Liberty

by

Moving toward something good

1967 U.S. postage stamp honoring Henry David T...

Image via Wikipedia

I recently had an inspiring conversation with someone who has had a long-standing interest in the Village. We talked about how fragile our world is on almost every front, from climate changes to economic melt-downs to rioting in the cities like London and Birmingham, to corruption in politics and big business. You all know the list.

Then the conversation turned to preparation. Why do we want a self-sufficient lifestyle? We both agreed that it is totally impossible to prepare for every doomsday scenario. We do our best to be pragmatic about our preparations. We keep our eyes wide open. We try not to be in denial, but also not in hiding. In the end, none of us know what challenges may come our way or when.  Meanwhile, we don’t want to over-react.
Fear can ruin your life.  It’s important that we continuously move towards something good, not just away from the things we fear may be bad.

I often think of the life Henry David Thoreau, the great poet and philosopher, described in his landmark book, Walden Pond. He moved there, not to flee anything, but to move toward a more simple, peaceful, self-assured life. He wanted the freedom that comes from stripping away the bonds that come with having too many possessions. They tend to own you, rather than the other way around. He wanted the peace that comes from knowing that your life is not dependent on the whims of someone else, a job or the economy, or … whatever. And he proved it possible IF you strip away the unnecessary.

Life without many of the things we had come to think of as necessities is actually pretty good. I no longer carry a cell phone. After realizing that we hadn’t turned on the TV for a couple of months, but were paying about $80 per month in satellite fees, we cut it off and haven’t missed it much for a couple of years. Life is slower now even though the seasons and years seem to be rushing by at an increasing pace. When I was a young executive on the fast track my greatest fear was being unemployed. Now I can’t imagine going back.

Reflecting on all the people who have visited us over the years, most of them at some time said how much they aspired to this simpler, freer lifestyle. Yet such a small percentage act on those desires. I think it’s all about how we deal with fear and desire. I think most people who look into the self-sufficient lifestyle are initially motivated by fear.  Unfortunately for them, it’s the same fear that keeps them from making a major change in their lives because everyone fears the unknown and big changes.

Hopefully, the people who do make the change are the ones who have made the mental commitment to move toward things they desire in life and let the things they are moving away from gently recede into the background.

by

Aftermath of 9/11 – Hope, Peace, Power

Victor Guzman survived 9/11 from the 85th floor of the World Trade Center  Watch this video to see how he lived to tell how 9/11 changed his life in a positive way.
In a strange way, his story is my story.

I was on the opposite coast that dreadful morning, but the impact was no less devastating.  I had celebrated my 50th birthday 12 days earlier by being downsized from the best, most lucrative position of my career as International Division President of Allied Domecq (Baskin-Robbins and Dunkin’ Donuts).  I almost never watch TV, but for some reason that morning I flipped on the news a few seconds before the image of the first plane hitting the first tower seared itself into my consciousness.  I believe the impulse to turn on the TV at that moment was not an accident.  I called my family together and remember telling them that I didn’t know what it meant, but it was hugely significant and the world would never be the same from that moment forward.

Newly emancipated from my career at its peak, I was still full of confidence.  I decided to take advantage of that moment of freedom and reward my dear wife, who had faithfully followed me across the world as we climbed the ladder.  We abruptly sold our California house, moved to Atlanta and built our 5,000 square foot dream house where we could be near her family.

What followed was four years of unemployment.  It was a period when, like Mr. Guzman in this video, I had the time to be intensely involved with my family.  We enjoyed precious moments working, playing and studying the scriptures together.  It was also a time of grief and depression.  My oldest son, stricken with the disease of schizophrenia took his life.  The first five years following 9/11 was punctuated by some consulting work and one year as International Division Managing Director (President equivalent) at Papa John’s International.  In that year, my performance exceeded all the targets I was given, but within one year to the day, I was fired by a boss who had never intended to fill that position and knew it would be vacant again one year from filling it.  I had sold our Atlanta home and relocated to a place we didn’t want to be.  Success meeting my objectives at Papa John’s had refreshed my confidence, but this time I was done with living inside the matrix, the corporate life.

It had been just over five years since 9/11 and my departure from Allied Domecq.  The second 5-year phase of post 9/11 life began.  Always supportive, Becky followed me as I threw what was left of our life savings and all of my energy into building a community where we could live free and independent, surrounded by honest, supportive, creative and hard-working people of like mind, good people who care about their fellow-man as Christ taught.  This second 5-year segment has not been easy, nor financially profitable. Today, I have more questions than I have answered.  But, of the things that are important, I am blessed.  My children are now all independent – two in college, two married with children.  I had time to be with them in their formative years, building and enjoying them. I live in a place of immense natural beauty.  My personal land and home are debt free.  I have time to think and have spent a much of my time meditating, reading and writing.  My wife has thrown herself into raising a garden that feeds us.  We have a secure, private supply of clean, pure, life-giving water.  Our efforts have yielded a core group of trusted, beloved friends.

So, you can see, 9/11 has a great deal of significance to me.  You could say it was the beginning of a ten-year journey through tumult, failure, sadness, depression, blessings, hope, peace and empowerment.  The journey has just begun.

In this moment of reflection, I am impressed to tell you that
the outcome of the next years will depend on whether we sink into confused despair or realize that we are individually and collectively powerful.  With God’s guidance, we can create a world of hope, peace and power.

by

There’s a new game in town

If you have read many of my posts you know I don’t like labels.  I’m neither a conservative nor a liberal, neither a Republican nor a Democrat.  I think most real answers are somewhere outside of mainstream thought and are certainly not found in mainstream media.

So, I was delighted to learn of a new website that offers Americans a new option that circumvents the corrupt two-party system.  I found out about it from a NY Times Op-Ed piece titled Make way for the radical center.   I navigated my way to Americans Elect 2012 and joined.  I was presented with a lot of questions to answer that are supposed to link me up with other “like-minded” people.  As I answered each question,  the results of the other million + members followed and I thought, wow, this certainly has an extreme liberal/progressive skew.  I began to wonder if I’m that far in the minority.   I’m not easily bullied into changing my views even when vastly outnumbered.  I just wondered if mainstream America is really that far to the left of me.

Then I took a look at some of the forums.  There, I found that even self-avowed flaming liberals were acknowledging how stunned (and delighted) they are at the skewing.   I liked one self-proclaimed liberal’s comment that the site needs to bring in more conservative views.   I may or may not agree with his views, but I was impressed with his desire for an open, inclusive discussion.  As one who values solutions over polemics, I couldn’t agree more.

Please join the site and make your views known.  Maybe, if enough thinking Americans get involved we can turn this thing around.

by

MuslimTerrorists taking over the world

I get a lot of forwarded chain emails.  I don’t forward anything, but I note trends.  Over the past few years, a disturbing trend has emerged of hysterical people worried about the takeover of America by Muslims and Sharia law.  There are lots of photos and videos of European cities like Paris and London over-run by praying Muslims with the implication that the US is soon to follow.  There are demographic charts extrapolating the birth rate of Muslims taking over the world by sheer numbers.  Then there are the court cases in the US with Muslims asserting egregious claims to their civil rights while trampling on the rights of law-abiding American Christians.  Of course, this is all juxtaposed against reminders of 9/11 and what they did to us.  Just for fun, we have Homeland Security and the TSA to freshen up our psychological wounds and remind us of the freedoms we have already given up in order to protect ourselves against these Arab demons.  Isn’t it outrageous?  Their terrorist women want to travel in total anonymity while real Americans are subjected to the delightful alternative of sexual groping or a nude x-ray strip search!

Terror is such a wonderful tool for moving the masses.  It’s especially nice when terror can be blamed on a minority group that is little understood, of foreign origin and has very different beliefs and social norms.  Aren’t Jews Arabs great?

Don’t get me wrong.  I’m not shilling for the Arabs.  I have spent a great deal of time working in the Middle East.  I have read the Koran.  I have observed the hypocrisy first hand even as I recognize that they haven’t cornered the market for it.  I’m not a fan of Islam.  I just don’t think Muslims are any greater threat to us than the Jews were to third Reich Germans.

Years ago I was strolling the grounds of the Eiffel Tower in Paris with a friend I had just met there.  Both of us were Americans on business in the city of lights.  It was a quiet, lazy Saturday morning and we had taken a little time to be tourists.  As we strolled, enjoying some easy banter, he was accosted by a team of artful gypsy’s.  One attacked him by rustling a newspaper in his face, obscuring his vision and overwhelming his senses, while the other lifted his wallet and passport.  Boy, were they good!  I was grateful that they had singled him out instead of me.  He spent many more days in Paris sorting out the mess and restoring his passport.

It’s time to check your back pocket to see if your wallet is still there.  If it is, relax a bit and get on with real life and providing for yourself and family.

But, beware of gypsy’s with newspapers or chain emails.

by

Putting Independence back in the 4th of July

Getting ready for our traditional July 4th celebration at the Village on Sewanee Creek.
It’s the most important holiday in America because it commemorates our freedom, how we got it, lost it, and our responsibility to restore it.
Want to put Christ back into Christmas?   Without freedom, there is no religion, nothing of value.
How about putting freedom and independence back into Independence Day?

Join us at the Village for a traditional 4th.   Potluck BBQ, movies, family skits, education and lots of fun.

May the Fourth be with you!

by

How to Take Control of your Wealth

I have long been puzzled by the appeal to return to a gold standard.  Yes, I know that gold has been the traditional repository of value throughout the centuries.  But what makes gold intrinsically valuable? Is it its lovely yellow hue? Its soft, malleability?  The fact that it doesn’t rust?  Or is it that, along with these nice features, there is simply a limited supply that inhibits inflation?  A currency that is backed by it should therefore not be inflatable.  That too is true, but this all seems too simplistic.

The wealth of the world is continuously increasing in line with its population, increases in productivity, scientific knowledge and technology.  So why should a fixed amount of currency representing a rapidly changing store of value be a good thing?  Wouldn’t that result in massive deflation as world economies expand? This begs the question, what is wealth?  Is it money?  Obviously not. If we were to assume that gold is money, would it BE wealth? No, it is only a medium of exchange that symbolically represents wealth. Money is simply used to grease the wheels of commerce. It is an intermediary tool used to move in and out of different forms of real, tangible wealth.

Wealth is actually food, water, shelter, clothing, cars, trucks, trains, planes, fuel, electricity, farms, manufacturing and production capacity, washing machines, blenders, microwave ovens and even electronic gadgets that people value for making our lives more pleasant.

It’s a very long time since I studied macro economics in graduate school, so I’ll admit to being a little rusty. But I was fortunate to have an excellent professor who had held a fairly senior position at the Fed, but had rejected it in favor of a libertarian philosophy.  He was an avid follower of economics Nobel Prize winner, Milton Friedman. I learned that control (expansion and contraction) of the money supply is the primary means of manipulating economic power and that power is currently under the exclusive control of a highly centralized and private banking system. As an inexperienced, young student, I lacked the practical perspective to understand the implications of what I was learning. Some 35 years later, I’m beginning to get it.  Ok, so I’m a slow learner.

To the extent that a person is reliant on a money supply that can be manipulated at the whim of another private entity, whether that is in the form of gold, paper currency, electronic blips on a computer, tulips or puka shells, we have lost the ability and freedom to manage our own lives. We are unwitting serfs in a modern feudal system shell game. We are sheep in a farm being repeatedly sheered through intentionally created boom/bust cycles of inflation/deflation and a villainous system of usury.

Is there a means of escape? Yes, but it is an inconvenient one.  People the world over are so conditioned to value convenience and comfort above all else that few would be willing to take the prescription. I know a little about the value we place on convenience. I personally created the business plan and negotiated the deal for 7-Eleven Thailand with the CP Group when I worked for the Southland Corporation. 7-Eleven is the world’s largest operator of convenience stores. Thailand, with about 6,000, now has the 3rd largest number of 7-Eleven stores behind the US and Japan.

Can you guess the ultimate convenience I am suggesting we need to ween ourselves from in order to gain back our freedom and stop the theft of personal wealth?

Contact me to explore the answer.

Visit the Village on Sewanee Creek Website

Related articles:

by

Principles for a Strong, Free Community

Cover of "The 5000 Year Leap (Original Au...

Cover via Amazon

I’m reading, thanks to some friends of Sewanee Creek, an insightful book that chronicles the creation of the United States. It is called The 5000 Year Leap. by Cleon Skousen.

There have been many aha moments, but I just read the opening lines to the 7th principle of freedom: the proper role of Government. It resonated so strongly with me that I felt compelled to jump on the computer and share it.

Under the bold header, “What Powers Can Be Assigned to Government” it reads, “The founders recognized that the people cannot delegate to their government the power to do anything except that which they have the lawful right to do themselves.”

My experience in business management taught me that this is a true principle. In many ways I have always been a bit of a contrarian, preferring to march to the beat of my own drum and driven by strongly held, biblical principles of right and wrong. Often, in the course of my employment, I found that my principles were at odds with those in higher authority. On a couple of occasions I tried to institute change from a grass roots level. That approach invariably landed me in hot water and confirmed to me that this is a true principle. In a corporation, those who have position power will have their way, that is as long as they are clever enough to exercise and maintain power, as they usually are upon reaching a high or ownership position.

That understanding emanates from business experience, which can/should be very different from government of a democratic republic.  But the underlying principle is eternal and immutable. You can not delegate power that you do not have.  In the domain of government, where in America our underlying assumption is of a government for and by the people, the application can become circular and confusing until one inserts the concept of God-given, unalienable rights. These rights and the power that proceeds from them are few and broad, but must be tightly defined.

To return to my business analogy, as a mid-level manager, I had neither the right nor the power to institute change within an organization that I did not own or been delegated rights and powers, regardless of my sense of right and wrong. As stated elsewhere in this great book, rights stem from ownership. Where I disagreed with my superiors my options were, (a) execute exactly as I was directed, (b) convince those in authority of a better way or (c) resign and find a place to work more closely aligned with my values.

Only when rights of ownership and true authority are respected can an organization of any sort reach the potential to achieve the purpose for which it was created. If it is true that the rights of government of the USA are vested only in the people, it is clear that there has been a boardroom coupe.  America is ruled by unelected bureaucrats who report indirectly to hands-off elected officials who have made themselves unaccountable to those who should be vested with power, the people.  But the people have become deservedly dis-empowered because of their witless incompetence in the exercise of their power. Anyone who has participated in boardroom politics will recognize that only those who exercise their power with wisdom and clever insight will retain power. Even owner/founders are routinely deposed by hired managers. The American people have lost power because they have failed to exercise their true, God-given power.  God giveth and the government taketh away.  America is no longer a Republic.  It is a corporation, ruled by hired managers.

I want to relate this back to something more local, as that is all I feel empowered to speak of with any confidence any more. The Village values individual freedom and rights. Rights stem from ownership. Ownership should be the result of honest thought, labor and investment. This is why individual (not communal) property ownership is a keystone to successful community whether at the Village or Nation/State level. That is why the Village on Sewanee Creek is different from most “intentional communities” that typically end up in flames because they are often built on a utopian socialist, common-ownership model.

It is a little understood fact that the constitution of the United States was not ratified or even drafted till years after the successful conclusion of the revolution. Similarly, I have felt it inappropriate to impose homeowner association bylaws for the Village which should be the product of land owners within the village. George Washington declined the offer to become a king. He was a public servant in the best sense. I desire to do the same. My wife and I own most of the Village property now. But when it is sold, I am a Villager, created equal and with equal rights to other Villagers.

For those who might be interested in a model for government of the Village (not to mention the Republic of the USA) read The 5000 Year Leap.

by

Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged – a philosophy to unite Left and Right

I have occasionally hinted in my blogs that “I like liberals” or that I feel a strange kinship with some aspects of progressive thought.  As I have written these things, I cringe a little inside, expecting to be castigated by conservatives for association with such hated labels.  Finally, here is a piece that explains my feelings.  Here is the core of my hope that there is ample reason to believe that a majority of Americans from both ends of the political spectrum can find common cause if they will cast off the labels and think for themselves.

Thank you, Tom Mullen, for articulating this so well.  I include the full text of his article as well as a link to the original below.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Why Progressives Might Enjoy Atlas Shrugged
By Tom Mullen

I had the opportunity to see Atlas Shrugged, Part I on Saturday in the only theater in which it is being shown in Tampa, FL. It is currently running at Cinebistro, a specialty theater where you can enjoy a high-end meal and fine wine served at your seat, which is very similar to a first class airline seat. Admittedly, it is just the kind of venue that progressives might associate with an elitist gathering of selfish capitalists. However, the movie itself tells quite a different story than they might expect if their understanding of Rand is limited to her interviews with Phil Donahue or Mike Wallace.

Like libertarians, Rand’s Objectivist economic theory was rooted in what we today call “the non-aggression axiom,” which Thomas Jefferson and the liberal faction of America’s founders called “the law of nature.” According to this philosophy, each individual has an inalienable right to keep the product of his labor and to dispose of it as he sees fit. The non-aggression axiom forbids any individual or group from using force to take away the justly acquired property of another. Neither does it allow for anyone to interfere with voluntary contracts, as long as those contracts do not involve the initiation of force against anyone else.

This prohibits the government, which is by definition the societal use of force, from redistributing wealth or enacting laws which go beyond prohibiting aggression. Establishment media figures who interviewed Rand immediately focused on the implications of her philosophy for social safety net programs, charging that Rand’s philosophy would not allow for programs for the poor or handicapped. While this is true, it obscures the most important implications of Rand’s philosophy for economic policy in the United States.

What would likely startle progressives watching the film is its emphasis on the evils of what free market proponents would call “crony capitalism.”  This is completely consistent with the novel, which demonstrates that the beneficiaries of government regulation supposedly enacted for “the common good” or “the benefit of society” are really the super-rich. Indeed, the film never criticizes the beneficiaries of social programs. Instead, it spends all of its time demonstrating the difference between those “capitalists” who acquire their wealth through government privileges and those true capitalists who acquire their wealth by producing products that consumers voluntarily buy.

This is a crucial distinction that has eluded progressives from Woodrow Wilson to Michael Moore. After seeing Moore’s film, Capitalism: A Love Story, I pointed out in my review of that film that there was very little that libertarians would disagree with. All of Moore’s criticisms of what he calls capitalism are really the result of crony capitalism. The biggest culprit in the economic collapse of the last decade was the Federal Reserve, a central planning/wealth redistribution institution that Rand explicitly condemns in her novel. Unfortunately, Moore incorrectly concludes that the economic distortions, inequitable distribution of wealth, and widespread harm to middle and lower income Americans were the result of a free market.

Rand would agree completely with progressives on the injustice of today’s American corporate state. That might also surprise progressives who probably assume that Rand would have supported the mainstream Republican policies of George W. Bush. Not only would Rand have condemned Bush’s version of state capitalism, but she was openly critical of Republican hero Ronald Reagan. When asked by Phil Donahue about Reagan during his administration, Rand said in so many words that he should have stuck to acting.

The only opportunity that progressives might have to disagree with anything in the film is the portrayal of the labor union official who tries to sabotage Dagny Taggarts launch of a new railroad line. This encounter takes all of about 3 minutes of the 113 minute film and is not a condemnation of labor unions in principle, but rather the illegitimate power that corrupt union officials can wield because of government privileges.

However, the true villains in the film are not union officials, beneficiaries of entitlement programs, or any other group associated with progressive philosophy. The villains are exclusively corporate executives and the government officials they get in bed with to illegitimately acquire wealth. The heroes are those who acquire their wealth by productive achievement and voluntary exchange. If one had to sum the film up in one sentence, it is an effective demonstration of the evils of crony capitalism and its difference from a truly free market.

I encourage progressives to see this film and to read Rand’s novel. If there is one thing that I hope they take away, it is that even great wealth can be acquired legitimately, when it is the result of human beings trading the products of their labor with the mutual, voluntary consent of all parties. Once progressives begin making the distinction between legitimately acquired wealth and wealth acquired because of government privilege, they will find libertarians and all other proponents of truly free markets standing by their side, fighting the evil corporate state.

______________________________________________________________________________________

I pray that the deep chasm dividing Americans will be healed around our common desire to live free in the pursuit of happiness and prosperity, our birthright.


by

Celebrating Tax Day with Atlas Shrugged

April 15 marks the release of Ayn Rand‘s landmark, Atlas Shrugged, in movie theaters.  Its release on tax day, is a symbol of freedom-loving patriot’s revolt against a government run amuck with socialism.  Rand’s protagonist is John Galt.  He throws off the chains of socialist leaches and creates his own community of creative, productive, freedom-lovers.  Galt’s gulch becomes the center of a movement that sucks the producers out of the system, depriving the less productive members of society from their source of support.

I have been accused of being a John Galt.  See my blog where I admitted that “in some respects, I’m galty as accused“. My Galtiness is in my philosophy of rights to property, personal accountability for productive work to produce one’s own life requirements and the pursuit of freedom from over-regulation that fosters such productive attitudes and results.

But I make a distinction.  I am only partly Galty.  I have great respect for many of Rand’s ideas, but I find some of them destructive, even heretical.

Listen carefully to Ayn Rand’s speech via the persona of John Galt and you will also hear an unyielding rant against “mysticism” which, in her view is any form of religious faith.  Her god is rational thought and the quest for wealth is unbridled materialism that is the product of one’s genius and labors.  There is no room for art, for love, or value of anything but wealth and its perks.  Hence, there is no room for charity.  It is ALL about the returns I deserve.  There is no room for gratitude to a supreme being or a debt of sacrifice for the well-being of anyone but myself.  It is all about looking out for #1.  Those who are not born gifted to be bright or creative, those who are disabled and are therefore less productive do not deserve to eat at the table of the deserving wealthy.  From Rand’s perspective, wealth is the proof of deserving productivity.  Taken to its ultimate extreme, Galtism becomes fascism.  Where fascism becomes tyranny, it is no different from the ultimate form of socialism, that is communism.  Both fascism and Communism are, in the end, just political labels for the same thing, tyranny and both are forms of slavery.

Anyone who has observed Wall Street’s theft of America‘s wealth, the corruption of Monsanto that strips the farmer of his ability to save seeds, or America’s subsidization of big business while ignoring the under-capitalized and politically out-gunned small business entrepreneur knows that wealth is not necessarily the ultimate sign of morality.

I accept Rand’s challenge, “I am, therefore I think”.  And I think she has it amazingly right SOME of the time, but equally and disastrously wrong at other times.

In my view and as Rand asserts, to be happy we all must be creative and work hard.  But we must also make a personal choice, un-compelled by government,  to love, sacrifice and be generous to our neighbors.  Rand decries the cowardice, the lack of principle and morality of the middle road.  Yet error of thought often lies in definitions.  The middle road can also be defined as balance.  In that sense, I seek a middle road and find joy there.

If you haven’t read Atlas Shrugged or seen the movie yet, you owe it to yourself to stretch your mind with Ayn Rand’s deep and inspiring thinking.   You can listen to John Galt’s most famous speech here:

John Galt Speech FULL part 1 of 3

John Galt Speech FULL part 2 of 3

John Galt Speech FULL part 3 of 3

Atlas Shrugged – the documentary