We the People

by Don Harkey

The feedback from the articles this week has been tremendous! I have gotten a few questions about why I chose this topic on a blog that is written for leaders. The quick answer is that our country needs some great leadership right now. The other answer is that its a topic that I (and many others) feel pretty passionate about right now.

When it comes down to it, I think the thing that really urks me is how little faith our government has in "we the people". Both parties spent a lot of time talking about "combating greed" in all of its forms while discussing policies centered on "saving" the American people. I hear it everyday. "We must make sure that we have an American auto industry." "We must make sure that Americans have jobs."

That is very, very wrong.

The spirit of America is not only alive and well, it continues to thrive. I talked to a coffee shop owner ("The Buzz" in Springfield, MO) yesterday who started her shop in December of last year, in the middle of the economic crises. My friend asked her if she was nervous starting up a shop in the middle of a recession. She responded, "at least I have control of my destiny". She then told us about the homemade baked goods and other foods. The carrot cake was incredible!

Also this week, a friend of mine forwarded a link with information on a new electric car that is being made by the American auto industry. Who is it? Ford? GM? Chrysler? Nope. Tesla Motors.

Today, I'm visiting with the owners of a recently started and growing cabinet company called "Cabinet Concepts by Design". Isn't the housing market down? They are focused on innovative custom designs presented in a way that every homeowner can see (in a 3D computer model).

A couple of weeks ago, I attended the ribbon cutting at "Swing Right Golf". Sean Saunders has been working on his PGA license while building his business, all in the middle of this poor economy. Read more about Sean on the "Move Blog".

Last month, I met James Olson who owns "Oaxcafe Coffee Company" who roasts coffee in Springfield for many of the local coffee shops. In these tough economic times, is James holding onto his profits to ensure his survival? No. Instead he regularly goes on mission trips to Mexico and India.

Yesterday, I talked with Kent who directs "Therapeutic Riding of the Ozarks", an agency that gives special needs children the chance to ride horses. The therapeutic effect on the kids is dramatic. He further reaches out to children by using at risk teenagers to work with the kids changing the lives of everyone involved. He works 18 hours a day keeping his operation going which is funded by grants and donations.

It is time that the government stop treating the American People like victims. It is time that we remember that these people are the ones who will lead us out of these economic times. While it is true that stupid decisions by a few overpaid executives and government officials can lead us into a recession, it is also true that our system of government allows the people to pull us out of it.

The United States leads the world economically, not because of government policies, but because of the freedom enjoyed by the entrepreneurs and "do-ers" of this country. These people innovate, create value for society, and are rewarded for doing so. In fact, we are all rewarded by these people.

My suggestion is this... turn off the news, donate to your favorite charity or church, go get a cup of coffee and think about all of the opportunities that living in this country offers you. Think about what others have done with that opportunity and then imagine what YOU will do with it. Don't surrender your destiny!

When is Big "Too Big"

by Don Harkey

We've had some really great articles this week. Rob and Ray are very articulate and did a great job outlining the free market philosophy. I want to take this opportunity to "drill down" a bit into some of the current issues. Let's try to apply some of the philosophy.

I mentioned earlier in the week that George Washington despised government, but he saw that it was necessary for certain things. He called it a "necessary evil". Any service provided by the government could be considered against free market principles, although not many free market advocates are anarchists. The central issue then is "what is the role of government?". Where is the line?

Let me give you some "thought examples". I think most people agree that providing for the common defense is a good role of the government. The national military has proven much more effective than the scattered militias that were common in our early years as a country. What about police and fire fighting? Most Americans are content with leaving these services to the government, and this approach has seemed to work.

Moving on to health care. Should we have socialized medicine? Do we currently have "free market" medicine? Imagine a man who makes $10,000,000 per year and refuses to pay for insurance. He throws his money around like crazy and has nothing to show for it. He has a heart attack and goes to the hospital. He has no insurance and does not intend to pay his bill. Do you let him die?

Take the example of a family who loses their jobs and has their house foreclosed. They have no source of income, no local family, and have no place to go. Do you let them be homeless?

The answers to these questions do not yield the answer to the choice between socialism and a free market. A socialist might believe that a "free market" answer might be "yes, let them die, let them be homeless". A free market person might believe the "socialist" answer is "heal them, house them, clothe them, and give them expanded basic cable". These are the debates we are having in the media and its not healthy or productive. This is where conservatives become "cold-hearted" and where liberals become "tree-huggers". For the majority of people, neither is true.

Let's assume that most people would not let the greedy man die on the hospital floor. We would help the man. The real question is "HOW?". Most people would want to help the homeless family. How?

Do we establish a government health care system to save the lives of anyone regardless of their financial means? Do we carry out Lyndon Johnson's "war on poverty" as a nation?

Do we allow people to keep more of their money to donate (voluntarily) to organizations like Crosslines or The Kitchen. Do we call out FEMA to the next natural disaster or do we find homes for over 200 families in a nearby city simply by calling on local churches to help (as was done in Springfield after Hurricane Katrina)?

Let's talk about some of the largest corporations and organizations in the United States. What would have happened if the government had allowed Bear Stearns to fail? AIG? Chrysler? GM? Both President Bush and President Obama believed that the country could not withstand the failures of these companies. As a good friend of mine says, the answer to this scenario is "above my pay grade".

However, if the answer is that our economy would, then we are faced with the next question. If a single organization can make some bad decisions and cause the potential collapse of the United States or even the World economy, then how do prevent this from happening again? The answer from President Obama is clear... regulation and government intervention.

Should we prevent companies from growing that large in the first place? It wasn't long ago when banks were not allowed to cross state lines. This is not without significant implications. Where is the line? Is it possible that the "people" would determine that a company is not acting in the best interest of the "whole" and act accordingly? Should we intercede and "tweak" WalMart's health care policies? Should we prevent WalMart from entering towns of less than 10,000 people?

Maybe the whole thing is blown out of proportion. Maybe if Bear Stearns, AIG, Citibank, GM, and Chrysler all failed, maybe the economy would be hurt, but maybe the country and the world would come out more healthy. Maybe the banks SHOULDN'T be lending out more money to people. Maybe this is NOT a good time to take out a car loan. Maybe mortgage companies SHOULD demand 20% down on a house.

At the heart of the question... should we be more concerned about big corporations or big government?

Biblical Property

by Ray Smith

“The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God.” John Adams (June 28, 1813; Letter to Thomas Jefferson)

We have forgotten some of the basic foundational beliefs that drove our founding fathers to create our government in the manner they did.

All the earth is owned by God – He is the Creator. (Genesis 1:1, Psalm 50:10-12)

God has given man dominion over His earth and all that is on it. This makes every person personally responsible to God for what he does with everything he possesses. (Genesis 1:28-30, Genesis 9:1-7)

God ordained this responsibility which we call private property which is clearly evidenced by the fact that two of the Ten Commandments – the 8th and 10th respectively – deal with stealing and envy or coveting. (Exodus 20:15,17). As a matter of fact, in the explanation of the civil laws against stealing God instructed that restitution of up to 5 times the original value of what was stolen should be made and that force – even lethal force – could be used in the defense of one’s property. (Exodus 22:1-14).

The responsibility people have to work and invest of their resources and to add value as they do so is biblical.

Consider what Jesus taught on this subject in the Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25:14-30. He said that people are directly accountable to God for all that He has given them, that they are obligated to add value by wisely investing all they have been given and that this increase pleases God.

The founding fathers understood this so well, that they designed a system of government that protected the rights of individuals, private property and making a profit.

But Americans have apparently forgotten these truths. Too many people are happy to let the government do everything for them. By adopting this attitude, people have rejected their responsibility to be good stewards of God’s resources. We have become a nation of wimps who are unwilling to compete in a free market and accept that there are risks in any life that is worth living.

Our current leaders want to regulate the rights of individuals supposedly for their own good – even the amount of water your toilet flushes! They are ignoring the protections of private property through contracts and increasing government seizures which they prefer to call take-overs. They are favoring certain businesses over others by using public funds to profit only selected companies within any given industry. They call these favors bailouts. They are punishing those who are successful at making a profit through outrageous taxation and are even willing to use the IRS to punish anyone they think is getting too much. And finally, instead of living within the confines of a balanced budget, they are willing to pass massive debts on to future generations which is nothing more than taxation without representation for our children and grandchildren.

Whatever the government officials deem necessary they are planning to do with or without the consent of the governed. We are, unfortunately, heading toward tyranny.

You cannot read the founding fathers, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Bible and find justification for where we are today! This is a dangerous time for America.

Free Men, Free Markets

by Rob Catlett
Springfield, MO

“I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." Barack Obama, October 16, 2008

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." James Madison, Father of the US Constitution, 1794

The two quotes are from statesmen at diametrically opposite ends of American history and political philosophy. The core issue here is the role of government to provide for the common good. Should government redistribute resources to reduce inequalities in wealth distribution, or should free markets be the arbiter of value? When one looks at the history of the world, what economic and political system has best moved man from grinding poverty to improved health care, medicine, security, and leisure activities?

I say unequivocally that the existence of free markets has led to the greatest explosion of wealth the world has ever seen. Free markets are characterized by several key factors: voluntary win-win exchanges, personal property rights, and equal protection under the rule of law. Looking at countries around the world, there is a direct relationship between these factors and the prosperity of the country. Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and Russia all confiscate personal property on a whim, control free speech, plan their economies, and as a result their standard of living suffers. Ireland and New Zealand are at the other end of the spectrum and benefit from their open societies.

Think of all of the parts that make up your computer, certainly there are thousands. Consider all of the companies involved, the various countries, diverse religions and ethnicities of the workers, and yet somehow a shiny computer sits on your desk, performing the tasks that you need. No government dictated that the computer be built, designed a chip, or did market research. It was an incredible amount of voluntary, win-win exchanges among thousands that brought this computer to your desk. An outcome of those many transactions was the creation of personal wealth by those who exchanged their time and energy for money. Their profits are then used at their discretion to purchase food, health care, savings, iPhones, or whatever suits them best. For these voluntary exchanges to take place, one must have control of private property.

Let us contrast win-win exchanges against the government sponsored programs for the common good. The corn farmer and ethanol producer are content to receive their subsidy; however that confers an obligation upon all other citizens to pay extra for their food and gasoline. This is a win-lose exchange for the citizens. Individually, the subsidy may not be onerous, but the list of obligations subjected upon citizens by our government is almost never ending. The taking of private property and giving it to others is a trait minimized in flourishing nations, and promoted in areas that continue to struggle.

Historically, wealth was amassed by invading, plundering, stealing and enslaving. Over the past two centuries, we have witnessed the explosion and broadening of wealth with governments having a critical role. The critical role however is to protect private property, and making clear the rule of law that protects all, and to minimize wealth transfers. Capitalism, with all of its warts and imperfections, still provides the best way to provide for the common good. To surrender free speech and property rights to the government for bureaucrats to decide how best to serve the common good goes against the lessons of history, and certainly does not align with the vision James Madison had for our country.

Free Markets or Greed

by Don Harkey

Wall Street is out of control! Greed has overtaken our country and caused a split in our society between the "haves" and the "have nots". Now we are paying for the bad decisions made on Wall Street while those who made the decisions are living like fat cats. It's time for the government to step in.

Did I do a good job of summing up what we are hearing on the news? Is it really this simple? Can a free market really work or is heavy regulation and control needed? When a company becomes large enough to have a dramatic impact on our nation's economy, should it be left alone, heavily regulated, or prevented from getting that large in the first place?

This week, we will be talking about free markets. Regardless of your political leanings, the government is certainly leaning toward more regulation as a whole. Republican Orrin Hatch (Utah) is presenting a bill to call the college football BCS system an "antitrust violation" while a Democratic Senator Benjamin Cardin (Maryland) is working on a bill to allow newspapers to gain a "non-profit" status. Taxes are being applied backwards to bonuses collected by executives within "bailout" companies. There is serious discussion of limiting the compensation of all corporate executives as well as professional athletes and actors. Are these good ideas?

What type of government do we have in the United States? I would hazard that a majority of citizens today would answer "a Democracy". It would surprise many that the term "democrat" (not related to the current political party) was considered an insult in the days of our Founding Fathers. Do you know the history?

Early America in the late 18th century was a unique time. Government was a favorite topic of many of the best minds in the America and the men who became our Founding Fathers spent hours debating and discussing various forms of government looking for a form of government that would really work. The quick answer at the time would have been to form a democracy where people vote for everything. However, they quickly realized that this type of system is impractical and not prudent. People will vote themselves more and more specific benefits and react too strongly to current events. A democracy is not sustainable.

Of course, a monarchy was not desirable either. Many Americans didn't despise the monarchy as we think of it today, but they saw where the system failed. The system is only as good as its leader and how much information the leader gets. So what were we to do?

Our Founding Fathers realized that they were not out to set up a "perfect" government. They saw the government as a potentially dangerous, "but necessary" entity (or "evil" as Washington called it). So they set out to create a "more perfect" government. They designed a Republic (again, no reference to the current political party). The system is designed to have representatives of the people to serve as a buffer between the currents of public opinion and to ensure that the "best" people were making decisions. The system is designed to allow the government to sometimes make decisions against the will of the people.

The Colonists were also huge believers in a Free Market. They were participating in one of the biggest "free market" experiments in the history of the world. They had come together from multiple countries, often under different (or multiple) flags and set to work making out their own living. The early colonists didn't have a "national" government designed to organize and develop a complex system of trading. It just happened based on supply and demand.

Fast forward to 2009. Can this system still work today? That's the topic of this week!