minimum, interest-only payments on all my other debts from the increased line amount you give me.

Sincerely,

Brock O'Bombya


Dear Mr. O'Bombya,

We received your letter from last week regarding your credit limit. This is an unreasonable request to give someone with your spending history more money to blow through. For this reason we are denying your request.

Sincerely,

FRB Card Services


Dear FRB Card Services,

This is not an unreasonable request. You see, my credit report shows I have an 800 score, so there's no way I can default. I know what you're thinking; I don't make enough money to pay all my debts. Again, I don't see this as a problem. As long as I can keep that great credit score and other companies keep giving me larger lines, all is well. You'll get your payments and so will my other creditors. I've never missed a single payment to you or anyone else, and have been a good borrower ever since joining the Federal Reserve Bank. I ask you to reconsider before my next payment deadline.

Best Regards,

Brock O'Bombya


Mr. O'Bombya,

We realize you've been a long-time customer but what you've described above is called a Ponzi scheme. Now if it was up to the FRB you'd have the line extension already. In fact, they'd probably pay you for some of your debt as well. However, our department is an independent arm of the company and must make decisions based upon your ability to pay the PRINCIPAL, not just the interest. We're sure you understand. Perhaps you'd do better just to cut back your personal spending a little. Whatever you decide, we wish you only prosperity.

A. Paulista
Customer Service Representative
FRB Card Services


Dear Mr. Paulista,

Thank you for your kind response, but since you have been intractible and are threatening my life by putting a gun to my head like a terrorist, I can't help but go over your head. Therefore, I am contacting your supervisor, Mitch Peloski, an old comrade of mine that I've always been able to count on for a reasonable compromise. I'll be speaking with them privately this afternoon to solve this crisis before my payment due date. I'm sure he'll understand that interest payments are better than a total default. I do ask, however, that you not share this conversation with the credit bureaus or my other creditors. Remember, we all sink or swim together!

Respectfully,

Brock O'Bombya


Dear FRB Card Services,

I can no longer stand to be a part of the sort of gamesmanship I detailed above. I will not seek to extend my current contract in the service department. I've been blowing the whistle into your deaf ears for too many years and will be moving on. I'm taking my case directly to the shareholders of this company and will be attempting an un-hostile takeover.

Peace,

A. Paulista

Luddism Is Alive And Well

I came across this comment on the investing message board of a certain Silver ETF today. This is standard conservative/liberal fare and is the reason why I can't stand either side.

"Politicians do not have any principles. The problem plain and simple is shipping all the jobs out of the country yo [sic] get cheap Walmart goods and high profits for the rich. The American worker was sold out by the politiians. Stand up for America and stop globalization."

Here's my reply:

"Yeah! I wish we still had those awesome wood console TVs too. I wouldn't mind paying $2000 for them, because it helps the American worker and kicks Wal-mart in the shins! Death to all those who make our goods less expensive!!!

Come on...the consumer shipped jobs overseas, not bureaucrats. Globalization is the natural effect of consumer demand in the market economy. If you can buy a blender for $19 made in China that would cost $80 made here...are you telling me you're going to buy the $80 blender? Give your pretense of patriotism a rest already.

Our future as a nation does not depend on employing millions of widget makers on an assembly line, that is a job for emerging economies. Furthermore, since all men are my brothers, I rejoice no less in improved well-being for a peasant farmer in Laos who gets a leg up than I do for a service rep in Texas who becomes a manager of an Indian call center. America's future is in innovation. We need to spend less time collectively doing tasks that other countries will eventually do cheaper and focus our efforts on 'what's next'. That doesn't mean our sole export should be finance...we all know that's a house of cards. Technology, improved business process development, enhancement of delivery channels, replication & augmentation, media, etc. A society concerned solely with subsistence level survival has no time for idea development. The great benefit of globalization is the amount of leisure time, surplus cash, and resources available to the innovator.

Nevertheless, Primitivist Neo-Luddites still bark loudly the refrains, 'Low tech or no tech!' 'no ware before its time!'. Seriously folks...get on the flying car or get left in the jetwash."

An Excellent Article on Israeli Border Strategy

Israel's Borders and National Security is republished with permission of STRATFOR.

Fight of the Century - Keynes vs. Hayek - Rnd. 2

Fear the Boom & Bust - Keynes vs. Hayek - Round 1

Ruminations on Civil Disobedience

I took a little time the other night and read Henry David Thoreau's, Civil Disobedience.  The key insight among many that I gleaned from the essay was that a man (or woman) living in a despotic regime can only be wealthy at the expense of their honesty.  The reason being that we become so protective of our treasure, like Golum with the ring of power, that we are willing to sacrifice our conscience to maintain our financial security...knowing that a coercive government has the ability to take it away from us if we fall out of line.  In this way, an autocratic or despotic regime continues to grow in power as the people become more prosperous.  Our possessions inevitably become the source of our greatest fear. 

Now wealth is not as big an issue if the society we live in proclaims peace and good will.  If we are not threatened with loss of property for speaking our mind, the possessions do not hinder a good conscience.  This seems to be the state of affairs in previous Zion societies.

ALMA 1  “…and thus they were all equal, and they did all labor, every man according to his strength. 27. And they did impart of their substance, every man according to that which he had, to the poor, and the needy, and the sick, and the afflicted; and they did not wear costly apparel, yet they were neat and comely. 28. And thus they did establish the affairs of the church; and thus they began to have continual peace again, notwithstanding all their persecutions. 29. And now, because of the steadiness of the church they began to be exceeding rich, having abundance of all things whatsoever they stood in need-and abundance of flocks and herds, and fatlings of every kind, and also abundance of grain, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious things, and abundance of all manner of good homely cloth. 30. And thus, in their prosperous circumstances, they did not send away any who were naked or that were hungry, or that were athirst, or that were sick, or that had not been nourished; and they did not set their hearts upon riches; therefore they were liberal to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, whether out of the church or in the church, having no respect to persons as to those who stood in need. 31. And thus they did prosper and become far more wealthy…”

MOSES 7  "And the Lord blessed the land, and they were blessed upon the mountains, and upon the high places, and did flourish. 18. And the Lord called his people ZION, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteoiusness; and there was no poor amond them."

While I love the spark of thought that was generated by Thoreau's premise, I was nevertheless halted by another logical conclusion that must be likewise drawn from such a line of reasoning.  What if our treasure lies not in temporal wealth, but is nevertheless still vulnerable to seizure or destruction?  In this case, I'm referring to our families and our freedom.  If we peacefully resist that which is legal, yet unjust, we run the risk of separation from our families through extended imprisonment.  Is it then "dishonest" for a man to either have a family or treasure his family above resisting injustice?  The Declaration of Independence states: 

"...all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

Sometimes, despite conscientious objection to certain government policies, we make calculations about the cost of resistance (non-violent or otherwise) and decide that the risk is not worth taking action.  Is this then "dishonest" or can it be in some instances wise and prudent?  I guess it all depends on where you draw your line in the sand.  I look at this like the functioning of a market economy.  In the Misesian tradition of individualism, value is not a fixed quantity but instead a personal preference.  When an individual decides that injustice outweighs continued inaction they will act.  When many individuals feel likewise you have the beginnings of a popular uprising.  Again from the Declaration of Independence:

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government."  

It is also interesting that Thoreau has become a liberal hero since he largely proclaimed an anarchic state of individualism, while acknowledging the necessity of governments, citing potential loss of private property as a hindrance to civil disobedience, the very acknowledgement of which implies the right to hold and direct that private property, something liberals would prefer to redistribute according to the wisdom of an anointed intelligentsia, putting them solidly in the camp of despots, and unworthy of the obedience outlined in the 12th Article of Faith and D&C 134.

"12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." 

"2. We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.  5. We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while preotected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments..."

A government tending towards anarchism (if such can even exist) would be travelling in the opposite direction of the centrally planned, coercively egalitarian utopias envisioned by today's liberals.

"'That government is best which governs not at all and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."

I couldn't agree more with Thoreau here.  At the present moment I recognize, as did Thoreau, that this state is far from practical, yet it should be the ideal of every man to live in a society which abides natural laws (which are, fundamentally and naturally, God's laws), not by coercion, but voluntarily according to justice and wisdom, choosing "the better part" as a consequence of their own "mighty change of heart". 

Having stated a minor objection in Thoreau's very black and white logical sequence, it is also requisite that I express my agreement with his opinion of material wealth and express my absolute agreement with the undergirding principle of esteeming freedom and conscience above money, such as expressed here:

"The opportunities of living are diminished in proportion as what are called the "means" are increased. The best thing a man can do for his culture when he is rich is to endeavor to carry out those schemes which he entertained when he was poor." 

This brings to mind Christ's likening of the rich man to a camel passing through the eye of the needle, and reminds us to place our treasure in that which does not tarnish or fade. 

I've largely focused in this article on Thoreau's treatment of wealth and freedom.  I'll probably revisit his concepts of non-violent resistance, in the context of the Book of Mormon, to highlight not only the effectiveness of the tactic, but its potential for lasting righteous outcomes as well.

Keeping Our Second Estate

"...and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.”

Abraham 3:26

Understanding Our Second Estate

Mormons are taught from a young age about the heavenly council and war over agency that highlighted our pre-mortal existence, or First Estate.  These events, taken along with the millennial reign, resurrection, and subsequent judgment, form the bookends of our mortal existence, or Second Estate.  This life on Earth is the proving ground that will determine our eternal inheritance, or Third Estate.  Therefore it is of singular importance to understand what it means to "keep (our) second estate".

It would seem that the answer would be relatively simple to understand.  Keeping our Second Estate is obeying the will of our Heavenly Father in all things; easy enough.  Yet, it is the quest of a lifetime to put into practice the ideals that form the basis of the eternal plan of happiness; to truly know his will and make it our own through individual human action, despite the temptations of immediate gratification.  Some, including:  Enoch[1]and the city of Zion[2], Elijah[3], Moses[4], John the Beloved[5], Alma the Younger[6], and the Three Nephites[7] have been able to reach that point, referred to as translation, where they can no longer be forcibly kept within the limited bounds of the telestial kingdom, as they have mastered the principles and practices of higher kingdoms; being brought into the bosom of the Father, or themselves given power over death to await a general resurrection.  This state of translation highlights the possibilities of positive or righteous human action versus negative or destructive human action.  As we abide certain laws of nature and principles of righteousness our understanding and hence the scope of our agency is enlarged. 

It makes one wonder how these individuals (or in the case of Enoch’s Zion, a whole city) were able to reach this higher state while in the flesh.  Did they have special knowledge?  Did they possess exceptional ability?  Did they create conditions conducive to obedience and progression?  If so, what were these conditions and how could they be recreated?

Considering the central battle of our First Estate was over agency, i.e. the freedom to act for ourselves with the attendant responsibility for the consequences of our actions, it is not so great a leap to assume that agency plays a central role in our progression towards Zion, having our calling and election made sure through the confirmation of the royal anointing we receive in the Holy Temple, and, ultimately, receiving the greatest of all gifts:  eternal life and exaltation.  President Benson recognized the ongoing battle over agency,

“It was the struggle over free agency that divided us before we came here. It may well be the struggle over the same principle which will deceive and divide us again."

                   Ezra Taft Benson, BYU Speeches of the Year

Acknowledging the importance of agency[8]in the struggle between good and evil is pivotal.  All God-given rights are derived from agency.  Agency is an a priori right that precedes all human action outside of involuntary, chemical body function.  It was in our affirmation of God’s plan for individual agency, with its resultant actions and consequences, that we received our bodies and live a mortal life in the first place.  Hence, even life itself is a result of our acknowledgment of the importance of agency.  Contemplating, then exercising our agency through individual human action to merit further blessings or curses is the exclusive province of mortal man as opposed to the animal or plant kingdom which operates primarily on instinct and environmental triggers.  Consequently, our charge in mortality is be agents unto ourselves, not to be acted upon or commanded in all things[9]. 

"Usually the Lord gives us the overall objectives to be accomplished and some guidelines to follow, but he expects us to work out most of the details and methods. The methods and procedures are usually developed through study and prayer and by living so that we can obtain and follow the promptings of the Spirit. Less spiritually advanced people, such as those in the days of Moses, had to be commanded in many things. Today those spiritually alert look at the objectives, check the guidelines laid down by the Lord and his prophets, and then prayerfully act—without having to be commanded in all things.' This attitude prepares men for godhood.”
                          Ezra Taft Benson, The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson

Given the fact of God’s deference to self-determinism and human action, it then becomes the goal of the man interested in eternal progression to understand the Plan of Salvation (the “what”) and then prayerfully act (the “how”) according to our several desires for the promised blessings.   

Agency and Accountability

When it comes to eternal inheritances (heavens or degrees of glory) I believe we go to the heaven we choose; that we judge ourselves according to the understanding we possessed at the time we made our decisions.  In those instances where we made judgments in ignorance of consequences, the Savior atones for our lack of knowledge as we accept his offer to do so, and enter into a covenant relationship with Him (with its own attendant consequences).

At various times in our lives we are confronted with a choice whose consequence has been purposely augmented to achieve a different result.  This is commonly done by parents and governments to call attention to a particular action, when the natural consequence doesn’t achieve the level of significance that the authority figure desires for it.  More nefariously, the alteration of consequences is intended to inculcate behaviors with the stamp of moral approval or disapproval, which otherwise the actions would not justify, thereby changing completely the natural cause and effect expectation.  It is in these increasingly more common instances that we see the usurpation of the Father’s prerogative and glory.  It is through this operation that Satan subtly leads the children of men captive to his will, by blinding them to the real consequences of their actions; giving them a choice that appeals to their pride, in contrast to what the Father would have them do; ultimately causing them to establish a habit of spiritual deafness through transgression.

How difficult it must have been for the father of the prodigal to indulge his son’s profligate request![10]  Unfortunately, that’s what it took for the boy to experience his mighty change of heart.  Even more instructive for us is the reaction of “the good son” upon his brother’s return.  His anger revealed a personal longing for the chance to “live it up” like his brother had.  He’s angry that he did what he was supposed to and yet now, with the return of his brother, his own inheritance was subject to possible reduction.  However, if we take the rich father as a type of our Heavenly Father we realize that there is no end of his possessions (or power, or knowledge), and no need for us to increase only at the expense of another. 

In my early twenties I served as an Elders Quorum President of a low-income ward in South Salt Lake, Utah.  The demand for church welfare assistance was so great that my bishop at the time, Bro. Weaver, requested my help.  He asked me to pre-screen all requests for church welfare by fielding calls and doing interviews in the home of the requesting individual or family, then preparing a report to assist the bishop in making the final determination privately on Sunday.  He asked me to go so far as to look in cupboards and pantries, if necessary, to determine need, but also, to be attentive to the trappings of “the world” that may exist in the homes.  Frequently, in conducting the interviews, I was struck by the manifest contradictions.  Some folks had cable TV, but no food; $400 truck payments, but no rent money; couldn’t buy diapers, but had ashtrays full of cigarette butts.  I remember thinking, as a young married father struggling to pay bills, that these people weren’t without agency, they were just getting more of what they treasured most.  Nevertheless, I performed my duties, prepared the reports, and left the rest to the bishop. 

I remember him telling me once that it isn’t merciful to shield people from the natural consequences of their actions.  It’s been 11 years but that has stuck with me, not because it agreed with my own feelings at the time, but because I watched one after another of those people walk out of his office with rent paid and pantry orders in hand.  When I remarked on the apparent contradiction, he told me he was willing to be taken advantage of once by anyone for the opportunity to teach people at their most humble moments.  He opened up the scriptures and read the following to me:  “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves; be ye therefore as wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.”[11] 

We had several baptisms and countless opportunities for fellowship that came as a result of those interviews.  What words were spoken in his office, I’ll never know, but the standards of provident living he held them to, tempered appropriately with a bit of mercy, ultimately led to the changes I saw repeatedly in the circumstances of some who visited with him.  In all cases along with the mercy came the accountability of knowledge.  Eventually, we will all approach the bar of The Judge as beggars. 

The Plan Of Progression - Coming To Zion

I wouldn’t pretend to fully understand the operations of a Zion society, but I believe it will require quite a paradigm shift, one which we can learn more about in another terrestrial habitation: the Holy Temple.  There, between our washings, anointings, and covenants, we begin to understand the necessary preconditions for abiding Zion.  One of the most important principles of Zion, mentioned in the temple and in scripture is unity.  In one aspect of temple worship Hugh Nibley suggested, “the purpose of the prayer circle was to achieve total unity of minds and hearts, keeping in mind the absent ones".[12]  The injunction for participants to have no unkind feelings towards another in the circle means “the good son’s” jealousy and my begrudging sense of charity would disqualify us for participation in Zion, a society built on the same “total unity of minds and hearts”.  Likewise, anyone who covets has lost sight of the unity which is the hallmark of a Zion family or society. 

The first chapter of Alma contains an example of the surplus that can result from not esteeming ourselves above another, but instead striving for righteous desires together.

“…and thus they were all equal, and they did all labor, every man according to his strength. 27. And they did impart of their substance, every man according to that which he had, to the poor, and the needy, and the sick, and the afflicted; and they did not wear costly apparel, yet they were neat and comely. 28. And thus they did establish the affairs of the church; and thus they began to have continual peace again, notwithstanding all their persecutions. 29. And now, because of the steadiness of the church they began to be exceeding rich, having abundance of all things whatsoever they stood in need-and abundance of flocks and herds, and fatlings of every kind, and also abundance of grain, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious things, and abundance of all manner of good homely cloth. 30. And thus, in their prosperous circumstances, they did not send away any who were naked or that were hungry, or that were athirst, or that were sick, or that had not been nourished; and they did not set their hearts upon riches; therefore they were liberal to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, whether out of the church or in the church, having no respect to persons as to those who stood in need. 31. And thus they did prosper and become far more wealthy…”

Agency is a tool for prosperity or destruction.  When exercised properly through righteous human action, devoid of idolatry and covetousness, it can provide us with surplus (“enough and to spare”), even luxuries (“abundance of gold, silver, and precious things”); which state, though short of the spontaneous provisions provided without labor in the Garden of Eden, nevertheless demonstrates faithful stewardship[13]over that which we’ve been entrusted, and justifies our appointment as “lord over many things” which may lead to the reestablishment of Zion.  Book of Mormon communities frequently, though always temporarily, enjoyed the peace that comes with economic prosperity and mutual consideration, i.e. no poor amongst them.  Pride, covetousness, jealousy, and lust for power were the enemies of prosperity and Zion.  The lesson for us should be that we cannot approach Zion with pride in our hearts. 

Latter-day Saints acknowledge the part that contrasting choices play in exercising our agency.  Heavenly Father, in allowing Lucifer to tempt Adam and Eve in a terrestrial sphere, did so with the understanding that He cannot reclaim his children (or in Satan’s case, lure them away) without consent, and consent requires agency.  In the temple we are told that we must partake of the fruit so as to comprehend that everything has its opposite:  good and evil, virtue and vice, light and darkness, health and sickness, pleasure and pain…that our eyes may be opened to the ultimate choice between liberty and captivity that we each must make alone. 

We fought to protect our agency pre-mortally, so that we would have the inborn right to choose Him who is “mighty to save”[14] in mortality.  However, we need to look beyond simply securing our agency. 

"We who hold the priesthood must beware concerning ourselves, that we do not fall in the traps he lays to rob us of our freedom. We must be careful that we are not led to accept or support in any way any organization, cause or measure which in its remotest effort, would jeopardize free agency, whether it be in politics, government, religion, employment, education, or in any other field. It is not enough for us to be sincere in what we support. We must be right!"

                                                                          Elder Marion G. Romney

It is most important, in the context of keeping our Second Estate, that we learn how to act, not just how to choose.  Our choices are not made one time for all future decision points; they are the impetus for actions not yet performed and must be made repeatedly.  I’ve often thought on this principle that is taught frequently in the church, i.e. that we can determine who we are going to be many years from now if we just make all the important choices now, such as: mission, temple marriage, word of wisdom, celestial kingdom, etc.  While going through this practice of envisioning future goals and setting one’s bearings on those future goals is a healthy and important one, these choices we make only matter if they are followed by repeated actions, often in the face of stiffer-than-anticipated opposition. 

I’ve been playing guitar for a number of years and I’ve acquired a good ear for music.  I’ve come to appreciate a guitar with new strings because the sound is so crisp and sonorous.  Unfortunately, new strings constantly have to be adjusted so any purity of pitch is short-lived.  So, I prefer playing on older strings that I don’t have to tune up every single time I play.  The older strings aren’t as bright and flashy, but they have more tensile consistency because they’ve been through everything from heavy strumming in campout-cold air to sticky-fingered kids, being recalibrated slightly with each new experience.  Our goals, like the initial tuning of new strings, may set the ideal, but without the steeling, sometimes harsh, experience of choice, action, and consequence, they won’t be realized. 

I am like a huge, rough stone rolling down from a high mountain; and the only polishing I get is when some corner gets rubbed off by coming in contact with something else…all hell knocking off a corner here and a corner there. Thus I will become a smooth and polished shaft in the quiver of the Almighty…"

                                            Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 304

This is the process of sanctification that must precede any sojourn in Zion.  It is made, one decision…nay, one action at a time.

---

[1] D&C 107:49; Genesis 5:24; Hebrews 11:5

[2] Moses 7:21,31,69; D&C 38:4; D&C 45:12

[3] D&C 110:13; 2Kings 2:11; Matthew 17:3

[4] D&C 84:25; Alma 45:19; Deuteronomy 34:5-6; Matthew 17:3

[5] D&C 7:1-8; John 21:20-24; Matthew 16:28

[6] Alma 45:18-19

[7] 3 Nephi 28:4-9, 36-40; 4 Nephi 1:14; Mormon 8:10-11

[8] I’ve chosen not to bother here with semantic arguments about the appropriate usage for what I refer to in this essay interchangeably as: agency, free agency, moral agency, free will, liberty, etc.  Instead, I’d like to focus on agency, properly manifest in righteous human action, as an essential ongoing characteristic of and precursor to Zion, and restrictions on agency as the trademark of bondage.

[9] D&C 58:26-28; 2 Nephi 2:27

[10] Luke 15:11-32

[11] Matthew 10:16

[12] The (italics added)

Early

Christian Prayer Circle

, Hugh W. Nibley

[13] Matthew 25:14-30 Parable of Talents

[14] Alma 34:18