Archive for the ‘Freedom/Liberty’ Category

Without freedom, there is no leadership.

Andrew Jackson & the Bank Veto

Posted by Orrin Woodward on July 2, 2012

Here is Part II of my article on Andrew Jackson and the Bank veto. If you missed Part I, here it is. So many lessons can be learned by studying history and how leaders responded. The Mental Fitness Challenge teaches many of these lessons though numerous historical examples. The LIFE Business is creating a group of courageous leaders who have learned how to learn. All of us are ignorant in some area; however, when we are ignorant on how to learn, our ignorance may become permanent. The goal in LIFE is to teach people how to think so they can learn and remove ignorance from any area of their lives. In truth, this is the same journey taken by Laurie and me and we are still on it to this day. What lessons did you learn from Jackson’s story? How do they apply to your life?

Sincerely,

Orrin Woodward

Andrew Jackson & the Bank Veto

Andrew Jackson & Second National Bank

Jackson’s veto was a shot across the financial-elites broadside and could not remain unanswered, especially when the messenger was the sitting President of the United States of America. Contrary to prevailing perceptions, Jackson was not a novice in his understanding of inflationary policy. In fact, he studied, at length, the history of the South Sea Bubble and the debilitating effects of its inflationary methods. Accordingly, he understood the principles at stake in the Bank battle better than many of the Eastern intellectual elites opposing him. He knew that paper money not backed by bullion was fraud upon the many for the benefit of the few. Biddle, finally comprehending Jackson couldn’t be bought or bullied declared war, pulling out every political weapon in his extensive arsenal. Biddle purchased propaganda pieces in the newspapers in an attempt to refute Jackson’s charges and rally support for the Bank. For instance, he wrote to one editor, “If you will cause the articles I have indicated and others which I may prepare to be inserted in the newspaper in question, I will at once pay to you one thousand dollars.” A thousand dollars then is equivalent to twenty-five thousand today, certainly enough to bribe most editors into action. Biddle’s relentless assault only strengthened Jackson’s belief that the Bank’s influence was unhealthy and detrimental to a republican government. In truth, money and power are just two sides of the same coin. Consequently, where money gathers, power is soon to follow and where power gathers, money is soon to follow.

The Bank’s Advocates

Daniel Webster, the famed lawyer and presidential contender from New England, championed the Banks cause, becoming one of the Bank’s most virulent supporters. Ironically, although Webster had originally opposed the Bank’s charter, he found Bank religion when Biddle offered him a healthy legal retainer to aid in the re-charter movement. In the midst of the Bank battle, Webster wrote the a revealing missive to Biddle, “ I believe my retainer has not been renewed or refreshed as usual. If it be wished that my relation to the Bank should be continued, it may be well to send me the usual retainers.” Webster, along with the champion of the statists American System, Henry Clay, supported the financial-elites in their fight against Jackson as perks, power, and recognition were sure to follow with the Bank’s blessing. Webster, in fact, launched a lengthy attack on the Jackson’s policies, blasting his veto of the Bank. Biddle, in addition, bought other influencers in Congress to oppose Jackson’s measures, dividing Jackson’s supporters into two camps. The first group desired the President to yield on the issue, hoping to maintain government decorum. The second group, in contrast, encouraged the President to finish what he started and end the unholy alliance between Big Banks and Big Government. Jackson’s popularity suffered from the steady stream of paid propaganda unleashed by the editors congenial to Biddle’s financial largesse. Indeed, numerous diatribes against Jackson’s policy permeated the press on a weekly basis.

Bank Declares War on Economy

Despite the funded politicians in Congress and rabid press editors willing to do Biddle’s bidding, he still stored one more ace up his sleeve. Fearing that Jackson would remove the Treasury deposits from his Bank, starving the bank of the lifeblood of money necessary to maintain its special power base, Biddle declared to Webster, “They will not dare to remove them. If the deposits are withdrawn, it will be a declaration of war which cannot be recalled.” Following through on his promise, Biddle launched a campaign of loan closures across America, causing financial panic among the state banks and business community. They were forced to either pay back their loans or collapse into insolvency. State banks and businesses screamed for relief, appealing to Jackson to end the Bank war and submit to the recharter. Misreading the President’s courage again, the bank and business failures only steeled Jackson’s resolve to end Biddle’s undue influence in the American economy. Moreover, many state leaders awakened by the inordinate power held by the Bank over the economy also recognized the truth of Jackson’s veto message. The President firmly believed that any power capable of causing a panic of this magnitude was not healthy for the freedoms of the American people. He denounced the Bank’s action to his cabinet, “The Bank has by degrees obtained almost entire dominion over the circulating medium, and with it, power to increase or diminish the price of property and to levy taxes on the people in the shape of premiums and interest to an amount only limited by the quantity of paper currency it is enabled to issue.” Jackson understood the role that money-interest can play in causing inflation and market cycles; unfortunately, this understanding seems lost on today’s politicians and our Federal Reserve System.

Author H. W. Brands, biographer of Andrew Jackson, discussed the Bank’s undue power of the purse, sharing Biddle’s money-influence over the Jackson government, “‘In half an hour,’ he boasted to an intimate, ‘I can remove all the constitutional scruples in the District of Columbia. Half a dozen presidencies’ — of bank branches — ‘a dozen cashierships, fifty clerkships, a hundred directorships, to worthy friends who have no character and no money.’” Clearly, Biddle was playing for keeps, understanding that money buys power and power produces money. Even in the midst of the Federal Government’s withdrawal of Treasury Deposits, Biddle remained confident of his ultimate victory, writing, “My own view of the matter is simply this…. The [instigators] of this last assault on the Bank regret and are alarmed by it. But the ties of party allegiance can only be broken by the actual conviction of existing distress in the community. Nothing but the evidence of suffering abroad [that is, in the country as a whole] will produce any effect in Congress.… This worthy President thinks that because he has scalped Indians and imprisoned judges, he is to have his way with the Bank. He is mistaken.” Biddle appears to have succumbed fully to the corrupting effects of absolute power. His dictatorial thoughts, writings, and actions are on display during this stage of the war. He shared with another confidante, “My own course is decided, all other banks and all other merchants may break, but the Bank of the United States shall not break.” Biddle truly believed, that by causing harm and suffering in America, he could control the political leaders of our country.

Andrew Jackson’s Resolve

In hindsight, had it been any other President besides Jackson, Biddle would have been right. Jackson, however, stood his ground and eventually won the Bank war, despite receiving many battle scars along the way. Re-elected in a landslide, Jackson proved that a person with conviction and character can stand his ground and win, no matter the size of the forces aligned against him. Boldly, at one point in the battle, Jackson told his Vice-President Martin Van Buren, “The Bank is trying to kill me. But I will kill it.”

Jackson example demonstrates a leader’s powerful effect upon others. When a person has the courage to stand strong, he strengthens the spine of others who recognize the truthfulness of his fight between right and wrong. Courage, just like lack of courage, is contagious. Character is courage and integrity combined. Integrity is identifying what is right and courage is the ability to stand for truth even when it hurts. Jackson accomplished many things in his life, both militarily and politically. However, in my opinion, his finest hour was his courageous stand against the Second National Bank. May this generation of leaders display similar courage in today’s fight against tyranny.

Posted in Freedom/Liberty, Leadership/Personal Development | 62 Comments »

Andrew Jackson’s Courage

Posted by Orrin Woodward on June 30, 2012

Here is part one of a two part series on battle Andrew Jackson faced against the USA Second National Bank. What a powerful example of courageous leadership in action. The Mental Fitness Challenge is a key part of any potential leaders plan to help in developing this type of courage and character. I am proud to say that the LIFE Business is filled with this type of leadership throughout its ranks.

Sincerely,

Orrin Woodward

Andrew Jackson

Andrew Jackson Slays Multi-Headed Monster

Andrew Jackson, when he was right and when he was wrong, was always a man of strong convictions. He stood by his love of liberty even when it hurt him politically to do so. It takes courage to stand by one’s convictions, especially when a person is offered peace and financial rewards to surrender them. Courage isn’t the absence of fear; rather, it’s the acknowledgement that one’s principles are bigger than one’s fears, regardless of the consequences.

In today’s “situational ethics” society, principles are sold out for pragmatism, making courageous stories like Andrew Jackson’s as rare as gold-backed currency. Consequently, much could be learned by the study of Andrew Jackson’s stand against the “moneyed interest” drive to re-charter the Second National Bank. Indeed, through reading Jackson’s battles against the Bank, one yearns to find leaders with similar backbones to break the Federal Reserve monopoly on America’s money. Let’s examine this historic battle between the President Andrew Jackson of the United States of America versus President Nicholas Biddle of the Second National Bank. Several questions come to mind. First, what are the leadership lessons learned from this historic struggle between the statist and anti-statists philosophies of money? Second, how do the lessons from Jackson’s battle apply in today’s battle for monetary freedom?

Inflationary Policies

Jackson resided in the thriving American West, witnessing first hand the dire effects of inflationary banking policies in the western land prices. Jackson learned the salutary lesson of hard money (gold and silver coins) vs. the prevalent paper based inflationary policies loved by bankers and wealthy merchants. Inflationary methods allowed banks to print paper, pretending the paper had value, even though it wasn’t backed by gold or silver. Without a check on the banks, like requiring banks to submit gold for paper dollars when requested, one can easily see how banks would fall into the trap of printing more paper than could possibly be redeemed on demand. Profits for banks can increase greatly in the short term by interest collected on nothing more than paper, causing more money to flow into the marketplace which raises the prices of consumer goods as more printed dollars are available. The splurge of printed money only corrects itself when consumers become aware of the inflationary policies of banks, quickly requesting gold for their inflated paper dollars before the banks runs out their reserves.

In theory, paper money should be a promissory note, representing gold, but easier to carry on one’s person. The minute the promissory note is not backed by real value (gold, silver etc), it becomes fraudulent with the bank benefitting by printing monopoly money at the expense of all consumers who now own dollars less valuable than before the fraudulent activity. For example, if we doubled the amount of dollars in circulation today, giving everyone twice as much money as they have currently, each dollar would quickly fall to half of its former value, prices would rise as each person’s dollars bid up the prices in an attempt to purchase the means for living. Printing money does not produce wealth, but it can benefit the few at the expense of the many, a temptation too lucrative to be left in the hands of government politicians and their wealthy patrons.

Big Banks Marry Big Business

When Jackson was elected President of the United States, one of his missions was to end the syndicate of control over America’s money supply by three power hungry groups: foreign interests, big business, and big politicians. Jackson believed that banks ought to run like any other businesses, having to sink or swim based upon their own business acumen, needing reserves to secure their loans provided. But when a national bank receives the protection of the federal government to ensure its solvency, this is no longer free enterprise, but a form of fascism where government and business partner, reducing competition amongst banks, and increasing the cost of the entire system.

This would be similar to all automotive companies agreeing to fix prices on cars, certainly improving the profits for manufacturers, while decreasing the downside risk of the manufacturers, all of this, at the expense of the customers. The Second National Bank received the deposits of the American Treasury Department, ensuring its solvency, providing a special deal for the bank and its investors at the expense of other banks and all customers. Nicholas Biddle, the president of the Second National Bank, was not alarmed, at first, with Jacksons rhetoric, having heard many politicians boast of drastic changes when entering office, only to conform into the system when elected. But Jackson character was different, his campaign promises before aligned with his actions after election, necessitating a showdown between the President and the money interest behind the Bank.

Nicholas Biddle versus Andrew Jackson

Biddle and Jackson were opposites in upbringing and temperament. The former, a scion of a high-society Philadelphia family, did not like the rough and tumble behavior of the American political process. Choosing to avoid the masses, he preferred instead to do his work behind the scenes. Jackson, on the other hand, loved the volatile political process and was elected by the populist mass of voters across America. No two people better contrasted the opposing viewpoints in the American political arena. One, a believer in wealth and privilege for the chosen few; the other, an equal opportunity for all to rise based upon merit. Jackson shared his disdain for the Bank in his first Presidential message proclaiming, “Both the constitutionality and the expediency of the law creating this bank are well questioned by a large portion of our fellow citizens, and it must be admitted by all that it has failed in the great end of establishing an uniform and sound currency.” Biddle, however, seemingly unconcerned initially, responded to Jackson’s message with a cool indifference. He wrote of Jackson, “They should be treated as the honest though erroneous notions of one who intends well.” Clearly, Biddle did not believe Jackson had the courage or fortitude to fight against the entrenched money-interest feeding off America’s body politic.

Biddle quickly discovered that Jackson’s courage was even greater than his rhetoric, when he confirmed Jackson’s intentions to end the Bank’s charter. Undaunted, he quickly rallied his political supporters to his cause. Two of the biggest and brightest political stars, Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, were enlisted by the Bank in support of the recharter initiative. With Clay and Webster’s help, the Bank moved for an early renewal of its charter, hoping to force Jackson’s hand before his second term election. Jackson, the moneyed-interest believed, would not risk his re-election on a veto of the Bank’s charter. Once again, the special-interest elites had underestimated Jackson courage. The Bank bill, with Clay and Webster’s support, passed both houses and arrived on Jackson’s desk for approval. Most people would have bowed to the “inevitable” and approved the bill to ensure his re-election; Jackson however, was not like most people. In his historic veto address, Jackson declared war on the wealthy aristocracy attempting to subvert the American Republic. His veto address should be read by everyone concerned with freedom and equality of opportunity. Jackson, in part, stated:

It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society-the farmers, mechanics, and laborers-who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing.

To be continued in the next blog post.

Posted in Freedom/Liberty, Leadership/Personal Development | 55 Comments »

Ludwig Von Mises Predicts Credit Crisis

Posted by Orrin Woodward on June 18, 2012

Updated: After finishing Too Big to Fail by Andrew Sorkin, I had to update this post!

If the 1989 breakup of the Soviet Bloc countries didn’t humble all the Keynesian economists, then the 2007 credit-crisis finished the process. The Keynesian economists were confronted, yet again, with the difference between economic law and the fallacies bandied about in their numerous textbooks.

First, the Keynesians, with the communist bloc in near starvation, learned that communism didn’t work – something Mises had pointed out eighty years previous. Mises irrefutable theoretical answers – he proved that without a free market there was no price system; therefore, no economic calculations were possible – are now confirmed with hard data from the numerous failed communistic nations. China, shockingly, has more economic freedom than the United States today! This is what happens when America continues to dabble in Keynesianism (socialism light) and China, in an effort to improve results, rejected hard-line communism in favor of free-enterprise concepts. The world truly has been turned upside down. 🙂

Second, the Keynesians learned the banking system is a “house of cards,” surviving on a “confidence game,” where only the insiders know how highly leveraged the banks truly are. Without the $1.1 trillion bailout (TARP) from the USA government, the banking system would have “dominoed to destruction” – Bear-Stearns to Lehman Brothers, to Merrill Lynch, to AIG, to Morgan Stanley, even Goldman-Sachs was on the precipice before TARP. Andrew Sorkin’s book Too Big To Fail provides the reader with a front row seat and play-by-play descriptions of the events during the 2007-08 credit-crisis.

Third, and a preview of coming attractions, the Keynesians will learn that even all-powerful governments must obey economic law. They will witness a government “domino to destruction,” similar to banking systems near collapse; however, the governments have no one to backstop their violations of economic law and the collapse will be on a much greater scale. In other words, the government bailouts only delayed, rather than killed, the day of reckoning. The highly-linked leveraged debt dominos between countries are set up in precarious fashion. It will only take one country (Greece anyone?) to renege on its payments causing the next weakest country to follow suit, leading eventually to a world-wide economic collapse of the highly leveraged governments.

For the overly taxed citizens, “Humpy-Dumpty’s” fall will upset the markets and livelihoods in the short term. But, over time, it will free citizen leaders to create market-place solutions, rather than submit to the unworkable Statist-Keynesian global mindset. Essentially, history will teach the Keynesian that their measures were the problem, not the solution as advertised. Only a few voices, mainly Ludwig Von Mises with a nod to Friedrich Von Hayek, predicted the cycle of inflationary spending in the early twentieth century! Truth, in other words, was right under the global powers noses over 100 years ago, but it was denigrated because it went against their desire for FREE money and increased Statist’s control. I wrote about this in my book RESOLVED: 13 Resolutions for LIFE on how the whole credit-crisis is symptomatic of a bigger issue: the character-crisis.

Remember, when the Big Banks and Big Government first proposed taking over our nations money system, it was to eliminate the credit cycles; however, truth be told, it didn’t eliminate cycles, but only delayed them, making the waves bigger and the destruction greater when they finally crash upon the economy. Thankfully for the modern power-pundits, the masses remain ignorant of the Federal Reserve’s dismal track record. Unaware of the danger, the people’s lethargy is the power-brokers’ best security, allowing the inflationary money scam to consistently rob the producers for the benefit of the exploiters.

Indeed, it must be asked: why doesn’t anyone stand for truth in today’s modern age? I believe a huge part of it is that few people believe in truth anymore, and of the few who do, few are willing to do the heavy mental work involved to learn it. The goal of the Mental Fitness Challenge is to awaken people to the need for personal development and developing a foundation in which to learn, apply, and change oneself. Here is a fantastic article on Mises by Mark Spitznagel.

Sincerely,

Orrin Woodward

By MARK SPITZNAGEL

Ludwig von Mises was snubbed by economists world-wide as he warned of a credit crisis in the 1920s. We ignore the great Austrian at our peril today.

Mises’s ideas on business cycles were spelled out in his 1912 tome “Theorie des Geldes und der Umlaufsmittel” (“The Theory of Money and Credit”). Not surprisingly few people noticed, as it was published only in German and wasn’t exactly a beach read at that.

Taking his cue from David Hume and David Ricardo, Mises explained how the banking system was endowed with the singular ability to expand credit and with it the money supply, and how this was magnified by government intervention. Left alone, interest rates would adjust such that only the amount of credit would be used as is voluntarily supplied and demanded. But when credit is force-fed beyond that (call it a credit gavage), grotesque things start to happen.

Government-imposed expansion of bank credit distorts our “time preferences,” or our desire for saving versus consumption. Government-imposed interest rates artificially below rates demanded by savers leads to increased borrowing and capital investment beyond what savers will provide. This causes temporarily higher employment, wages and consumption.

Keynesian economics picture

Ordinarily, any random spikes in credit would be quickly absorbed by the system—the pricing errors corrected, the half-baked investments liquidated, like a supple tree yielding to the wind and then returning. But when the government holds rates artificially low in order to feed ever higher capital investment in otherwise unsound, unsustainable businesses, it creates the conditions for a crash. Everyone looks smart for a while, but eventually the whole monstrosity collapses under its own weight through a credit contraction or, worse, a banking collapse.

The system is dramatically susceptible to errors, both on the policy side and on the entrepreneurial side. Government expansion of credit takes a system otherwise capable of adjustment and resilience and transforms it into one with tremendous cyclical volatility.

“Theorie des Geldes” did not become the playbook for policy makers. The 1920s were marked by the brave new era of the Federal Reserve system promoting inflationary credit expansion and with it permanent prosperity. The nerve of this Doubting-Thomas, perma-bear, crazy Kraut! Sadly, poor Ludwig was very nearly alone in warning of the collapse to come from this credit expansion. In mid-1929, he stubbornly turned down a lucrative job offer from the Viennese bank Kreditanstalt, much to the annoyance of his fiancée, proclaiming “A great crash is coming, and I don’t want my name in any way connected with it.”

We all know what happened next. Pretty much right out of Mises’s script, overleveraged banks (including Kreditanstalt) collapsed, businesses collapsed, employment collapsed. The brittle tree snapped. Following Mises’s logic, was this a failure of capitalism, or a failure of hubris?

Mises’s solution follows logically from his warnings. You can’t fix what’s broken by breaking it yet again. Stop the credit gavage. Stop inflating. Don’t encourage consumption, but rather encourage saving and the repayment of debt. Let all the lame businesses fail—no bailouts. (You see where I’m going with this.) The distortions must be removed or else the precipice from which the system will inevitably fall will simply grow higher and higher.

Mises started getting some much-deserved respect once “Theorie des Geldes” was finally published in English in 1934. It is unfortunate that it required such a disaster for people to take heed of what was the one predictive, scholarly explanation of what was happening.

But then, just Mises’s bad luck, along came John Maynard Keynes’s tome “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money” in 1936. Keynes was dapper, fresh and sophisticated. He even wrote in English! And the guy had chutzpah, fearlessly fighting the battle against unemployment by running the currency printing press and draining the government’s coffers.

He was the anti-Mises. So what if Keynes had lost his shirt in the stock-market crash. His book was peppered with fancy math (even Greek letters) and that meant rigor, modernity. To add insult to injury, Mises wasn’t even refuted by Keynes and his ilk. He was ignored.

Fast forward 70-some years, during which we saw Keynesianism’s repeated disappointments, the end of the gold standard, persistent inflation with intermittent inflationary recessions and banking crises, culminating in Alan Greenspan’s “Great Moderation” and a subsequent catastrophic collapse in housing and banking. Where do we find ourselves? At a point of profound insight gained through economic logic, trial and error, and objective empiricism? Or right back where we started?

With interest rates at zero, monetary engines humming as never before, and a self-proclaimed Keynesian government, we are back again embracing the brave new era of government-sponsored prosperity and debt. And, more than ever, the system is piling uncertainties on top of uncertainties, turning an otherwise resilient economy into a brittle one.

How curious it is that the guy who wrote the script depicting our never ending story of government-induced credit expansion, inflation and collapse has remained so persistently forgotten. Must we sit through yet another performance of this tragic tale?

Mr. Spitznagel is the founder and chief investment officer of the hedge fund Universa Investments LP, based in Santa Monica, Calif.

Posted in Finances, Freedom/Liberty | 116 Comments »

Western Civilization and Judeo/Christian Influences

Posted by Orrin Woodward on May 27, 2012

Here is a portion of a fantastic article by Cheryl Stansberry on the influence of Christianity on Western Civilization. Just as trees dies when the roots are damaged, so too will Western Civilization die when its roots are neglected. In my quest to re-educate the West on its past, this research paper will help immensely. Our family has been reviewing this article and discussing its key implications. One of the missing ingredients in today’s histories is the moral aspect. History without morality tends to downgrade into useless dates, names, and events; instead of the actual moral battle between good and evil. Regretfully, the reason most people do not enjoy history is that they were exposed to the subject without being taught the underlying moral struggle within it.

I have had my personal battles with injustice and have learned greatly from the experiences, leading me to understand history at a whole new level. It is through the struggles in life that resolutions are made and it was through my struggles that I (and my co-founders) resolved to start the LIFE Business, giving people the opportunity to grow into the people God intended them to be. What struggles in your life helped you resolve to change? Enjoy this portion and please discuss what you learned below. Thanks!

Sincerely,

Orrin Woodward

The Influence of Christianity on Western Civilization

The positive influence of Christianity is far reaching especially in the rich history and culture of Western Civilization despite a long standing ignorance or adamant denial of its contributions. The Bible itself is responsible for much of the language, literature, and fine arts we enjoy today as its artists and composers were heavily influenced by its writings. Paul Maier, in writing the forward to the book How Christianity Changed the World by Alvin J. Schmidt, says this about the profound impact Christianity has had on the development of Western Civilization:

“No other religion, philosophy, teaching, nation, movement—whatever—has so changed the world for the better as Christianity has done. Its shortcomings, clearly conceded by this author, are nevertheless heavily outweighed by its benefits to all mankind” (Schmidt 9).

Contrary to the history texts treatment of the subject, Christian influence on values, beliefs, and practices in Western culture are abundant and well ingrained into the flourishing society of today (Schmidt 12). In the Old Testament book of Hosea the writer states: “my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge,” a statement that can well be applied to those today who are forgetful of the past (The Reformation Study Bible, Hosea 4.6a).

Schmidt writes regarding liberty and justice as seen by today’s culture:

“The liberty and justice that are enjoyed by humans in Western societies and in some non-Western countries are increasingly seen as the products of a benevolent, secular government that is the provider of all things. There seems to be no awareness that the liberties and rights that are currently operative in free societies of the West are to a great degree the result of Christianity’s influence (248). History is replete with examples of individuals who acted as a law unto themselves “often curtailing, even obliterating the natural rights and freedoms of the country’s citizens (249). Christianity’s influence, however, set into motion the belief that man is accountable to God and that the law is the same regardless of status. More than one thousand years before the birth of Christ the biblical requirement given by Moses comprised an essential component of the principle that “no man is above the law.”

One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. (Deuteronomy 19.15)

Thus the accuser, regardless of position in society, could not arbitrarily incarcerate or execute the accused and was himself subject to the law. The New Testament also mandated two or more witnesses in ecclesiastical matters regarding an erring Christian in Matthew 18:15-17 (Schmidt 249). The criminal and justice systems of many free countries today employ this Judeo-Christian requirement of having witnesses testify and in British and American jurisprudence, witnesses are part of “due process of law,’ a legal concept first appearing under King Edward III in the fourteenth century (Schmidt 249). One startling example of the concept that no man is above the law is seen in the conflict between the Christian emperor Theodosius the Great and St. Ambrose. It happened in 300 A.D. when some in Thessalonica rioted and aroused the anger of the emperor who overreacted by slaughtering approximately seven thousand people, most of whom were innocent. Bishop Ambrose asked the emperor to repent and when Theodosius refused, the bishop excommunicated him. After a month Theodosius prostrated himself and repented in Ambrose’s cathedral. Often mistaken as a struggle for power between church and state, the evidence in which Ambrose’s letter to the emperor cited sole concern for the emperor’s spiritual welfare conclude this as being the first instance of applying the principle that no one is above the law (Schmidt 250).

Posted in Faith, Freedom/Liberty | 41 Comments »

The Petition of Rights

Posted by Orrin Woodward on May 22, 2012

The Petition of Rights is the second key document in the history of English-speaking people’s freedoms, following the Magna Carta. The Petition didn’t state any new principles; rather, it was recognition of rights against the tyrannical abuse by the King Charles I. King Charles, because he needed funds for war, repeatedly violated private property by seizing assets and money from his subjects. For example, in 1627, Charles initiated “forced loans” against his people because parliament refused to approve any further taxation.

King Charles I threatened his subjects with imprisonment without trial or habeas corpus, if they refused his demand for loans. Seventy gentlemen were jailed without charges against them merely for refusing to loan the king money. King Charles I, in other words, believed he was above the law of the land, making freedom and law only as good as the whims of the sovereign, certainly not solid ground for enduring freedoms. The Petition of Rights listed five key principles that Charles I violated and demanded redress:

1. Parliamentary approval of all taxes
2. No imprisonment without due cause
3. No rejection of habeas corpus without evidence (legal action, through which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention)
4. No forced quartering of troops in people’s homes
5. No arbitrary imposition of martial law in the land

The courage mustered by the English Parliament to stand their ground is inspiring to freedom fighters around the world. Had parliament surrendered to the King’s power play, the Magna Carta would most likely be buried under the authoritarian precedences. Instead, however, parliament revived the Magna Carta and courageously said “no” to King Charles I, refusing to surrender the principles of freedom for pragmatic “peace without justice.” The Magna Carta and the Petition of Rights have the same goal in minds – justice under rule of law. By checking the use of arbitrary force against the people and insisting the kings, nobles, and subjects all live under the rule of law, justice was saved.

The English-speaking world would be practically unrecognizable today had the legal mind of Edward Coke not placed his pen to paper and documented the English rights against any and all usurpers. Communities must learn and love their freedoms as much as the English Parliament did in the 17th century. Thus the reason for LIFE and the Mental Fitness Challenge. Below is an excellent summary from Dr. Bill Long.

Sincerely,

Orrin Woodward

Petition of Right I (1628)

Bill Long 1/10/05

Understanding the “Process” of the Petition

A piece of paper is never so alive as when its principles are also in the hearts of the people.

If you were to do an Internet search for “Petition of Right,” you would come up with an 11 paragraph document that stated the “objectives” of a 1628 legal reform movement. This movement not only led to the English Civil war in the 1640s but also expressed many ideas of the American Revolution. The Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution contains some of the principles first articulated in the Petition of Right. But the petition didn’t just emerge whole-cloth. It was shaped in difficult circumstances, where liberties had been dramatically curtailed. The purpose of this and the next three pages is to discuss the purposes of the petition, the manner in which it took shape and some of its provisions. This essay will consider the background to the petition.

Incensed at the Five Knights Case

Although the detainees were remanded to prison after the case concluded in November 1627, the issue of their imprisonment without charge did not die. As a sign that even the King’s Bench was not fully satisfied with its decision, the judgment never was entered on the record. Then, in January 1628 the prisoners were freed in anticipation of Charles I calling another Parliament (it would be his third since his accession to the throne in March 1625). He needed more money, and it would have been impossible to get Parliament to agree on more taxes if the loan “refuseniks” were still behind bars. Thus, he had to show an example of “magnanimity” by releasing them. However, elections did not go in the Crown’s favor. All “Refusers” who ran were returned to Parliament. The die was cast, even if the Crown didn’t realize it.

Thus when Parliament met in March 1628, the King wanted to take up the issue of subsidies immediately, but the House of Commons had other ideas. Still stung by the arbitrary imprisonment of loan refusers and by more recent decisions of Charles to quarter troops in private dwellings in order to save money and to enforce martial law throughout the Kingdom, the Commons decided upon a “personal rights” agenda. They agreed in principle to taxations for foreign wars, but were more concerned with addressing (and redressing) the issue of remedies for a freeman falsely imprisoned.

The Petition Takes Shape–Draft I

Catherine Bowen Drinker, in her prize-winning biography of Coke (The Lion and the Throne) states it well: the issue before the Commons was whether to go by way of bill, petition or remonstrance. The last was quickly dismissed because the Commons wanted to express more than their dissatisfaction with existing conditions. The first was also discarded because a bill (a statute) suggested that the Commons would be declaring new rights or rights insufficiently clarified in the traditions of the people. But Coke’s approach, along with others, was to see what they were doing as expressing rights long recognized rather than devising something new. Thus, a petition was the effective vehicle. But another distinction had to be made, between a petition for grace and a petition of right. The former was a request from a freeman asking the King’s mercy or largesse whereas the latter was a sort of demand (even though called a petition) for rights to be recognized. They would seek the latter.

By the end of March 1628 four basic concepts for the Petition of Right were articulated by the Commons. These were: (1) no imprisonment of freemen without cause shown. The King’s command alone was insufficient to hold a man; (2) habeas corpus was not to be denied; (3) [overlapping with the preceding] the prisoner would either be bailed or released after a habeas hearing; (4) there would be no “tax, taillage, loan, benevolence” commanded or levied without the approval of Parliament.

Defending and Revising the Petition

The thing that really stuck in the craw of the Commons was that freemen had been imprisoned without cause by royal order. But in order for the Petition to have teeth, it had to be approved by the House of Lords and assented to by the sovereign with the traditional language, supposedly going back to Edward I: “Let right be done even as it is desired.” But the House of Lords responded to the four propositions of the Commons in April with a series of paragraphs beginning with “His Majesty would be graciously pleased to declare.” In other words, the Lords wanted to transmute the petition of right into one of grace.

At the heart of the disagreement in April between Commons and Lords was whether the “intrinsical prerogative” of the King, assumed in the wording of the Lords’ answer, could trump the common law of the land. Coke declared that the language of “intrinsical prerogative” was not much found in the laws of the land. If the Commons had to agree to the wording of the Lords, it would be tantamount to agreeing that their rights were a matter of grace. In Coke’s words, “Reason of state [the philosophy of the Lords] lames Magna Carta.”

The negotiating continued throughout the Spring. Finally, the debate within the Houses of Parliament centered on one phrase, a phrase suggested by the Lords, to which the Commons could not assent. It was a request to preserve liberties but “to leave entire the sovereign power” of the monarchy. By the end of May, the Commons had convinced the Lords to drop the phrase, arguing that traditional royal prerogatives would not to be threatened by the peoples’ declaration of their desire to be safe in their persons.

Conclusion

Charles finally acceded to the Petition in June 1628. His agreement was secured for two reasons. First, he needed the subsidies which the Commons were holding up because of the Petition. Second, he managed to secure agreement from his hand-picked judges that the Petition would not be interpreted in a sense contrary to his desire. But the tide really had turned now against Charles. His seemingly bold actions early in his reign, while he was still a man in his mid-20s, ended up recoiling upon his head. Trust had been irrevocably broken through the Five Knights Case and his attempt to limit the effect of the Petition of Right ultimately was of no avail.

Posted in Freedom/Liberty, LIFE Leadership, Mental Fitness Challenge (MFC) | 16 Comments »

Magna Carta: The Great Charter

Posted by Orrin Woodward on May 21, 2012

Here is an excellent short history of the Magna Carta, one of the first building blocks of English speaking freedoms, from the Constitutional Rights Foundation. In fact, several of the points from the Magna Carta were carried forward into the United States Constitution, as well as each of the commonwealth nations of the former English Empire. The key to the document was the agreement for the nobles to check the king’s actions, ensuring the protection of the subjects against tyranny. Although the original Magan Carta agreement didn’t last long, many of the principles themselves have withstood the test of time.

The goal of the LIFE community and the Mental Fitness Challenge is to reteach the principles of freedom and following, along with the other six F’s into communities of learners. The only way to ensure freedom is to ensure knowledge, since a person is only as free as what he or she knows. Enjoy the article.

Sincerely,

Orrin Woodward

Meeting at Runnymede

The Story of King John and Magna Carta

Myth and history are intertwined in the England of 800 years ago. We all remember the outlaw, Robin Hood. From his hideout in Sherwood Forest, he and his band of Merry Men preyed on the rich and gave to the poor. Their archenemy was the Sheriff of Nottingham, who took his orders from the sinister Prince John. While Robin Hood never existed, John certainly did. He was the central character in a real life drama that led to a milestone in human liberty: Magna Carta. Prince John’s older brother, Richard, became king of England when their father, Henry II, died in 1189. King Richard I (also called Richard the Lionhearted) spent almost the entire 10 years of his reign away from England. He fought in tournaments, led crusades and waged several wars on the continent of Europe.

Since Richard needed revenue to pay for his adventures, he taxed his subjects heavily. At one point Richard was captured by his enemies and held for ransom (a common practice in feudal Europe). Richard’s tax collectors in England had to raise an enormous sum of money to free him. Despite Richard’s demands, the people back home in England loved him as a conquering hero.

When Richard died in 1199, John became King. Unlike his brother, John tended to stay at home and run his kingdom on a day to day basis. John, however, continued his brother’s harsh tax policy. Because John lacked Richard’s heroic image and charisma, his subjects began to hate him for his constant demands for more tax money.

King John vs. the Church

King John made more enemies when he refused to accept the appointment of Stephen Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, the most important position in the English Catholic Church. By so doing, John challenged the authority of Pope Innocent III in Rome, who punished John by excommunication. John retaliated by taxing the Church in England, confiscating its lands and forcing many priests to leave their parishes.

While King John carried on his dispute with the Pope, powerful English landowners called barons conspired against him. Fuming over John’s heavy taxes and other abuses of power, the barons plotted rebellion. To head them off, King John made an unexpected move.

In 1212, King John agreed to have Stephen Langton become Archbishop of Canterbury. John also promised to compensate the Church for its money and lands. John even went so far as to make England a fief of the Pope. King John still ruled England, but, as John’s liege lord, the Pope gained tremendous prestige throughout Europe. Pope Innocent was delighted and in 1213 ended John’s excommunication. With John now under the protection of the Church, the resentful barons retreated—at least for a while.

King John vs. the Barons

Convinced that his throne was again safe, King John returned to one of his favorite projects. For years he had dreamed to retake possession of lands in France that had once belonged to his ancestors. Once before, John had led a military expedition to France. Although he won a number of battles, John failed to decisively defeat the French king. Now, in 1213, John planned another campaign.

An invasion of France required many soldiers and more money. Under feudal law, a liege lord had the right to call upon his vassals to provide knights or money during times of war. From the English barons, all vassals of King John, he demanded men-at-arms or gold to support his new French war. Many of the barons refused, having little interest in John’s quarrel with the French king. Enraged, King John set out to punish them by attacking their castles.

Early in 1214, he abandoned his domestic quarrels and left with a force of loyal barons and mercenaries (paid soldiers) for France. History repeated itself. John succeeded in winning some battles, but failed to gain control of the disputed lands.

The Road to Runnymede

Soon after returning to English soil in October 1214, King John resumed his demand for money from the rebellious barons. His demands fell on deaf ears. Sensing John’s weakness after his failure in France, the barons began to make their own demands. In January 1215, a group of them appeared before King John asking for a written charter from him confirming ancient liberties granted by earlier kings of England. Evidence suggests that the newly appointed Archbishop Stephen Langton may have encouraged these demands.

John decided to stall for time; he would give the barons an answer later in the spring. In the meantime, John sent letters to enlist the support of Pope Innocent III, and also began to assemble a mercenary army.

In April, the barons presented John with more specific demands. John flatly rejected them. He remarked: “Why do not the barons, with these unjust exactions, ask my kingdom?”

In response, the barons withdrew their allegiance to King John, and started to form their own rebel army. At the head of the rebel forces was Robert FitzWalter, who called himself “Marshal of the army of God and Holy Church.” In an effort to cool things off, John proposed that the Pope settle their differences. With the Pope openly siding with King John, the barons refused. John ordered his sheriffs to crush the rebel barons and they retaliated by occupying London.

A stalemate ensued. The 40 or so rebel barons and their forces held London as well as their own fortified castles throughout England. King John commanded a slightly smaller force of loyalist barons and mercenaries. Unaligned were about 100 barons plus a group of church leaders headed by the ever-present Archbishop Stephen Langton. Langton (who was sympathetic to the rebels if not one himself) began to work for a negotiated settlement to prevent all-out civil war and arranged a meeting to be held at Runnymede, a meadow on the Thames west of London.

Meeting at Runnymede

King John and his supporters, the rebel barons, the neutrals, church leaders and Archbishop Langton all met at Runnymede on June 15, 1215. Significantly, while most of King John’s fighting men were scattered throughout his kingdom, the rebels appeared at full military strength.

Little is known about the details of this historic meeting. We do know that King John placed his seal of approval on a document called the “Articles of the Barons.” Over the next few days these articles were rewritten, expanded, and put into the legal language of a royal charter.

At some point, probably on June 19, King John put his seal on the final draft of what we call today “Magna Carta” or “The Great Charter.” In exchange, the rebellious barons renewed their oath of allegiance to King John, thus ending the immediate threat of civil war.

In its original form Magna Carta consisted of 63 articles or chapters. Many concerned matters of feudal law that were important to the rebel barons, but are of little relevance to us today. Other parts of Magna Carta corrected King John’s abuses of power against the barons, Church officials, merchants and other “free men” who together made up about 25% of England’s population. Magna Carta virtually ignored the remaining 75% of the population.

For people today the most significant part of Magna Carta is Chapter 39:
No free man shall be arrested or imprisoned or disseised [property taken] or outlawed or exiled or in any way victimized, neither will we attack him or send anyone to attack him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
Some have interpreted this provision to mean that Magna Carta guaranteed to free men the right to a trial by jury. However, the idea of a jury trial as we would recognize it today had not yet developed by 1215.

The purpose of this chapter was to prevent King John from personally ordering the arrest and punishment of a free man without lawful judgment. According to Magna Carta, “lawful judgment” could only be made by judges ruled by “the law of the land,” or by one’s peers in a trial by combat.

Magna Carta of 1215 was not really intended to be a list of rights for Englishmen or even the barons themselves. It was more like a contract in which John bound himself to abide by its provisions. The barons only wanted King John to satisfy their complaints against his abusive rule, not overthrow the monarchy. The real significance of this document lies in the basic idea that a ruler, just like everyone else, is subject to the rule of law. When King John agreed to Magna Carta, he admitted that the law was above the king’s will, a revolutionary idea in 1215.

Aftermath

King John surrendered significant power when he agreed to Magna Carta. It is doubtful that he really ever intended to live up to all his promises. While John did satisfy some of the barons’ personal grievances, he secretly wrote the Pope asking him to cancel Magna Carta on the grounds that he signed it against his will. At the same time he continued to build up his mercenary army. Not trusting John’s intentions, the rebel barons held on to London and maintained their own army.

Pope Innocent III replied favorably to King John’s appeal. He condemned Magna Carta and declared it null and void. By September 1215, King John and his army were roving the countryside attacking the castles of individual barons, but he avoided the rebel stronghold of London. The barons charged that King John had defaulted on his agreement with them and they were justified in removing him from the throne. They offered the throne to the son of the French king, if he would aid their rebellion.
A long and bloody civil war loomed across England, when suddenly, King John died. A round of heavy eating and drinking apparently led to a case of dysentery causing his death on October 18, 1216. Ten days later John’s nine-year-old son, Henry, was crowned as the new king of England. With John out of the way, the conflict gradually ceased. Less than a month after Henry was crowned, his supporters confirmed Magna Carta in his name. This time it received the approval of the Pope.

Magna Carta, carrying with it the idea of “the rule of law,” was reconfirmed a number of times over the next 80 years, becoming a foundation of English law. Eventually, Magna Carta would become the source of important legal concepts found in our American Constitution and Bill of Rights. Among these are the principle of no taxation without representation and the right to a fair trial under law. These foundations of our own constitutional system had their beginnings in a meadow beside a river almost 800 years ago.

Posted in Freedom/Liberty, Leadership/Personal Development, LIFE Leadership | 25 Comments »

The Role of Intellectuals in Societal Change

Posted by Orrin Woodward on May 20, 2012

The late Murray Rothbard was a polymathic genius. I have read few authors who have studied and understood history, economics, philosophy, sociology, liberty, and power, in as entertaining and informative a manner. I find that, even when I disagree with Rothbard, he still makes me think. In truth, isn’t this the goal of all reading? I don’t read to believe everything the author writes; rather, I read to sharpen myself on the iron thinking of other great minds. Unfortunately, our school systems, newspapers, magazines, television sets, and radio stations are all geared to tell you what to think (propaganda) instead of teaching you how to think (education).

After reading Rothbard’s analysis of the Revolutionary War from his book Conceived in Liberty and the role of intellectuals in the conflict, it became crystal clear to me who the court intellectuals are today. Invest the time to read Rothbard’s analysis of 18th century America for yourself. See if you can identify some of the court intellectuals today who share the ruling statist ideology in our society. Likewise, think of some of the anti-statist authors and organizations who faithfully teach our English heritage from the Magna Carta, Petition of Rights, and Bill of Rights. These great documents protected the citizens against un-checked statist power, helping create a society ruled by law to protect life, liberty, and property.

Did anyone ever study these three documents in high school? How about college? Amazingly, three off the most precious documents in the history of the English-speaking people that, along with the King James Bible, flowered freedom to a level previously unknown throughout the world is largely forgotten. Even though these documents produced a level of liberty that was the envy of every other European nation. Indeed, the West would not even be conceivable without these documents. However, if this is true, then why aren’t these great truths shared in every school in every English speaking country? Moreover, is there anything that English speaking citizens from around the world can do about this catastrophic, at least from a liberty perspective, series of egregious events?

Call me a dreamer, but if only there were communities who inspired people to begin a self-directed education. If only people began reading, learning, and sharing from the original sources with one another to learn the great truths of freedom by working around society’s purveyors of propaganda. 🙂 Imagine the impact of millions of people taking the Mental Fitness Challenge and launching a self-directed education into their personal lives while associating with others taking the same journey? Yes folks, the road ahead will be challenging; however, great leadership is only revealed when the obstacles encountered cannot be resolved with anything less. Like my friend Chris Brady says: Today’s the day!

Sincerely,

Orrin Woodward

The essence of the state throughout history is a minority of the population, constituting a power elite or a “ruling class,” governing and living off the majority, or the “ruled.” Since a majority cannot live parasitically off a minority without the economy and the social system breaking down very quickly, and since the majority can never act permanently by itself but must always be led by an oligarchy, every state will subsist by plundering the majority in behalf of a ruling minority. A further reason for the inevitability of minority rule is the pervasive fact of the division of labor: the majority of the public must spend most of its time going about the business of making a living. Hence the actual rule of the state must be left to full-time professionals who are necessarily a minority of the society.

Throughout history, then, the state has consisted of a minority plundering and tyrannizing over a majority. This brings us to the great question, the great mystery, of political philosophy: the mystery of civil obedience. From Etienne de La Boetie to David Hume to Ludwig von Mises, political philosophers have shown that no state—no minority—can continue long in power unless supported, even if passively, by the majority. Why then does the majority continue to accept or support the state when it is clearly acquiescing in its own subjection? Why does the majority continue to obey the minority?

Here we arrive at the age-old role of the intellectuals, the opinion-molding groups in society. The ruling class—be it warlords, nobles, bureaucrats, feudal landlords, monopoly merchants, or a coalition of several of these groups—must employ intellectuals to convince the majority of the public that its rule is beneficent, inevitable, necessary, and even divine. The leading role of the intellectual throughout history is that of the court intellectual, who, in return for a share of, a junior partnership in, the power and pelf offered by the rest of the ruling class, spins the apologias for state rule with which to convince a misguided public. This is the age-old alliance of church and state, of throne and altar, with the church in modern times being largely replaced by secular intellectuals and “scientific” technocrats.

When state rulers act, then, to use and aggrandize state power, their primary motivation is economic: to increase their plunder at the expense of the subject and the taxpayer. The ideology that they profess and that is formulated and spread through society by the court intellectuals is an elaborate rationalization for their economic interests. The ideology is the camouflage for their looting, the fictitious clothes spun by the intellectuals to hide the naked plundering of the emperor. The economic motive behind the ideological garb of the state is the heart of the issue.

But what of the actions of the rebels against state power—those infrequent but vital situations in history when the subjects rise up to diminish, whittle away, or abolish state power? What, in short, of such great events as the American Revolution or the classical liberal movements of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries? Of course, an economic motive exists here, too, in this case one of defending the private property of the subjects from the depredations of the state. But our contention here is that, even when conjoined as in the American Revolution, the major motive of the opposition, or of the revolutionaries, will be ideological rather than economic.

The basic reason for this assertion is that the ruling class, being small and largely specialized, is motivated to think about its economic interests twenty-four hours a day. Manufacturers seeking a tariff, merchants seeking to cripple their competition, bankers looking for taxes to repay their government bonds, rulers seeking a strong state from which to acquire revenue, bureaucrats wishing to expand their empire—all of these are professionals in statism. They are constantly at work trying to preserve and expand their privileges. Hence the primacy of the economic motive in their actions. But the majority has allowed itself to be misled largely because its immediate interests are generally diffuse and hard to observe, and because the majority comprises not professional “antistatists” but people going about their business of daily living.

What can the average person know of the arcane processes of subsidy or taxation or bond issue? Generally, he is too wrapped up in his daily life, too habituated to his lot after centuries of state-guided propaganda, to give any thought to his unfortunate fate. Hence, an opposition or revolutionary movement, or indeed any mass movement from below, cannot be primarily guided by ordinary economic motives.

For such a mass movement to form, the masses must be fired up, must be aroused to a rare and uncommon pitch of fervor against the existing system. But for that to happen, the masses must be fired up by ideology. Only ideology, guided either by a new religious conversion or by a passion for justice, can arouse the interest of the masses (in the current jargon, “raise their consciousness”) and lead them out of the morass of daily habit into an uncommon and militant activity in opposition to the state.

This is not to say that an economic motive—for example, a defense of their property—does not play an important role. But to form a mass movement in opposition means that the people must shake off their habits, their daily mundane concerns of several lifetimes, and become politically aroused and determined as never before in their lives. Only a commonly held and passionately believed-in ideology can perform that role. Hence our conclusion that a mass movement like the American Revolution must be centrally motivated by a commonly shared ideology.

How then do the masses of subjects acquire this guiding and determining ideology? By the very nature of the masses, it is impossible for them to arrive at such an opposition or revolutionary ideology on their own. Habituated as they are to their narrow and daily rounds, uninterested in ideology as they normally are, it is impossible for the masses to lift themselves up by their own bootstraps to hammer out an ideological movement in opposition to the existing state.

Here we arrive at the vital role of the intellectuals. Only intellectuals, full-time (or largely full-time) professionals in ideas, have the time, the ability, and the inclination to formulate an opposition ideology and then to spread the word to the people. In contrast to the statist court intellectual, whose role is a junior partner in rationalizing the economic interests of the ruling class, the radical or opposition intellectual’s role is the centrally guiding one of formulating the opposition or revolutionary ideology and then of spreading the ideology to the masses, thereby welding them into a revolutionary movement.

An important corollary: in weighing the motivations of the intellectuals themselves or even of the masses, it is generally true that setting oneself up in opposition to an existing state is a lonely, thorny, and often dangerous road. It is usually directly in the economic interests of the radical intellectuals to allow themselves to “sell out,” to be co-opted by the ruling state apparatus. The intellectuals who do choose the radical opposition path, who pledge—in the famous words of the American revolutionaries—“their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor,” can scarcely be dominated by economic motives; on the contrary, only a fiercely held ideology, centering on a passion for justice, can keep the intellectuals to the rigorous path of truth. Hence, again, the likelihood of a dominant role for ideology in an opposition movement.

Thus, statists tend to be governed by economic motivation, with ideology serving as a smokescreen for such motives, while libertarians or anti-statists are ruled principally and centrally by ideology, with economic defense playing a subordinate role. By this dichotomy we may at last resolve the age-old historiographical dispute over whether ideology or economic interests play the dominant role in historical motivation.

Posted in Freedom/Liberty, Leadership/Personal Development, Orrin Woodward | Tagged: Murray Rothbard | 30 Comments »

The Meaning of Liberty

Posted by Orrin Woodward on May 17, 2012

Liberty is nearly a sacred principle for most North American citizens. With that said, however, I have a sneaking suspicion that most of us do not understand all of its implications. For example, liberty doesn’t mean license, since a person isn’t free to do anything he likes as robbing and pillaging violate others rights. Furthermore, liberty doesn’t demand society to live according to a person’s preferences enforced by coercive means. Rather, liberty implies a respect for the God-given rights of others, refusing to use violence against others, unless in self-defense.

This confusion over the meaning of liberty seems to be at the forefront of today’s culture wars. Humanists want to force everyone in school to be fed their world-view; while on the other hand, many Christian leaders want to use the public schools to force-feed a Christian world-view. One example I have read, from many, is a 1980’s article from the Humanist magazine:

I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool, daycare, or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent with its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of “love thy neighbor” will finally be achieved.

I disagree with this philosophy for numerous reasons, one being it’s totalitarian implications. Indeed, in a free society, both the Humanist and the Christian agendas for our State school systems are improper, because they surrender liberty of thought to a monolithic mindset of one size fits all. The liberty philosophy, on the other hand, would step back from the problem further and ask: why have a public school system at all? Why not privatize the educational system so that humanist, Christians, Jews, etc, can teach the principles that they believe to their children. Isn’t freedom in education foundational to freedom in society? It seems peculiar that America values freedom so greatly, yet surrenders the freedom to educate their children to the State.

Why battle it out in public schools when liberty demands freedom for all world-views to compete in the marketplace of ideas? School vouchers would bring freedom and competition back to the woefully struggling American educational system. This isn’t a knock on the many hard-working teachers attempting to make a difference in a poorly designed system; rather, I am simply stating the “the Educational Emperor has no clothes on,” so to speak. 🙂 America will fall further and further behind if we continue to use our schools as indoctrination and socialization facilities, instead of its intended roles as learning, thinking, and doing educational centers. By giving parents the power of the purse, schools would quickly start serving the customers, not their own agendas. This is what the FREE in Free-Enterprise is all about.

America was the bastion of free enterprise and freedom for the individual, but now fights totalitarian style battles with the next-generation’s minds. America as a whole is the loser as our kids are quickly falling further and further behind in education as compared to other countries. Despite the fact that America spends more money per child than all the rest, we struggle to place in the Top 50 nations in education. This is a national embarrassment! The Mental Fitness Challenge is a program to restore some of the lost principles of a proper education back into the marketplace. Early results indicate the need is massive and the hunger is present within the populace.

Here is an article on Thomas Jefferson’s views to start the discussion on how we can free education from the powers-that-be. Even though I disagree with the humanist positions, I would fight for their right to liberty in the education of their children. Similarly, I would hope there are enough liberty loving people left in all philosophies to do the same for my family.

Sincerely,

Orrin Woodward

Posted in Faith, Freedom/Liberty, Orrin Woodward | 56 Comments »

America – Conceived in Liberty: Died in Tyranny?

Posted by Orrin Woodward on April 25, 2012

Murray Rothbard has struck again! Through reading his fascinating, albeit frustrating at times, history of America Conceived in Liberty, I stumbled across some shocking stories. Rothbard is the type of author that even when I disagree with him, I find myself laughing and thinking. I enjoy authors who make their readers think because so few do today. Since recorded history, governments have violated people’s inherent rights, but how these poor precedents proceed in perpetuity is astonishing. Has anyone studied the history of the English postal system? I certainly hadn’t! Let me quote from the irrepressible sacred cow buster Murray Rothbard:

Postal service began in the early American colonies as freely competitive private enterprises of varying forms and types. Letters between neighboring villages were sent by special messengers, who were often Indians. For longer journeys, letters were carried by travelers or regular merchants. Letters to or from England were carried by private ship captains, who often hung a bag in the local coffeehouse to receive letters for shipment. The price was generally a penny for a single letter and two pence for a double letter or parcel.

Unfortunately, English precedent held out little hope for the unhampered development of a freely competitive postal service. In 1591 the Crown had issued a proclamation granting itself the monopoly of all foreign mail, and in 1609 the Crown’s proclamation extended its own monopoly to all mail foreign or domestic. The purpose of this postal monopoly was quite simple: to enable governmental officials to read the letters of private citizens in order to discover and suppress “treason” and “sedition.”

Thus, when the Privy Council decided in 1627 to allow merchants to operate an independent foreign post, the king’s principal secretary of state wrote sternly: “Your lordship best knoweth what account we shall be able to give in our places of that which passeth by letters in or out of the land, if every man may convey letters under the course of merchants to whom and what place he pleaseth…how unfit a time this is to give liberty to every man to write and send what he list….” And in 1657 when the Commonwealth Parliament continued the English governmental postal monopoly, the preamble of the act stated a major objective: “to discover and prevent many dangerous and bigoted designs, which have been and are daily contrived against the peace and welfare of this Commonwealth, the intelligence whereof cannot well be communicated, but by letter of script.”

The first government meddling in the postal service in America came as early as 1639 in Massachusetts. At that time the government appointed Richard Fairbanks to be a receiver and deliverer of foreign letters for the price of one penny; no monopoly privilege was granted, and no one was prevented from using other postal intermediaries. The Dutch government in New Netherland went far beyond this when in 1657 it awarded itself a compulsory monopoly of receipt of foreign mail; anyone presuming to board a vessel first to obtain his own mail was fined thirty guilders. Ship captains were fined heavily for carrying letters for anyone except the government postal monopolist.

In other words, America’s “snail mail” postal monopoly has nothing to do with efficiency (I guess we all knew that :)); it has nothing to do with the poor economics of this generation; and it has everything to do with the State’s desire to spy on people’s thoughts, plans, and actions. This, mind you, from our English forefathers, whose ideas of liberty were modeled in the creation of America. The postal system is one area where we shouldn’t have applied English principles. If government has the right to spy at will, where does this right end? If someone disagrees with the ruling power, does that person have the right to open letters, emails, tap phones, etc? England’s unethical precedent is still affecting America’s postal system to this day.

I love history, but this isn’t the type of lessons I learned in school and neither will you. Since Big Government funds the schools, no one should be shocked about this. Sadly, with today’s further government interventions like the Patriot Act, to name one among many, civil liberties are quickly becoming a thing of the past. Harry Truman, an avid reader, once paraphrased Solomon when he said, “There is nothing new under the sun, only the history you don’t know.” We must educate ourselves on real history and not the government fed history from our schools and other government-funded institutions.

The battles fought over freedom today may be different in detail but astonishingly similar in principle. Yes, America was conceived in liberty; I pray it doesn’t die in tyranny.

Sincerely,

Orrin Woodward

Posted in Freedom/Liberty, Leadership/Personal Development | Tagged: Freedom/Liberty, liberty, Murray Rothbard | 12 Comments »

The Five Laws of Decline: The Greeks

Posted by Orrin Woodward on April 23, 2012

I am studying the effects of the Five Laws of Decline throughout history, and I am shocked how predictable this historical and economic method is. Let me share one of the many examples. Perhaps the reader will see a correlation with today’s American Empire. 🙂 Thanks, Orrin Woodward

The Greek City States Alliances

The Greeks were a small band of city-states bound by racial ties, but without a coercive federal union. The Five Laws of Decline (FLD) were held in check by the divided sovereignties of the Greek city-states; however, this changed with the unifying effect of the war against Persia. Initially, Sparta and the Peloponnesian League led the Greek alliance, but after the Persian’s retreat from mainland Greece and the Greek’s counterattack and victory march into the Ionian (Greek) colonies of Asia Minor, the Persian War was effectively over.

The Spartans, to their credit, wanted to terminate the alliance and enjoy some peace and tranquility. Sadly, however, once the Greeks realized the capabilities inherent in united action, the divided sovereignty stage of Greek life ended, and the empire, along with the FLD, began. With the Spartans backing out of leadership, the Athenians, led by their commander Xanthippus, vowed that if no one else would protect the Ionians of Asia Minor, then the Athenians would, especially since Asia Minor, for the most part, originally consisted of colonies from Athens.

The Delian League

In 477 BC, on the island of Delos, the Athenians led a congress of over 150 states to create a new alliance called the Delian League to fight against the Persians. This league changed the character of the Greeks forever as it launched the ravages of FLD on a scale previously unknown. Without realizing the inherent dangers associated with FLD and empire building, the Greeks formed an offense-minded league to plunder gains from weaker enemies and replace their conventional defense-minded leagues of the past. Despite the noble official aim of the Delian League, “to avenge the wrongs they suffered by ravaging the territory of the king,” in actuality, the league existed to “utilize the burgeoning might of [the] new Athenian Empire to expropriate unjust gains from league members and various victims in surrounding areas.” 🙂

Basically, there were three main objectives of the Delian League: defend against further invasions by Persia, avenge Persia’s invasion, and divide the spoils of war gained by the allies. Each ally was given a choice to either offer armed services or pay a tax into the league treasury. Given the strength of the Athenian forces and the fear of the Persians, most of the states chose to pay the tax in lieu of providing men and ships. The FLD grew rapidly under this fertile field for plunder. As the Athenians realized the ability to reap profit without efforts, the taxes quickly increased, the alliance of friendly states turned into Athenian hegemony over its weaker brethren, and the Athenians ventured out with a funded, aggressive, and victorious military seeking further plunder.

Thucydides commented on the transformation of Athens from ally to empire builder:

Of all the causes of defection, that connected with arrears of tribute and vessels, and with failure of service, was the chief; for the Athenians were very severe and exacting, and made themselves offensive by applying the screw of necessity to men who were not used to and in fact not disposed for any continuous labor. In some other respects the Athenians were not the old popular rulers they had been at first; and if they had more than their fair share of service, it was correspondingly easy for them to reduce any that tried to leave the confederacy. The Athenians also arranged for the other members of the league to pay its share of the expense in money instead of in ships and men, and for this the subject city-states had themselves to blame, their wish to get out of giving service making most leave their homes. Thus while Athens was increasing her navy with the funds they contributed, a revolt always found itself without enough resources or experienced leaders for war.

The Five Laws of Decline (FLD)

By analyzing the behavior of Athens, one quickly identifies the FLD (discussed in my book RESOLVED: 13 Resolutions for LIFE in the Legacy chapter) at work helping to destroy Greek liberty.

First, because of Sturgeon’s Law, it was only a matter of time before the absolute power derived from the Athenian’s dictatorial position drew proto-Machiavellian operators into the leadership positions. The Delian League’s political structure would have required angels, not men, in order to limit the possibilities of aggrandizement inherent in the Delian League’s design.

Second, Bastiat’s Law bloomed when the Athenians realized that, since they were receiving the taxes (tributes) and providing the protection, they also could dictate the terms of the “alliance” because he who has the gold makes the rules. Naxos, was the first island to realize its error and challenge the Athenian political control by attempting to withdraw from the league. The Athenians (the former lovers of liberty) viciously attacked and defeated Naxos, forcing the inhabitants to tear down their wall, surrender their fleet, and lose their vote in the Delian League. Naxos, in other words, was no longer an ally in the Delian League, but rather a prisoner of the Athenian Empire. Other states quickly read the tea leaves, and Athens resorted to threats and attacks to subjugate any allies brave enough to question Athenian hegemony.

Third, Gresham’s Law reared its ugly head by driving any noble politicians of liberty underground. Consequently, the only politicians remaining played power politics games to run the coercive league for personal and professional gain. By 461, the conservative Greek Cimon was ostracized, leading to further influence from the democratic elements led by Ephialtes and Pericles. This signaled the end of the official alliance with Sparta and the beginning of preparations for war between the two rival factions of Greeks – Peloponnesian and Athenian. Easy gain and plunder drove out the character-based conservative leaders and replaced them with plunder-hungry Machiavellian war leaders who catered to the democratic masses.

Fourth, as the Delian League digressed from an alliance into an empire, the Athenians invested time into two plunderous activities: further empire building and continued repression of any “allies” who objected to the Athenian dictates. The Athenian League grew in size and repression. Therefore, the Law of Diminishing Returns (LDR) hindered its effectiveness. In addition, the fear of the Athenian League drew a multitude of rivals to unite under the equally strong Peloponnesian League. Guess what happens when the unstoppable force meets the immovable object? LDR drained the resources of the Athenian and Peloponnesian Leagues while they fought one another for decades in a dispute over greed, plunder, and power – all initiated thanks to the corrosive effects of FLD.

Fifth, the Law of Inertia ensured that the liberties enjoyed by the former independent Greek city states would be difficult, if not impossible, to revive. Each city was forced to choose between one league or the other, as the risk of facing either empire was too great on any one state’s meager resources in comparison with those of the empire. The era of independent city states was finished, and the inertia slammed the door on the previous liberties as powerful alliances were the only way to ensure protection against subjugation. Ironically, the independent city states, in other words, surrendered their independence for fear of losing their independence. 🙂

The subsequent Peloponnesian war weakened both leagues, leaving all of the Greeks prostrate before Macedonia and Alexander the Great. Liberty was snuffed out by innate desire for plunder caused by allowing the FLD to work unchecked. The Greek people would remain subjugated to the Greek, Roman, and eventually the Turkish Empire – their ignoble reward for ignoring the Five Laws of Decline.

Sincerely,

Orrin Woodward

Posted in Freedom/Liberty, Leadership/Personal Development, Orrin Woodward | Tagged: Delian League, Five Laws of Decline, RESOLVED: 13 Resolutions for LIFE | 28 Comments »

« Previous Entries

Next Entries »

Inc Magazine Top 20 Leader shares his personal, professional, and financial secrets.

Orrin Woodward

Orrin’s Latest Book

7 Day Free Access to Leadership Audios!

Email Me

NY Times Bestselling Book

Mental Fitness Challenge

Categories

Favorite Blogs

Favorite Sites

Social Media

Archives

Archive for the ‘Freedom/Liberty’ Category

Andrew Jackson & the Bank Veto

The Bank’s Advocates

Bank Declares War on Economy

Andrew Jackson’s Resolve

Andrew Jackson

Inflationary Policies

Big Banks Marry Big Business

Nicholas Biddle versus Andrew Jackson

By MARK SPITZNAGEL

The Influence of Christianity on Western Civilization

Petition of Right I (1628)

Meeting at Runnymede

The Story of King John and Magna Carta

King John vs. the Church

King John vs. the Barons

The Road to Runnymede

Meeting at Runnymede

Aftermath