Orrin Woodward Leadership

Inc Magazine Top 20 Leader Orrin Woodward shares his leadership secrets.

  • Orrin Woodward

    1
    Guinness World Record Holder for largest book signing ever, Orrin Woodward is a NY Times bestselling author of And Justice For All along with RESOLVED & coauthor of LeaderShift and Launching a Leadership Revolution. His books have sold over one million copies in the leadership and liberty fields. RESOLVED: 13 Resolutions For LIFE made the Top 100 All-Time Best Leadership Books and the 13 Resolutions are the framework for the top selling Mental Fitness Challenge personal development program.

    Orrin made the Top 20 Inc. Magazine Leadership list & has co-founded two multi-million dollar leadership companies. Currently, he serves as the Chairman of the Board of the LIFE Leadership. He has a B.S. degree from GMI-EMI (now Kettering University) in manufacturing systems engineering. He holds four U.S. patents, and won an exclusive National Technical Benchmarking Award.

    This blog is an Alltop selection and ranked in HR's Top 100 Blogs for Management & Leadership.




  • Rascal Radio 7 Day Free Trial

  • Email Me

  • Orrin’s Latest Book


  • Mental Fitness Challenge

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 2,156 other subscribers

  • Categories

  • Archives

State vs Community

The Desire For Community

The more I read, the more I realize the true secret to success in business and life is related to the strength of relationships within a person’s community. The myth of rugged isolated individualism, although enduring, is, in truth, only a myth. Economic, educational, even political effectiveness are all improved when people work together. Please don’t misunderstand me, I haven’t turned to economic communism; however, I do comprehend better than previously how so many people have been drawn into this evil illogical doctrine. Specifically, most people, if given the choice between being alone or in community, will choose community, even if the association is Biblically wrong, thus communism’s growth. In fact, a cursory look at organizations as diverse as communism, the mafia, and gangs will exhibit the enduring need for community.

If community is essential to human beings, then the question is: How do we incorporate community into a society without sacrificing life, liberty, and property? Since liberty cannot exist where the State dictates, the idea of community and freedom precludes State control. Therefore, free communities are misnomers unless they are voluntary organizations. However, although the non-involvement of the State is essential, it isn’t sufficient to create community. The other side of the equation is for people to learn how to work within a community setting. Consequently, the atomistic rugged individualism of American myth must be replaced by men and women who work within a Biblical framework of ordered liberty and love. In other words, the greedy, self-centered capitalist is not a true picture of a free-enterprise Biblical community. In fact, this caricature of American freedoms pinpoints what is plaguing America – the loss of community roots and liberty (Social Power), instead, replaced by today’s (State Power) crony capitalism.

State Power vs Social Power

Murray Rothbard, the late dean of Austrian Economists, wrote in Conceived in Liberty:

My own basic perspective on the history of man, and a fortiori on the history of the United States, is to place central importance on the great conflict which is eternally waged between Liberty and Power, a conflict, by the way, which was seen with crystal clarity by the American revolutionaries of the eighteenth century. I see the liberty of the individual not only as a great moral good in itself (or, with Lord Acton, as the highest political good), but also as the necessary condition for the flowering of all other goods that mankind cherishes: moral virtue, civilization, the arts and sciences, economic prosperity. Out of liberty, then, stem the glories of civilized life. But liberty has always been threatened by the encroachments of power, power which seeks to suppress, control, cripple, tax, and exploit the fruits of liberty and production. Power, then, the enemy of liberty, is consequently the enemy of all the other goods and fruits of civilization that mankind holds dear. And power is almost always centered in and focused on the central repository of power and violence: the state. With Albert Jay Nock, the twentieth-century American political philosopher, I see history as centrally a race and conflict between “social power” — the productive consequence of voluntary interactions among men — and state power. In those eras of history when liberty — social power — has managed to race ahead of state power and control, the country and even mankind have flourished. In those eras when state power has managed to catch up with or surpass social power, mankind suffers and declines.

In sum, wherever State Power flourishes, Social Power declines. Thankfully, however, the reverse is true as well. By standing on the intellectual shoulders of both Nock and Rothbard, we see that societies can be organized around two competing philosophical choices:

1. State Power: Top down external discipline and the subsequent loss of liberty endured.
2. Social Power: Bottom up internal discipline and the subsequent ordered liberty enjoyed.

Restoring Social Power – Volunteer Communities

The first option (State Power) is the real-life history of America since around the Civil War, with State Power moving ahead and Social Power in subsequent decline. Since 1913, however, the battle has become a full-fledged drubbing, with State Powers triumphing in the Federal Reserve Act, the Federal Income Tax amendment, and the democratic election of Senators. In truth, it’s hard to fathom a worse mix of legislation (as related to Social Power) in one year, in one country, than what occurred in America in that disastrous year of 1913. In other words, 1913 wasn’t just (to use Oliver DeMille’s term) a freedom shift, it was a freedom rout. DeMille’s soon-to-be-released book 1913 will elaborate further on these fateful events.

The second option (Social Power) is America’s (and the West’s) best hope for freedom. America needs a community restoration, starting, not from the top down (State Power), but rather, from the bottom up (Social Power), in order to revitalize America. Social Power is fueled by social capital – a sociological concept which refers to the value of social relations and the role of cooperation and confidence to get collective results in any endeavor – to paraphrase Robert Putnam, in is classic Bowling Alone. Putnam explains the key role of social capital,  “A society characterized by generalized reciprocity is more efficient than a distrustful society, for the same reason that money is more efficient than barter. If we don’t have to balance every exchange instantly, we can get a lot more accomplished. Trustworthiness lubricates life. Frequent interaction among a diverse set of people tends to produce a norm of generalized reciprocity.” Furthermore, Putnam argues, “Does social capital have salutary effects on individuals, communities, or even entire nations? Yes, an impressive and growing body of research suggest that civic connections help make us healthy, wealthy, and wise. Living without social capital is not easy, whether one is a villager in southern Italy or a poor person in the American inner city or a well-heeled entrepreneur in a high-tech district.” Social capital matters, in other words, both personally, professionally, and politically.

Converting Dreams into Realities Through Communities

Putnam goes on to list five specific areas where the trust and understanding inured by social capital helps translate aspirations into realities:

1. Social capital allows citizens to resolve collective problems more easily through improved teamwork.
2. Social capital greases the wheels that allow communities to advance smoothly through improved trust.
3. Social capital helps widen the awareness of fellow citizens that their fates are intertwined through improved understanding.
4. Social capital serves as conduits for the flow of helpful information and resources to accomplish community and individual goals.
5. Social capital improves individual lives through psychological and biological processes. In fact, numerous studies suggest lives that are rich in social capital cope with trauma and illnesses significantly more effectively.

Despite social capital’s overwhelming advantages, Putnam acknowledges its decline, writing, “Americans have had a growing sense at some visceral level of disintegrating social bonds.” Furthermore, he writes, “More than 80% of Americans said there should be more emphasis on community, even if it puts more demands on individuals.” In sum, social capital isn’t just the fuel for Social Power – a necessary check on State Power – but it also enhances individual lives through the sense of belonging engendered within communities. Strikingly, then, the decline of social capital, not only attacks society’s freedoms, but also attacks an individual’s well-being. Simply put, America cannot remain free without a revival of Social Power through building social capital in voluntary communities. With so much at stake, why aren’t more people focused on restoring voluntary communities throughout America and the West? That question will be answered in further articles on Social Power and communities. Sincerely, Orrin Woodward

22 Responses to “State vs Community”

  1. Orrin: I think you nailed it in the first paragraph where you refer to studying the gang communities etc. This is a concept I have believed for years. In fact, I raised the children the Lord gave me responsibility for with this in mind. I can say from personal experience if a person does not get their needs met in a community, whether it be the home, work, school, church, or other social communities they are expected to be a part of–they most certainly will move on and look elsewhere to get their needs met. That is exactly how gangs thrive (cliques & other “communities” etc); the “gang” seeks out those who are vunerable/”looking” and will “give” them a few things while promising more “awesome” things to come if the person remains “true” to the gang/clique/community.

    I thought your definitions of State vs Social Powers interesting and would encourage everyone to consider these on a daily basis as they go about their business, whether it be at home, work, school, or a “community” event/business. Are we as individuals really promoting and believing a “Social” Powered system will work? Do we really encourage and consistently convey to those at the “bottom” of the “community” they truly are valuable human beings, or do we simply leverage them in a factory type manner where the “little wheels make the big wheels turn”? What about those who fall somewhere in the middle of the bottom & top, aka “middle class”? How do they fit into the picture? In other words, do we really practice what we preach & “walk the talk”, or is our thinking still rooted in what we’ve (Elgo) has been taught? That being a “State” Powered system is the way to go?

    My mother used to tell me quite frequently when I was young that it was the little wheels that made the big wheels turn. This proved more than true in one of my first careers as a mechanic. It was quickly proven that when a little wheel (bearing etc) quit functioning for whatever reason, it became quite difficult to produce the hundreds of thousands + results the clients were expecting and paying for until that little wheel was fixed. It was also proven that I could throw out little wheel after little wheel, but if I couldn’t figure out & fix what was causing the abnormal wear & tear on that little wheel, the machine (thus production line) would continue to struggle. Pretty soon, people didn’t want to work on that line because they knew the odds of having a good day and meeting their goals were less than if they could get “over there” to another machine/line.

    My point with all this is that even though I became the top mechanic it really did me no good to achieve that rank if I didn’t give the correct attention and care to the “little wheels” on the line and the staff I was supposed to leading. While it is also true the grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence, there comes a time if there is no grass on this side it really doesn’t matter the quality of the grass on the other side–at least there’s grass there! (Again, how gangs survive & thrive…) The same held true years later when I became a Director of Nursing, and still holds true today no matter where I am or what I’m doing.

    Thanks for letting me share and for sharing your wisdom so freely. God Bless.
    Maggie

    • wildtarg said

      Maggie, I love your mother’s saying, and your story about machinery. It illustrates something I learned studying science, that size is no sure indicator of importance or value. It is so easy in our world to get preoccupied with the big and the imposing, and to forget the ‘small and the close,’ which are sometimes the most critical elements of life.

  2. Rob Crichlow said

    Powerful message on how the focus on non-state communities is critical to preserve our liberty. I pray that we all remain diligent in participating and expanding the communities we are involved in … stepping up to lead with principles and character. In a very real since … as you have clearly pointed out … we need to stand in the gap. Thanks for being the example.

  3. wildtarg said

    I cannot find it right now, so I will paraphrase a favourite author and quote an American President. If someone cares to post the actual quotation, please feel free to reply and do so.

    ‘The whole purpose of government and the state is to protect the freedoms of everyday life: a child playing in her mother’s yard; two men talking in a pub; two lovers out for an afternoon walk. If the state does not defend and enlarge such moments, all the policies, expenditures, manpower, and armies in the world are nothing but a tremendous waste.’
    C.S. Lewis, ‘Mere Christianity’

    “I cannot fully enjoin upon my own liberty without defending the other man’s freedom. I cannot be free unless you are free.”
    -Abraham Lincoln.

    Keep going, we’re with you…

    Gabriel Weeden

    • wildtarg said

      I must say that I enjoyed this article in a unique way, for much of it relates to my own personal experience, either academic or professional.

      I would like to add the thought that inspired me to comment in the first place; that the idea that solo individualism is a myth resonates with me in Stephen Covey’s “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People”, where he gives an overview of the book, and describes the habits supporting independence as not an end in themselves, but only as stepping stones to the level of interdependence. This also strikes a few chords in my own life. I recall independence being emphasized as a virtue. However, the ideal of family life is as an interdependent unit, not simply a commune of individuals. I feel that character, self-discipline, and open communication are three key areas that have been assaulted over the decades of my parents’ and grandparents’ generations, and must be defended and rebuilt to avert western society’s slide towards ruin.

      Orrin, thank you again, greatly, for all the learning, discipline, experience, and insight you have brought to your community. I for one am grateful and hopeful that you have prevailed and been allowed to be a light in dark times.

      Keep going, we’re with you…

      Gabriel Weeden

  4. Orrin,

    In the past the governments of the countries of the world were able to control their people because of the separation of social capital. That was made possible due to the geographic barriers that separated societies, and the language barriers that inhibited our ability to communicate. Today with technology of the internet, cell phones, texting , tweeting, and other forms of wireless communication that geographic barrier has come down. With English becoming the universal business language the ability to communicate has been enhanced.

    In the future I believe we will see the power of Social Capital flex its muscle to influence the governments to be more responsive to the needs of people. Transparency will become ever more visible and accountability the standard.

    Thanks for this enlightening artcile.

  5. Kelly said

    I’ve recently been made aware of what’s going on here and I’m very impressed. A friend introduced me to audio and has been an incredible servant, spending hours without asking for compensation, or any action. He’s lent me many books, I’m on “Guide to INVESTING in GOLD & SILVER”, and it’s confirming what I’ve wanted to believe from conspiracy-type talk on the Internet.

    I can’t help but believe that this organization/community is the one force with the power to fix the systems of today. I’ve been thinking for years how to roll out an idea, but with a community like this, we might even we able to take power back in a decade.

    I can see this community growing faster than ever with the objective of transforming big systems, like political and economic governance. Now, before you think “Oh boy, here we go…”, I won’t be offended if you politely let me know to refrain from writing about this here. (But I really feel there’s no where else to go.)

    I’m not a politician and NOT trying to gain popularity for myself. I believe leaders like yourselves have the ability to see beyond what has existed before and you have the guts to step out and pioneer.

    I copied this below from something I wrote before, without the “motivational fluff” it had. There are two parts to it really: Responsible Capitalism and Departmental Governance (RC and DG), and I only go into DG here, but I find the RC idea a valid way to fix everything wrong with the economy.

    DG Basics
    Borders remain as they are, with three levels of government: national, provincial/state, and local.
    A department exists for each basic element of life: Defense and Enforcement, Nature and Resources, Economy, Human Needs, Infrastructure, Transportation, Employment, etc. (I use the Justice Department in most examples, often using just the word Justice.)
    Departments operate in the three levels of government, managed by each state/province.
    Local-level government makes local-level laws where applicable.

    There are no political parties, as they currently exists, dividing the nation. This is an antiquated device which we no longer require.
    Politicians (referred to as leaders or the leadership) do not hold office for a fixed period, and replacements are always standing by.
    Citizens do not vote for parties, but evaluate office holders and prospects, on a virtue-based system (more on this).
    On the national level, leaders from the Departments represent us here and abroad.

    People choose to belong to none, one, or many departments.
    People evaluate the leadership in their department(s) only. Infrastructure members need not waste time in Justice.
    Departments make their own laws. There is interdepartmental cooperation when laws overlap. If a new prison is built (God forbid it), Infrastructure, Justice, and Enforcement would be involved, as well as Nature, depending on the location.
    If a law is made by Justice to limit some advertising, Economy (call it the Commerce or Economic Development Department if you like) would be involved for sure.
    Department members, evaluating their ideal leadership, are not as ignorant as the people outside their department.
    There are a few ways to be a department member: Volunteer/donate to or be employed by a department, or volunteer/donate to or be employed by certain non-profit organizations. (These “opposition party” non-profits play a role in keeping government honest, more on this.)

    Moving from Elections to Evaluations, Politician = Leader
    Department members can be leaders, each state/province (same on the local level) must produce a predetermined number of leaders in each department.
    Department members (employees/volunteers), if they’d like to contend, are evaluated by others in the same department regularly.
    Members decide (a responsibility of great honor) on a short set of virtues (maybe 7) from a master list for their department only.

    Those with high ratings in the right virtues will rise to the top as replacements for leaders who might be slipping.
    The people can decide when to replace leaders, with relatively short notice.
    Money is not used by political parties to fight for leadership, political parties in this system represent a check/balance of departments.

    When voices are not heard, ratings will go down. Leaders are highly visible in their department.
    There is no need to worry about what’s happening in the Transportation Department if all I care/know about is Justice.

    I might choose to evaluate 20 people regularly. That’s getting close to 150 mouse clicks (per month?)!!! What if I belong to several departments?
    Do you see how this is more responsible, economical, democratic? See how you can influence government as much or little as you want?

    My real question is why do we still hold on so dearly to our faulty and wasteful electoral system? My answer so far is that we haven’t seen a new way yet, and are fearful that changing from what we’ve done traditionally is a step away from democracy and freedom. Has everything been tried already? We all know about paradigm shifts… disbelievers lose big time.

    • Kelly said

      Maybe going too far now, but can’t resist… (Thanks, moderator, for editing my post as requested, and so quickly!)

      RC Basics
      The people decide on an evolving definition of “Responsible Entity”, which sets limits on how far a corporation can go and in which directions.

      This wouldn’t even really require an entity like Walmart to shut its doors in our nation. The entity must adhere to regulations it won’t agree with. It would have to change its status from irresponsible to responsible, as defined by people’s popular opinion. Changes would be so drastic as to drive away an entity that cannot profit enough responsibly.
      If an entity cannot maintain a “responsible” status, it is forced to sell assets to the government or move shortly after a notice of eviction from the nation. Shareholders WILL NOT lose investments during the transfer of wealth.

      Entities that should exist responsibly but cannot on their own, become publicly owned, potentially costing or paying government/citizens.
      Entities that have a significant impact on nature, criminal enforcement, economics (| |F|E|D| |), etc. may become publicly owned corporations like above, or non-profits (playing a roll in political affairs, checks and balances).

      Government, with all its might, assists entrepreneurs in business start-up, development, and maintenance.
      A thought-out, commerce/community/information-based web application/platform is waiting for development with tools to vitalize/diversify the economy.
      Information/tools pertaining to research, politics, legal, commerce, business management, finances, etc. placed at the fingertips of citizens, without hidden agendas.

      Reminder:
      -not a threat to capitalism
      -a new era of responsible capitalism, where your interests as an entrepreneur, with endless opportunity for excessive wealth, are more than protected
      -nature has a standing chance against industrialization
      -guarantees a revolution in education and media
      -guarantees a choice of retiring without savings and knowing your health, happiness and other needs are secure
      -a future of government without debt in less than a decade

      Could this have a negative effect on you? Will you or your friends have less purchasing power and income? Will your favorite shops close down and go out of business? No. Not unless you are a banker or among the chief executives of harmful corporations (who would just find a new job/location). Not unless you prefer to shop/work at Walmart as it currently exists.

      Again, let me know if this is not a good place to discuss these ideas, and I’ll stop!

      • Kelly said

        When deciding what makes an entity responsible, we just compare it to laws we make over time.
        Hypothetical examples:
        -must show dates of production and expiration (before and after opening) on all singularly packaged items, on the front in large text and hard not to understand
        -must not use print on advertising that cannot be comprehended from the same distance that the subject can be distinguished
        -must make certain internal information public and available

      • Kelly said

        This might help.

        Picture a dart board with three rings. These are levels of government.
        Picture the board sliced up like a pie. Slices represent departments.
        You can land in zero, one or many slices and rings. You take as many shots as you like.

        There is more surface area on the outer rings. The bullseye has greater value.
        The bullseye is more visible, even to those playing on different boards.
        The bullseye is not a person. It is the unit representing the nation.

        Striking at government is the aim of department and party members… the citizens.
        You are not the surface area. You are the dart.
        You only score points when your slice matches your dart. Reds don’t count on yellow slices.

        The surface area is the leadership, the decision makers, the evaluated virtuous.
        We learn about virtues now, it is the currency of leadership.
        If you can’t be the surface, be the dart.

        Public sector employees could throw reds, yellows, greens, all or none.
        Political party members are the same.
        Take as many shots an you like.

        Darts punish the surface and the surface gets stronger, yet they always penetrate.
        You shoot for justice, freedom, health, and happiness.

      • Kelly said

        I tried posting this but it didn’t seem to work. Am I posting too much? Is there a better place to post this?

        DG Legislative Process

        Department members (leadership) consistently evaluated as having the highest and right combination virtues, are the ones who actually make decisions for government.
        Ideas/complaints work their way up from concerned citizens to the meetings of department leaderships. Lawyers (members of Justice, perhaps a political non-profit) determine which other departments could be affected by a decision. Members of a department are informed of decisions affecting their department.

        If I strongly disagree with a pending decision, I take action, working with political parties to interact with representatives. Issues are debated publicly. I watch my representatives, and if the job isn’t getting done, I apply to speak.

        Decision makers cannot move too swift (in day-to-day business), as this is the proposed method of passing legislation:
        Department leaders tasked with decision-making present the plan and justification. The audience consists of the citizens, the political party representation, and a neutral third party.
        -The third party only has the right to pause debate freely, to clarify the situation and options.
        -Citizens weigh-in electronically without disrupting a session.
        -Party reps go toe-to-toe with decision makers.

        Before session two, political parties meet and determine if objectives were met. Individuals apply to be a new voice in the next round, should they feel their message was not adequately conveyed.

        If there are three rounds, the Justice Department lawyers mentioned earlier must intervene. Lawyers must be neutral/objective/unassociated. The selection process is simple: a pool of lawyers rotate, taking equal turns, never leaving their place in line until the order is shuffled (perhaps an annual event, or after all have had a turn). They watch the case history and the third round. They are anonymous, unknown, sworn to secrecy. Their decision is final.

        There are more rules than mentioned here, but that about sums it up.

        I would love to know what other people think of this.

    • Kelly said

      When that sinks in, get a load of this:

      DG Political Parties
      -united concerned citizens with great power to influence government
      -citizens organize and register a party
      -party representatives address issues brought forward by individual citizens, standing up to department leaderships
      -can stand up to any department at any time
      -associated with (facilitated/financed by) one or more non-profits

      Political Non-profits (as opposed to the non-political kind)
      -associated with one (or many?) department, naturally
      -budgets for political party operations, receives donations and government funding
      -must be organized according to rules set by government to receive funding
      -can exist without government support

      You are a member of Justice by employment. You are aware of plans to construct a factory in your “back yard” and you know the impact it will have on wildlife. How do you influence that decision? You volunteer a minimum donation or a few hours of time to a local non-profit, through a familiar political party. This gives you temporary membership to the Nature Department, where you gain the opportunity to use/be the voice of the party as well as evaluate department leadership.

      • Kelly said

        And then to go a step further…
        You donate to a non-profit organization, CrystalBall (fictional/hypothetical), which is associated with Infrastructure. It investigates the impact of industry and plans mitigation strategies, and has ties to the RoadBlock party. RoadBlock appreciates your donation and grants you the right to associate and be heard. CrystalBall grants you the right to evaluate Infrastructure’s leadership.

        Please, ask questions if this doesn’t make sense. Couldn’t hurt if another mind took a stab at it.

    • Kelly said

      As you may have guessed, this isn’t written in stone, has flaws, is a work in progress, needs your input. Any feedback is good.

      Perhaps the best way to picture this is by seeking/revealing benefits and flaws.

      Departmental Governance is more fail-safe. A department leader is like a president, but there is one for each department. It’s possible two or three could go down in an unforeseeable disaster but the other departments would be largely unaffected. Also, a lost leader would be replaced instantaneously by an equally competent leader without confusion or debate.

      Everything about it saves money. RC-DG removes corruption significantly (everyone thinks this is impossible), where it counts, and distributes wealth like no system could in history. There will be little chance for an irresponsible entity to impact the national economy. Think of all the money saved if political parties weren’t competing and dividing the nation.

      It’s more democratic. (Not like there’s a lot of competition out there…) I’ve probably exhausted all my thoughts on this in earlier posts. It’s my opinion that I have zero impact on what goes on in government today. I never had to protest but it almost seems illegal these days. No one asks my opinion or really notifies me of decisions affecting my world. Worst of all, I don’t trust many people in government. Who can?

      Citizens admire DG leaderships. A side effect is increased average wisdom, as citizens become more focused and political. You’ll know a lot about your department(s’) leaders. You’ll participate in choosing the department’s top virtues from a list (children might recite the master list in school) and will be able to apply/recognize them. It will be clear at any point in time which leaders are the best fit for your department, according to popular opinion. You’ll have something in common with your leaders.

      I’m not going to say much about laws/legislation, as that’s for the people to decide. It will be interesting to see how people define “Irresponsible Entity”, and how those entities will react. Would today’s government turn armed forces on it’s own citizens to protect itself (and bedfellows) from change of this magnitude? Does RC-DG make you uncomfortable, or do you think it’s time to discard of a broken infested rotting system with NO HOPE of redemption?!

    • Kelly said

      I had a DG discussion recently and decided to follow up with this post. I feel this is getting to the point where these ideas can be organized and presented more logically. I seem to be mixing up Political Party and Political Non-profit, accidentally using them interchangeably. Apologies for that – they are quite different. I could provide an entity relationship diagram, but some decisions are not final on it yet.

      What do Department Leaders do?
      I don’t expect they will do much more than
      -maintain high evaluations
      -be a well-known public figure
      -study and debate, travel and be a visionary
      -publicly speak on matters affecting their constituency
      -inspire, teach and motivate their constituency
      I don’t expect them to manage much, but they should have power to relieve any Department Member of duty. (he’ll be criticized for abusing that privilege.)

      If I’m a Department Member and my philosophies do not match that of my Leadership, what am I capable of doing to sabotage the Leadership? Let’s use abortion for example.

      My department is Human Rights and Services (HRS) (totally off the top of my head example). Abortion falls into its sphere of governance and the Leadership consistently passes pro-choice legislation. That upsets me.

      I join a Political Party which is particularly active in condemning the right to choose. Members of this political opposition movement attempt to sabotage the HRS Leadership in various ways:
      -disseminate information to the public to rally opposition numbers
      -evaluate Leadership poorly
      -propose amendments to existing laws
      -oppose legislation and bung up decision-making processes

      1.
      In this system dissemination of anti-government opinion is encouraged. Political Parties actually receive government funding, funneled through Political Non-profits, so they can challenge government/legislation. To be democratic, citizens who care about a topic should be encouraged to unite to sculpt the best nation in history.

      2.
      Here is the current solution and expected result:
      Pure Department Member (PDM) evals are red
      Pure Opposition Member (POM) evals are green – to better understand trends and identify outliers
      Mixed Member (MM) evals are blue
      An MM’s evaluations should be treated as outliers as much as a POM’s.

      Wouldn’t this cause MMs to hide their identity and continue to evaluate poorly with their valuable red evals? What effect would this have?
      Those would still be outliers, skewing eval results but having little effect overall when outliers are disregarded. This behavior is not acceptable and illogical, and consequences would be determined by popular opinion.

      3.
      Not sure how this might slow decision-making processes… here’s the first potential solution:
      In the Legislative Court, decisions are made or abandoned. The battles may rage for three rounds per decision, and the duration of rounds depends on the complexity of the case.
      The law is “Choice is legal”. New evidence is permissible and so that decision is once again challenged – it is an attempt to amend legislation by all Department-Associated Political Parties who wish to participate and have their voices heard in Legislative Court. I believe outcomes will be most fair, compared to other systems.

  6. Kelly said

    Hi Orrin and all, I hope that was worth the read, and thanks for lending me the space.

    IMPORTANT: This discussion needs to happen. Are we waiting for experts to figure it out for us? How foolish! Is there a better place to have this discussion? We are brought here because we aspire to be great leaders and solve problems, not necessarily as experts in any field.

    This is my current opinion/belief based on what I read and hear: All our personal wealth is systematically transferred to a tiny percent of the population. Society erodes with the economy and due to agendas behind media.

    To protect citizens, change the system. Voting for a different political party is not a solution. The arena needs change, not the players! Our experts ensure us that because of the Federal Reserve, we are headed for doom. Our system is structured to protect the elements of governance that intentionally suppress/harm us.

    We can’t go on pretending that “voting” for a party to “represent us” and “look out for the interests of everyone” is what is going on here. What options do we have?:
    1. Stay on our current course.
    2. Implement those isms that people fear, such as socialism, capitalism, communism, democracy etc. Those are just mumbo-jumbo words to me anyway.
    3. Come up with something completely new, for the people of this age, that cannot be manipulated by forces of evil (greed, lust, etc.), as much as possible.

    Yes, the “debt free in ten years” promise is optimistic. I didn’t really mean that all debt would disappear. Much would, and whatever remains I imagine would become interest-free long-term debt split among political non-profits. Kinks like these can be worked out, as there are valid outside-the-box options for any roadblock. I’m obviously not an expert, but I know enough to get a ball rolling.

  7. Richard Kroll Jr. said

    Orrin, I remember as a child growing up in Detroit… everyone knowing their neighbors-not just on each side of the home, but all up and down the block, even around the block! Kids walking to school together and playing during recess- then in the evening and weekends at one another’s house or at a ballpark or community event. Parades and picnics for the community baseball league-and the ever famous “ice cream at Dairy Queen if our team won” (sometimes even if we lost!). And now, with the ever increasing power and influence of the state, community is almost non-existant.

    Thank you for the reminder of the IMPORTANCE of social capital and the need to LIMIT the power of the state! And for CREATING a community that expouses these important TRUTHS!!!

  8. Kelly said

    I was just reading something on the website Alternative Radio re socialism: “One of socialism’s most famous advocates was Albert Einstein who said, “I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate the grave evils (of capitalism), namely through the establishment of a socialist economy.”

    This troubles me because even such a great mind as this failed to consider new free-market possibilities.

    By the way, ideas from Alternative Radio should not be neglected (free podcasts, etc.):
    http://www.alternativeradio.org/products/maaa001

    • Ryan Reeson said

      I am pretty sure that quote from Einstein is mis-attributed to him. I listened to a lecture by a professor one time who led of the lecture with that quote, and imediatly debunked it.

      • Orrin Woodward said

        Maybe someone can snope it or some other way to verify. Thanks, Orrin

      • Kelly said

        http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein's_political_views

        If you can debunk it, please do. Thanks!

        Something else that’s debatable though is whether or not democracy can even exist in a capitalist economy. We can get close, but not true. Socialism might even yield a greater potential for true democracy.

        Also, has there ever really been a true capitalism or socialism? I don’t think so. Canada is pretty socialist. The US government seems to be struggling to serve its people more than ever, but communities like this compensate, thankfully.

  9. Trudy Mitchell said

    A person does need to socializing with different people. They also need the sense of belonging sadto say but prisoners need sense of belonging if you lnloook at what happens to one when they are put in isolation for what ever reason. They are changed from that expierence. Social capital is important if you do not socialize with others you also become uneducated in their way of doing things. where as if you take a person with a variety of socializing with others and build understandings they will more likely have a better community then the other one that was isolated wether it was by choice or force. That is exactly what Life does helps people have a better insight to them selves with dealing with people and you have a community that you can socialize with that has a very positive enviroment of people who have been where you where at one time and , are willing to help you. God Bless Orrin and the Life Founders

    Thank You again Trudy

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>