Needing Need
December 3, 2008 by Erin Reynolds · Leave a Comment
(Guest Contributor)
Part 2
| Part 1 |
“The mother who bends over a little casket to leave her triune gift of roses, tears, and kisses may yet perceive, in the light of a higher revelation, that though the rose-wreathed casket bears the ashes of her cherished hopes, it is also ministrant to a need she knows not of.” -C. E. Sargent
Once a lifetime we are granted everything we absolutely need. Before we are born we receive precisely enough oxygen, water, and nourishment to survive and to develop the organs that are absolutely essential for existence.
After that, we are immersed in an abundance that we rarely comprehend or appreciate.
Those who fall subject to hunger or exposure to the elements usually die not because of insufficient matter, but because of insufficient methods of distribution and production.
When capability is misdirected, it often leads to incapacity.
America has tried to find the answer to hunger, AIDS, and war itself through war. Yet after so much warfare we are not much closer to peace.
The world’s method of solving problems is to attempt to destroy the problem, but all the while feed the source. We may do the same in our own lives. We create drugs and programs and counselors to fix societal problems, before considering that modern society might be the problem.
The solution to overcrowded prisons and overweight citizens could lie closer to home than we now teach. What we serve for dinner tonight might conceivably impact both prisoners and weight-loss programs; having family mealtime could change not only what but also where our children eat, now and in the future.
Gripped With Need In the Midst of Abundance
Although we have been born into significant abundance, many of us are not content with all that is readily available. One of humankind’s primary sources of malcontent is need. Frequently the reason many of us don’t respond to the needs of others is that we feel encompassed, debilitated, and humiliated by our own needs.
But need often grants more than it denies. This ravening wolf wards off more predators than we ever realize. This is hard to recognize at first, confirming that we don’t understand the true nature of need.
The average American doesn’t know what it means to be truly hungry, or scared or cold. We cannot easily relate to a prisoner of war that lived on starvation rations for decades, and worked outside in –60° weather without coat or shoes. We aren’t concerned about stretching a quarter cup of flour to last three meals.
Usually we find ourselves worrying about things such as our car’s faulty air conditioning, or stressing over the color of our teeth, hair and nails. Skin cancer in America is more likely to be caused by too many hours at the beach than from too many hours of working in a rice field. The increasing number of weight-loss programs alone ought to be a fairly accurate indicator of where one of our nation’s most consuming worries lies, not in sufficiency, but in overabundance.
With this superabundance to which most of us have become accustomed, how can our understanding of need be felt in any other context than what we have experienced first hand, in relation to what we want, not what we truly need?
Needs can be classified into a number of categories, but two types are easily recognizable. The first type of needs are those universal to all humans and are absolutely necessary for existence: food, water, or shelter. The second type includes needs that are relative to what we, specifically, possess and are not as closely related to our subsistence: a baker needs an oven, a sailor needs a ship.
But is there a need greater than any of these? Is there a higher need, which, if understood and fulfilled, could increase each person’s capacity and success, and put all other needs in perspective?
What Do We Really Need?
Perhaps if we had more time we could fit in everything we really needed to do, and thus avert disappointment. Marcus Aurelius, the great Roman emperor and philosopher, once counseled, “Do not act as if you were going to live 10,000 years.” He recognized that humans need increased capacity to utilize time, not more time.
This capacity can only be fostered by limiting, not increasing, that element of life. Ability must be tested if it is to be increased, just as muscles must be exercised if they are to be strengthened. To augment the element of time could indeed limit our capacity. Aurelius identified time as the universal ally.
None of us is cheated of one second of one day. One boy may live ten years, and his father one hundred. But each day of every life is filled with the same full measure of seconds, minutes and hours. Time was never the true excuse of failure, nor the real element of success.
What we need is not more time.
Perhaps more money would allow us to finally reach true happiness. This seems to have become the premise of much of today’s logic. If we usually find more exalted happiness than exalted looks among the wealthy, we might legitimately conclude that happiness and wealthiness are closely connected. But as it now stands, the meek are allotted to receive a greater inheritance than everyone else combined.
What we need is not more money.
So do we need more of anything?
The empty homes, and bursting hospitals, the refugee camps and unmarked mass graves issue a silent but resounding yes. We need more healing and helping. We need armies that protect more lives than they deny, treaties that allow more freedom than they revoke, and leaders that give more than they require.
Yet if we really need these things, are we condemned to die of want from such needs –- or is the surest provision for the solution’s endurance actually its temporary absence?
If Lincoln had libraries, would we have had Lincoln?
If Washington had peace, would we?
Was it the men, or the methods that made these leaders who they were? Maybe it was both. Lincoln needed books and learning. But more than needing books, he needed to need books. More significant than the hours of reading were the walks through the woods to get those books. More important than the knowledge he received was the price he paid to obtain that knowledge.
So it is with most of our greatest gifts; what we give will often reward us more and impact us more than what we receive. This is true of both good and ill.
The Reward of Paying the Price
Often we lay our excuses upon all that is absent in our lives. But as we achieve greatness we realize the significant thing we hold in common with others who have done the same is in having learned to appreciate, and even capitalize, on what we lacked.
Sometimes what we find in seeking to fulfill a need is not what we sought, but what we paid, and that payment becomes more meaningful and dear than it ever was before. Both need and fulfillment are elements of happiness. When our gaze rests finally upon the fulfillment, or at least the most outward manifestation of it, we have not understood real happiness.
Ask a group of mountain climbers where their view rests the longest once they have reached the summit of their climb. The exhilaration of the view does not usually lie in seeing a patch of ground under foot that could not be seen from the valley below. Rather it comes from seeing the valley below, but from an entirely new perspective.
It could be that what we need most is a change of view about what we already see. Our needs symbolize more than need; they represent a source. Each solution to a problem stands for something more than a solution; it implies a comprehensive whole.
The Test of Debt
Need and fulfillment are naturally united. But another aspect of existence, intertwined with each of these, is something we all know well enough by face and not enough at heart: debt.
Debt is one of our most potent tools and one of our greatest allies, if we use it wisely. Debt is an essential aspect of our development. What we go into debt for shows where our lives are really lived, on borrowed, or invested, time and means.
What this tool really proves is that there are few if any other choices before us; we can spend, or we can invest what was a gift in the first place. If much of what we possess is given from a Higher Power, then isn’t one of life’s great lessons about how well we deal with debt, and how well we respond to need?
And does that Power really care most about how much we have of anything? Isn’t it more concerned with how well we use what we already have?
Only those who invest what they are given, from time to talents, to money to means, ever approach fulfillment. Every other action, use and abuse, proves that such fulfillment is at worst illusory, and at best, borrowed. Only invested effort, or effort that seeks to magnify and improve, can yield happiness that is truly genuine.
This aspect of debt illustrates that often our greatest needs are internal, and will never be met by more money, more friends, more food or more recognition. In fact, these things may increase our indebtedness to ourselves and to the world. What empowers us is the ability, the gift, to augment what is already innate.
The key to a rest-filled sleep could depend more on what is in our heart, than what prescriptions we have in our bathroom cabinet. And while the latter might help us get through one more night, they are not what is helping us get through one more day. The really restful answer addresses both concerns.
The most obnoxious people we know could have more in common with us than our very best friends, in that both of us suffer from the same disease: discontentment. They, from discontentment with life; we, from discontentment with humankind.
The world’s prisoners of war are our neighbors, families, and friends who have lived through hell, but do not possess the language to ever tell about it. This restriction does not augment the torture, it is the only escape from it. Our deepest wounds are often couched in tears that are never shed, and in pain that is always subverted, not of necessity, but of our own choice.
Other people usually can’t comprehend our suffering. They often won’t understand our fears. And that’s all right because neither they nor we need to save ourselves. But we do need to be saved. We don’t need to magnify our battle scars; we need them erased.
Someone paid for what no one else ever could. Someone offers us the “Balm of Gilead” because no one else ever can, and no one else ever will. To be healed of pain, confusion and doubt we need only accept what we have already been given.
Our Greatest Needs
Our greatest need is acceptance, not receipt. We really need love, not license. We need to empathize with others, not detail our wounds. It could be that the only way to surmount the injustices of life is to refute their injustice, and embrace the only Judge whose judgment will finally matter.
We can encourage healing without inciting further injury. We can forgive without condoning what is wrong. Our needs can be changed and overcome; not, at least yet, by complete fulfillment, but certainly by more fulfilling needs.
Perhaps as we surmount the tendency to place responsibility for emptiness on our needs, we will find we are more full. A deeper need could demand and provide a deeper fulfillment. A deeper source could provide a higher triumph. A deeper debt could cultivate a stronger debtor, one capable of absolving more than his own debts, one dedicated to healing more than his own wounds. American need can lead to narrow-minded greed, or something much greater. The abundance we enjoy can hide our real needs, or illuminate them.
The time has come to consider what it is we truly need.
********************
This essay is Chapter 2 of Dinnertime Revolutions: Meeting the American Challenge by Erin Reynolds. Click here to purchase the book.
Erin Reynolds is a graduate of George Wythe University with a Bachelor’s degree in Statesmanship and a Master’s Degree in Education. She has taught in a number of venues, including spearheading a group to Uganda. She resides in Cedar City, Utah.
Dinnertime Revolutions
December 2, 2008 by Erin Reynolds · Leave a Comment
(Guest Contributor)
Part 1
“The growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.” -George Eliot
What is the power of one boy walking alone? The impact of one man going home early? The portent of one woman on her knees?
The essence of the world, and in fact this world’s summation, can be found at the scene of a family gathered around a table, leading the world’s great revolutions.
One father can stop an army. One mother can make the difference between a World War and a Continental Conference.
The next American Revolution has begun. It has commenced within the quiet precincts of our nation’s homes. The collective cry for help is being sounded by a world in chaos; the pledge to assist is being offered one person at a time.
American freedom has provided a sounding board for the great ideas of the twenty-first century. American freedom has allowed its citizens the opportunity to decide what those major ideas will do. American freedom, begun long before 1776, can no longer be just another subject we study in school, or a pledge at a ball game, or a prayer in church.
American freedom is clearly an obligation — a resounding cry that must be answered, because very soon roll will be called, and solutions will be required. The discrepancies of justice refuse to be silent; the arbiters of justice will be called to take account.
But who knows about his or her obligation to the world? Each person born in America today faces challenges as great as did Gandhi, Churchill, or Lincoln. And while we may not be required to suppress cultural rebellions, conquer international dictators, or defend human dignity, our challenges match and sometimes exceed those of past generations.
The Challenge
Our challenge today is to defend the destiny of the world; it is to promote liberty in our legislatures and at our dinner tables, at home and abroad. Americans are at an influential fulcrum point. The future of freedom hinges on decision we are making unawares. We must therefore become aware of all we have to offer, and all that is at stake, or we cannot summon the courage to reckon with our fears and thereby deny our enemies their only real weapon.
Today we are obligated to defend freedom when it may seem in our best interest to do otherwise. In sharing liberty we may risk opposing political and economic agendas designed to promote what some have termed “American freedom” and “American prosperity.”
But this revolution will teach us that no biased, selfish agenda can ever be called American. As part of the revolution we could be invited to sacrifice personal prosperity and peace on behalf of those who have who have not experienced either. We will choose by how we vote, whom we follow, and how we live, whether or not our children’s children will think of freedom as a legacy, or a memory.
The line connecting our children to freedom, and ourselves to the defense of that gift, has never been clearer, or harder to realize. More could not be at stake.
For at least five decades freedom has allowed peace and prosperity. It has not been requisite that the patriotic citizen sacrifice his business for his country, or his home for the world. But revolutions breed strange benefits. We may be surprised at what is asked of us, and even more, at what results.
The sacrifices demanded by this revolution will bring benefits of courage and virtue. They will inculcate greater prosperity and peace. Yet, as in any war, much hinges on the knowledge of the nature and aims of the enemy. Ignorance of this revolution may lead to loss of more than our own happiness. If we are not careful, we could indeed find ourselves fighting on the wrong side.
To find ourselves fighting for our own enemies seems almost impossible, but it is easily accomplished when the impact of ignorance is forgotten. We often do not realize that the bridge linking us to true fulfillment is not the next bridge, nor the last bridge, but the one we’re burning right now.
It can be hard to see that the reason our children are sent to battle is not because we cannot find the answer to war, but because we will not give the price of peace. Indeed, many of us do not know exactly what that price is.
What is this revolution, and what does it mean?
Who are its advocates? Against what is it revolting? This revolution is not really industrial, economic, or political –- though it impacts each of these. It is a departure from current trends, a return to past principles, and a leap forward in terms of what will be demanded, what will be given, and what will result. This revolution will show us that the years ahead offer more enjoyment, more fulfillment, and more happiness than we have ever known. As with the first great American Revolution, more than anything this revolution is concerned about what will be.
While this revolution is purely American in region, in thought, and principle, its founders come from nations worldwide. Its advocates are found on all sides of the political spectrum, and some of its greatest heroes are those whose eyes never viewed the land of the free and the home of the brave. But their hearts still thrilled at the thought of liberty, and their voices still defend what is right — Joan, Solon, Wellington and a host of others.
True liberty was their hope and their ideal, a vision that gave life meaning, and death purpose. For it they surrendered family, friends and fortune, but all this with the understanding that their sacrifices, alone, would never be enough. They looked forward with the knowledge that somehow, someway, somewhere freedom could ignite not just one individual, but an entire nation, and thereby liberate not one class, or one country, but actually revolutionize a world.
This was the liberty they sought; this is the obligation we have inherited.
The leaders of this revolution are the men and women, the mothers and fathers, the grandsons and granddaughters who care about not only the next twenty years of peace, but also about the next two hundred. They are leaders of movements past and present that look to us to defend the fact that freedom is not an American enigma, but a condition of progression.
Finally, what is this revolt against? It is a revolution against bondage, against mediocrity, particularly mediocrity of the most important things. The most dangerous battles are the ones where the “least” is at stake; in such scenarios those who fight are prepared for, and question, nothing. Whatever they lose, then, is more than they were prepared to surrender, and less than they could have given.
Such seemingly insignificant battles define the most significant ones. This revolution may seem insignificant. It may appear that not much is at stake. But to choose mediocrity now could make our lives as well as our nation meaningless. Our personal choices are no longer personal, and in fact touch the very center of civil service.
Family: The Heart of the Revolution
Our business strategies may not be as important as our marital success. Our financial legacy may hold less meaning than a family tradition. The degrees and accolades, the promotions and profits, often detract from the real purpose at hand. The world measures success by the only method it knows: public opinion. But by its very nature, such opinion can grant only public happiness.
Slow down and consider this for a minute — public happiness. We tell ourselves how happy we all are, and it must be true. Right? Everyone says so. But the only happiness you can take home with you is private. As we turn to sources closer to home to find inner happiness and peace, we will be fighting more than our own battles.
Our dinnertimes hold greater meaning than we may think.
********************
This essay is Chapter 1 of Dinnertime Revolutions: Meeting the American Challenge by Erin Reynolds. Click here to purchase the book.
Erin Reynolds is a graduate of George Wythe University with a Bachelor’s degree in Statesmanship and a Master’s Degree in Education. She has taught in a number of venues, including spearheading a group to Uganda. She resides in Cedar City, Utah.
Why I Don’t Like “Enlightened Self-Interest”
November 26, 2008 by Stephen Palmer · 1 Comment
This is a follow-up to my last article, wherein I write that I prefer the term “submission” over the term “enlightened self-interest.”
My aversion to the term “enlightened self-interest” comes from its common usage in economic and narrowly practical terms. In other words, it doesn’t go far and deep enough for what I wish to convey with “submission.”
And, once again, understand that this is written from my understanding of Christian epistemology and doctrine. You may take issue with my interpretation/understanding, but if you reject Christian epistemology, then we have no basis for debate.
Enlightened self-interest largely has its roots in Adam Smith’s concept of “the invisible hand,” as found in Wealth of Nations, wherein he writes:
“By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.”
Ayn Rand’s term for this is “rational selfishness.” In The Virtue of Selfishness Rand writes:
“The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and upholds rational selfishness — which means: the values required for man’s survival qua man — which means: the values required for human survival — not the values produced by the desires, the emotions, the ‘aspirations,’ the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial practice of human sacrifices, have never discovered an industrial society and can conceive of no self-interest but that of grabbing the loot of the moment.
“The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash — that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value.”
In either case, we find self-interest to be grounded in the material world, confined to a mental, or rational, sphere, and narrowly defined in terms of economic exchange.
Adding the spiritual element, according to my understanding, changes, or at least broadens, the whole picture. When animated by a spiritual connection with a Supreme Being, people do things that may appear to be irrational — at least to those who place the mental realm as the highest realm of existence. Furthermore, they may do things that may appear to have no or limited economic value, in the strictest of terms.
For example, Christ’s willingness to take upon Himself our sins and weaknesses is ridiculous and irrational to the atheist/strict Objectivist. (Per Rand’s statement, “In spiritual issues, a trader is a man who does not seek to be loved for his weaknesses or flaws, only for his virtues, and who does not grant his love to the weaknesses or the flaws of others, only to their virtues.”)
His sacrifice, borne of submission to His Father, was not calculated to bring him money, or to prosper in narrow economic terms.
Mother Teresa didn’t run her orphanages for the purpose of exchanging her labor for money for herself. She didn’t start out thinking of “promoting an end which was no part of [her] intention.” She actually intended to achieve altruistic ends. The good she did in the world wasn’t a mere by-product of pursuing her own interest solely — it was the target, the conscious goal.
Washington didn’t suffer through Valley Forge because of rational, mental, self-interested, economic-based calculations. Left to himself, Washington would have been a quiet farmer his entire life. But because he had submitted to God, not only did he sacrifice, but his sacrifices actually got him closer to his true self-interest than not making them could have. (Of course, this is an assumption based on Christian epistemology and an eternal perspective.)
Submission: The Highest Form of Applied Self-Interest
Enlightened self-interest is not, in my estimation, the highest form of applied self-interest. While it definitely is much more preferable to selfishness, or “irrational selfishness,” it doesn’t go far enough to describe my understanding of Christian doctrine. It’s predicated upon mental calculations intended to bring us the best returns. And, as I wrote previously, since we can’t have full knowledge of what is in our best interest at any given time, we must rely upon an external source — God — to guide our calculations.
Submission to God seems to me a much better term for the highest form of self-interest. God doesn’t ask us to be irrational brutes; He merely asks us to have faith in Him. We’re not to shut off our mental calculations; we’re simply to trust that His recommendations (revelation) — no matter how difficult or “irrational” they may seem at the moment — supersede our calculations and will lead to our best interest.
He may ask us to choose a lower-paying job over a higher-paying one for reasons that we don’t understand. He may ask us to do things we don’t like (e.g. Washington). He may tear our heartstrings — as He did with Abraham — in order to expand our compassion and understanding. His revelations and guidance may lead to our suffering and death (e.g. Joan of Arc, Christ’s original apostles).
Without a belief in and relationship with God, we may never perform the sacrifices that would have led us, in actuality, to our highest self-interest. Even with a relationship with God, our self-interest can still be limited if our actions are based upon what we see in any given moment. If we can’t see how an action will benefit us immediately, we’ll choose a different (lower) path.
To conclude, I don’t prefer the term “enlightened self-interest” because it’s become, through common usage, limited, narrow, and defined strictly in terms of economic exchange. Submission is my preferred term to describe the highest form of self-interest.
It’s expansive enough to include the concept of “losing our life to save our life.” It implicitly presupposes an omniscient Being to whom we must submit, a Being who knows far better what is in our self-interest than we ever can. It doesn’t discourage nor negate rational thought; it expands and deepens it. It transcends the physical and mental realms and opens the door into the spiritual realm.
And by the way, I don’t even pretend to be a good example of what I’m describing. I echo Seneca who said, “I persist in praising not the life that I lead, but that which I ought to lead. I follow it at a mighty distance, crawling.”
Email This Post
Why Our Current Brand of “Capitalism” is Inconsistent with Freedom
November 25, 2008 by Mike Wilson · Leave a Comment
“The system of corporate life is a new power for which our language contains no name. We have no word to express government by moneyed corporations.” -Charles Francis Adams
Equal opportunity is the bedrock of freedom. This nation was established to preserve, protect, and ensure that opportunity. The United States (and the world) will need to make a very important decision over the next 30 years: whether to choose democracy or capitalism. Democracy protects equal opportunity while capitalism (as practiced today) stifles it.
Let’s ask some questions to help us see in what ways capitalism and democracy are incongruent. Our first task will be to precisely describe our terms.
What is capitalism and how does it differ from free enterprise?
Capitalism suffers from misused and loose definitions. Capitalism is commonly defined as “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.”
Unfortunately, in our current state of capitalism, this free market doesn’t exist. What we experience is more closely associated with Karl Marx’s definition of a “capitalist.” It was Marx who first used the term to describe the oppressive and face-grinding economic environment of aristocratic Europe that was buoyed up by legal protection of the few at the expense of the many.
In place of a free market exists a complicated web of laws and regulations that, as one critic suggests, allows the corporate class to “use free-market rhetoric to justify imposing greater economic risk upon the lower classes, while being insulated from the rigors of the market by the political and economic and legal advantages that such wealth affords.”
Capitalism today is an economic system where the government favors those with capital over those with little or none. It’s a marriage between government and big business. You don’t see small businesses being “bailed out” right now, do you? There’s a reason for that.
Although capitalism suffers from these weaknesses, we should recognized that it is a much freer system, both economically and politically, than either communism or socialism.
Nevertheless, capitalism is the systems in which those with the capital make the rules. The rules are made to benefit themselves at the expense of new competition. This is accomplished through financially-privileged and unequal access to political influence and power.
For example, a small business owner would have a difficult road competing against a large “box” store, not only because of volume and pricing (which is part of market forces and free enterprise), but because of fewer obstacles (paperwork, fees, etc) the large “box store” would face because of laws and favors granted due to financial influence (which is what makes it capitalism).
This environment results in exclusionary practices and limits opportunity; and this is where our current state of capitalism breaks with democracy.
Free enterprise is the legal framework that allows all with the desire and the idea and the creativity to compete on a level playing field; free enterprise is therefore more democratic because it is based on equal opportunity before the law. In contrast, capitalism is the legal framework that leads to aristocratic structures by providing advantage to those who have capital via protection and perpetuation of wealth.
What is democracy and why is it currently tightly associated with capitalism?
Democracy is another term with many loose definitions. Historically it denotes that the common people (demos) rule (kratia) in that the population of the society controls the government, and that the government is for, of and by the people. There are many brands of democracy but they are all distinguished from other forms of government by general population-based input into the political process.
Aristocracy, the rule by “the best” (generally determined by birth or status that almost always rule for life) and plutocracy, rule by the wealthy, are enemies of democracy. Our current brand of capitalism tends to create and then maintain these other social forms.
Historically, free enterprise was tied to democracy by the American Revolution, as much of the reasoning for war was a push-back against British mercantilistic policies imposed upon colonists accustomed to operating within an essentially free market.
With the advent of communism and socialism in the mid 19th century and their rise at the turn of that century, capitalism stood out as the “more free” of the economic systems and the alliance with democracy was forged. This bond was fortified during WWI and WWII and the Cold War as the world battled between democracy and totalitarianism.
Why is “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people” inconsistent with mercantilistic capitalism?
1. The increasingly manipulated legal system of capitalism, set up in order to preserve and protect privileged access to the market (try to get a franchise license without incredible personal assets), causes the political process to concurrently become less and less democratic.
Although we are given the impression that the process is becoming more democratic (that we can vote about more things), reality is that those who we choose to represent us are increasingly influenced, and to that degree, controlled by those who fund their political ascendancy. This tends to aristocracy or oligarchy (rule by the few).
2. Thus, only those with legal and political influence are able to manipulate the system to their advantage. At some point (I think we’re getting close) the common man disengages from the political and civil conversation and the wealthy and powerful (whether conservative or liberal) are the only ones involved in the functioning of government, making decisions based on protecting their wealth and power.
3. Even if the political structures don’t change form, the economic and legal systems create a de facto wealth-based aristocracy. The ability of the common people (demos) to influence the political situation diminishes into insignificance and thus capitalism changes the political structure.
4. The laws currently in place give capitalism a decided advantage in the choice between capitalism and democracy. Money purchases political influence and will continue to bring into play laws that perpetuate the capitalist system at the expense of free enterprise and democracy.
5. Remember that we are not talking about overnight change. This is a trend that has progressed for decades. Only now are we able to distinguish the two, and we need to choose before we reach a point of no return.
How are democracy and capitalism perceived internationally?
The United States is currently the self-proclaimed “bastion” of both capitalism and democracy. However, in international opinion the U.S. government is associated (through sad experience) with rapacious capitalistic policies and oft-times hypocritical democratic interventions that have been claimed have the intention of “spreading democracy and prosperity,” only to have had the opposite effects in multiple countries throughout the world.
Much of U.S. foreign policy has supposedly been to “spread democracy”; however the means chosen seem to indicate that the purpose has been to make the world safe for mercantilistic capitalism at the expense of popular sovereignty and paced and sequenced movements, determined by each country, to improve the freedom in their markets and the prosperity of the people of these lands.
It’s not yet clear whether the incoming executive administration will continue to force on other countries the concepts of free government and free markets through the use of the military and international financial organizations. Regardless, we must choose, as soon as possible, whether as a people we will continue to align ourselves with mercantilistic capitalism, or if we will trust free government, free markets, and popular sovereignty.
Conclusion
Our rampant commercialism, consumerism, and materialism indicate which way we are leaning. Our ethics and our legal system to which we sacrifice our morals demonstrate that we value capital and wealth (and especially protecting it) more than we value liberty. We demonstrate that we would rather have an aristocratic plutocracy govern us than to govern ourselves (if it means we can maintain our current level of luxury).
Mercantilistic capitalism is winning in the U.S. and will continue to do so until appropriate corporate and tax reforms are undertaken and until financial influence of the political system is eliminated.
Will we wait until our own government implements “Intolerable Acts” that protect its mercantilistic desires at the expense of the free market, or until our foreign economic and political policies become so unfair that our security is even more seriously compromised? Or will we pro-actively choose democracy, free enterprise, and liberty at home and abroad?
We must call our current economic system what it is — mercantilistic capitalism — recognize how distant we are from liberty in our government and our economics, and move forward the overhaul that needs to occur.
Email This Post
Move the Cause of Liberty by (1) subscribing to the Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and (2) pledging your Life, Liberty, and Sacred Honor to the Cause by signing the Declaration of Dependence.
Copyright © 2008 by The Cause of Liberty. All rights reserved.
Opening the “Self-Interest” Can of Worms
November 24, 2008 by Stephen Palmer · 1 Comment
In a past article, John Robertson takes issue with “the idea that self-interest is somehow a vice, a detriment or a critical flaw” because it is “a denial of one the most most fundamental truths of nature…”
Allow me to clarify. First, understand that my perspective is based on Christian epistemology (at least my version of it), which means that if we do not share that epistemology there will be little, if any, grounds for debate. I only write this to clarify my position, not to persuade non-Christians, agnostics, atheists, and/or Objectivists that my perspective is right, nor do I write to initiate debate with them.
The Real Flaw of Self-Interest
It’s undeniable that we’re hardwired to pursue our self-interest. Put in different terms, we seek pleasure, joy, happiness, and fulfillment and strive to avoid pain and sorrow. The pursuit of self-interest is not a “vice, detriment, or critical flaw.” The real flaw, or limitation, of self-interest isn’t the pursuit of it; it’s simply that our knowledge of what is truly in our self-interest is limited at best.
Any parent can see the self-evident nature of this. A child, pursuing her self-interest, is drawn towards the flickering light of an open fireplace. We as parents, possessing greater knowledge, steer the child away. A self-interested teenager pleads to go to a party, one that we as parents know will be harmful. A child complains about having to work in the home, wanting instead to play, watch TV, or play video games. As parents, we understand that it is in the self-interest of the child to learn how to work, although the child does not.
In short, self-interest must be guided, or enlightened, by a source external to us, a Source with greater knowledge than us, a loving Source that has our best interest at heart, a Source with the wisdom to know when pain, sorrow, and sacrifice may be to our long-term benefit. Parents serve this role for children. In a larger sense, as a Christian, I obviously believe this Source to be God.
This type of self-interest has been referred to as “enlightened self-interest.” If that term works for you, by all means use it. I shy away from it because over time and with wide usage the meaning becomes diluted. I prefer “submission” instead, which will be explored later. First, we must understand epistemology.
The Relevance of Epistemology
In the simplest terms, epistemology is how human beings determine what is true and untrue. It deals with the questions, “What is knowledge?”, “How is knowledge acquired?”, “What do people know?”, “How do we know what we know?” There are a number of epistemologies including, but not limited to, reason, empiricism, tradition, authority, and revelation.
Epistemology is fundamental to self-interest because it is the foundation of how we determine what is in our self-interest, or what is opposed to it. If tradition is my epistemology, then following tradition, cultural or otherwise, is in my self-interest. If reason is my epistemology, reason will dictate what is in my self-interest. On the other hand, if revelation is my epistemology, then what God tells me determines what is in my best self-interest.
My personal epistemology is what I call “reveleason,” which is the combination of revelation and reason, with revelation being the ultimate authority on what determines truth. God created us with the ability to reason, which we are expected to use to our advantage. However, He also interacts with, enlightens, and expands our reason and knowledge through revelation. Again, since our knowledge is limited, we must seek the guidance of an external Source.
“Man Alone” Vs. “Man With God”
Assuming it’s true that we are children of God, then there are two ways to live: with or without God. Man Alone depends on epistemologies other than revelation. Man Alone does not seek the guidance of metaphysical or spiritual sources to make decisions. At worst, Man Alone degenerates into unchecked hedonism, exploitation of others, greed, and harmful selfishness. At best, Man Alone is a good citizen living far below his potential.
When it comes to sacrifice, Man Alone either fails to see any virtue in sacrifice, or what sacrifices he does make are limited to very practical, earthly terms. For example, Man Alone using reason as epistemology may sacrifice time and money to go to college in order to earn more money. But this same person may fail to see any virtue in or purpose behind Abraham’s sacrifice.
Man With God, however, seeks the will of God in the pursuit of his self-interest. His self-interest dictates that he obey the laws of God — whatever he believes them to be — and even when he does not understand them fully. Man With God is uplifted to achieve far greater things than Man Alone because he follows the will of One who knows what he needs to progress.
Man With God understands the virtue in sacrifice. He understands that God only asks him to do things that are ultimately in his self-interest, although he may not understand why or how at the time he is asked to sacrifice.
In short, Man With God submits his will to the will of God. He lays his uninformed self-interest upon God’s altar and trusts God’s judgment of what is in his best self-interest. It doesn’t mean that he’s not self-interested or that pursuing his self-interest is a vice; it means that his self-interest is guided, enlightened, enhanced, and expanded by a Source external to Him.
One might say that he is pursuing God-interest, rather than self-interest, although the more he submits his will to God the more those two merge into one.
It is precisely this faith that gives him the desire and ability to sacrifice perceived personal benefit and endure hardship. It’s what the Founders referred to as Public Virtue.
Examples of Submission
Every great man and woman that I revere in history has displayed the characteristics and habits of Man With God. They have sacrificed and endured hardship because they submitted their self-interest to God.
Jesus Christ
When Christ retired to the Garden of Gethsemane, faced with the awful burden of suffering for our sins, he prayed, “Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.” (Luke 22:42)
John 5:30 records, “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.” John 6:38 explains, “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.”
Christ submitted his self-interest to the will of His Father, who led Christ to do excruciating things that were ultimately in his (Christ’s) self-interest.
George Washington
We’re familiar with Washington’s struggles to keep an inexperienced and undisciplined army together facing extreme shortages of food, clothing, shelter, and ammunition. We know of his countless sacrifices for his country and posterity when his greatest desire was to live a quiet life of farming in Mount Vernon. But he sacrificed so much because he had submitted to God.
His prayer in Valley Forge, as recorded by Reverend Nathaniel Randolph Snowden, an ordained Presbyterian minister, graduate of Princeton with a degree from Dickinson College, in his “Diary and Remembrances.” He details the story of a Mr. Potts, who stumbled upon George Washington praying in the woods near Valley Forge. Mr. Potts recounted:
“It was a most distressing time of ye war, and all were for giving up the Ship but that great and good man. In that woods pointing to a close in view, I heard a plaintive sound as, of a man at prayer. I tied my horse to a sapling & went quietly into the woods & to my astonishment I saw the great George Washington on his knees alone, with his sword on one side and his cocked hat on the other. He was at Prayer to the God of the Armies, beseeching to interpose with his Divine aid, as it was ye Crisis, & the cause of the country, of humanity & of the world. Such a prayer I never heard from the lips of man.”
“I felt much impressed,” Reverend Snowden wrote, “in his presence and reflected upon the hand and wonderful Providence of God in raising him up and qualifying him with so many rare qualities and virtues for the good of this country and the world. Washington was not only brave and talented, but a truly excellent and pious man of God and of prayer. He always retired before a battle and in any emergency for prayer and direction.”
Washington also sheds light on his faith in his own words. A Reverend Israel Evans once delivered and printed a sermon to American soldiers. Washington received a printing of the sermon, and wrote to the Reverend and assured him that, “…it will ever be the first wish of my heart to aid your pious endeavors to inculcate a due sense of the dependence we ought to place in that all wise and powerful Being on whom alone our success depends…”
Was Washington self-interested? Of course. Yet his submission to God led him to make sacrifices that most never make. He allowed God to lead him — through revelation — beyond uninformed self-interest to a much higher form of self-interest.
More Examples
Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for her sacrifices. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated for his beliefs and efforts, as was Gandhi. Mother Teresa devoted her life to serving “the hungry, the naked, the homeless, the crippled, the blind, the lepers, all those people who feel unwanted, unloved, uncared for throughout society, people that have become a burden to the society and are shunned by everyone.” The signers of the Declaration of Independence challenged the greatest military force on earth in order to secure freedom for themselves and their posterity.
The list goes on. The point is to say that Men (and Women) With God think and act differently than Men Alone. They willingly suffer and sacrifice more — not because they’re not self-interested, but because they submit to God and allow Him to guide the pursuit of their self-interest. They thus achieve and enjoy more.
Conclusion
We are hardwired to be self-interested. It is perhaps the most fundamental aspect of our nature. Desiring self-interest is not a flaw or a vice of human nature. It’s not wrong to pursue self-interest. The problem is that our self-interest is uninformed because of our limited knowledge.
In order for us to achieve our highest potential and do the most good in the world, both for ourselves and for others, we need an external Source to guide and enlighten our self-interest. Without this external guidance, our lives and contributions are degenerate at worst, and limited at best.
We must submit to God, who, through personal revelation, asks us to sacrifice temporary benefit in order to fulfill long-term self-interest. Submission requires faith, faith that submitting our will to God is ultimately in our best self-interest.
The goal, then, isn’t to stop pursuing self-interest. Rather, it’s to pursue a much higher form of self-interest than can be found without submitting to God. It’s a Divine Paradox. “For whosoever will save his life,” taught Christ, “shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.”
Email This Post
Move the Cause of Liberty by (1) subscribing to the Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and (2) pledging your Life, Liberty, and Sacred Honor to the Cause by signing the Declaration of Dependence.
Copyright © 2008 by The Cause of Liberty. All rights reserved.
-
Free Newsletter Subscription
Subscribe to The Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and receive two free gifts. Your personal information will never be shared.
Subscribe To The Cause Of LibertyPolls
Loading ... Loading ... Loading ...