Orrin Woodward on LIFE & Leadership

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

  • Orrin Woodward

    1
    Former 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 financial, 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. 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.

  • Orrin’s Latest Book








  • 7 Day Free Access to Leadership Audios!

  • Email Me

  • NY Times Bestselling Book


  • Mental Fitness Challenge

  • Categories

  • Archives

Archive for the ‘Freedom/Liberty’ Category

Without freedom, there is no leadership.

Thrill of Victory, Agony of Defeat, and Joy of Learning

Posted by Orrin Woodward on August 24, 2013

This is part four of a four-part series on LIFE Leadership Fun. To start at the first segment, please click here.

The whole series now boiled down to one game for the Band of Brothers (BoB). If they lost, it was over; otherwise, with a win, both teams would settle it once and for all on day seven. Each team experienced the increasing pressure and grueling exhaustion by reaching our competitive limit. Nevertheless, it is an athlete’s dream to experience true competitive greatness when one’s physical limits are reached and the mental discipline must take over. I took the measure of each man on the court just before passing in the ball to start game three. Every single player was a winner who had his game face on, determined to give his all and contribute to his team’s victory. In other words, no one had cracked, and it promised to be a war to the finish. The final game started with baskets trading back and forth and was tied at 4 points a piece at the first water break. The BoB, however, surged out of the break, scoring three unanswered baskets to take a commanding 7–4 lead.

Ending this run was not an option, and I found myself repeating the words “stops and pops” out loud. Holger and Bill knew exactly what I meant, namely, stops on defense and quick pops on offense. The next offensive series for the BoB was crucial because overcoming an 8–4 lead would have been a tall order. Thankfully, we did not give the BoB any good looks at the rim, and even if we did, we vowed to foul if necessary, as we could not allow an easy shot. Still, their next shot danced tauntingly on the rim, for what seemed like an eternity, before finally rolling off into Holger’s awaiting arms.

PC Team

PC Team

The next set of events I experienced in slow motion, although the game pace was extremely fast on the court. Holger passed the ball to me, and I quickly launched a bomb from downtown that hit the mark, making it 7–5. Because we had played “buckets” the whole series, the scoring team would keep the ball until the defense stopped them. Bill inbounded the ball to me, and we looked to continue our rally. Over the years, Bill and I have played a ton of basketball together, and when we made eye contact and nodded, I knew exactly what he wanted to do without a word being communicated. For it was time to execute a series of flawless pick-and-rolls and end this game, or we would have to confront the BoB again on day seven. I dribbled to the left into a beautiful screen set by Bill that checked Morgan. Birtles, however, quickly rushed in front of me to stop my wide open shot. Noticing the overplay by Birtles, Bill rolled to the hoop and I hit him with a perfect bounce pass that he caught in stride for the layup, making it 7–6.

Two more beautiful screens by Bill left me open for running layups that pushed us into the lead 8–7. Finally, the BoB stopped our surge, and we traded baskets to make it 9–8 with the BoB dribbling the ball intent on tying it up. A shot by Birtles bounced long off the rim into my arms around the free-throw line. I quickly dribble to the top of the key, hoping to catch the BoB napping, to take a quick shot. I turned to face the hoop and made eye contact with Steve Morgan in a dead sprint towards me. I made up my mind to shoot anyway and arced a moon ball that took forever to come down. Somehow the shot just avoided the outstretched hands of Morgan, and he turned around just in time to see the moon ball swish through the net. PC Team was up 10–8 with just one more point to go!

Bill shot the potential game-winning shot that just missed, but Holger’s offensive rebounding gave us two more shots at victory. Incredibly, both layups rolled on the rim but refused to fall. Three game-winning shots, in other words, but no points! The BoB rebounded and took possession. Steve, guarded by me, dribbled to the right to lead me into Kirk’s screen. However, as Kirk attempted to roll, one of his calf muscles popped, and he collapsed in pain on the court. He was not getting back up, and just like that, the series and summer were over due to an injury. Since we were leading by the required two points, the game ended in our victory, by an injury forfeit, winning day six two games to one and the day series four days to two. Thankfully Kirk, who is a former physical therapist, is recovering nicely and preparing for next year.

Only people who are free mid-morning every day can enjoy this type of fun. Further, only people who understand and apply the PDCA process can enjoy the mental chess match of two winning teams engaged in war. Next summer promises to be even better as I am planning to form teams of PC Primers Leader pins. Each three-man team will compete in a Gus-Macker–like tournament at 10 a.m. in the morning while everyone else is working. LIFE Leadership is about Having Fun, Making Money, and Making a Difference, and this definitely fits in the Fun category! Why not get free and join a team to battle it out in a three-on-three basketball tournament? And since some people don’t like basketball, maybe other free LIFE Leaders will initiate a golf/volleyball/baseball/football/etc. tournament.

I thoroughly enjoyed myself in this series. Looking back, I think the key lesson each of the players took away from it was how much fun it can be to incorporate the PDCA process into life. When winners get together to compete, it promises to be a great time. In all the games, no one trash-talked, gave cheap shots, or cheated. Instead, it was just competition at the highest of levels amongst friends and business partners. I cannot wait until next year! Anyone care to join us?

Sincerely,

Orrin Woodward

Posted in Freedom/Liberty, Fun, Leadership/Personal Development, LIFE Leadership | 23 Comments »

Competitive Greatness

Posted by Orrin Woodward on August 23, 2013

This is the third segment of a four-part series on the summertime basketball wars between the Michigan LIFE Leadership PC team and the Band of Brothers (BoB). To start with the first segment, click here.

PC Team

PC Team

One great thing about winners is they never get comfortable with losing. In fact, show me anyone who is comfortable losing, and I will show you someone who loses consistently. The PC team was never comfortable losing. Accordingly, Bill worked tirelessly on his step-through move to counter Kirk’s harassing defense. Additionally, I asked Holger to come over Wednesday morning to practice offensive rebounding and shooting while keeping his hands up, thus reducing turnovers and increasing points. Above all, however, was our decision to return to a man-to-man defense and scrap the zone.

I assigned myself the daunting task of guarding Morgan in the man defense. Although I had a slight size advantage, he had about every other advantage in the game, including playing the game regularly, being a decade younger, and being on a massive hot streak from the previous game. Nonetheless, bolstered with some ibuprofen, I believed I could slow his drives, challenge his shots, and hopefully break his rhythm. It all sounded good on paper, but only game day would reveal the quality of the PDCA.

Although my assignment promised to be challenging, Bill’s may have been even tougher. Somehow Bill, despite being five inches shorter than Kirk, had to shut down his inside/outside game. Remember, it was Kirk’s deadly accurate shot that had toasted us in the contest before. If a defender gives Kirk space, he shoots a ridiculously high percentage. Therefore, Bill agreed to stay in Kirk’s face, chasing him all over the court, refusing to give him any space for his shot. Meanwhile, we coached Holger to let Aron shoot his jump shot but challenge anything inside. Given our poor performance in the previous games, this PDCA had to work, or this series would be over!

Fortunately, day five confirmed our PDCA was successful. We shut down Steve’s drives and Kirk’s outside game. Although Aron hit a couple of wing shots, it wasn’t enough to keep them in the game. Bill had his best day of the series, scoring at will inside and out. Holger also had his best day, rebounding better than ever and scoring on many offensive rebounds. Finally, my long-range jumper kept the defense spread out, allowing Bill the spacing for his drives. The PC team won the first game 11–5 and the second one 11–2. The momentum had turned with our best performance to date, and we looked forward to the next day with a three-day to two lead in the series. Everyone expected Tuesday to be the most intense competition yet, as the BoB faced elimination and the PC team focused on ending the series. We knew we had better finish the series before the younger legs wore us down.

All weekend long, Holger, Bill, and I contemplated what the BoB would do to slow our aggressive defense and inside/outside juggernaut from the day before. Not surprisingly, when day six started, the answer from the BoB was clear. First, they came an hour early to practice at the Columbiaville elementary school. They worked on various maneuvers to check our game plan, even going as far as setting plays called out by number! The level of competition this day lived up to its advanced billing, with neither team giving an inch. In fact, I remember at one point thinking this was exactly what Wooden had described in his book on competitive greatness. It is simply awesome to experience a game that pushes a person to his competitive limit with other winners doing the same thing!

Nevertheless, only one team could win the series, and the BoB felt it should be them. They blew our doors off in game one. No, they didn’t just win; they annihilated us by a score of 11–2! Later, I learned one of their PDCAs was a realization that the team that had won the first game eventually won the day’s contest; therefore, they poured everything into game one for the victory. The BoB played with reckless abandon, letting no shot go unchallenged and owning every loose ball. How could anyone keep up a pace like this? The PC team didn’t panic after the blistering defeat but did make some adjustments. Holger promised to step up his rebounding, while Bill committed to take the ball to the rim and pass it back to me if he was double-teamed. Despite our team being exhausted from the physical pounding in game one, I believe the BoB team members were even more spent, as it is practically impossible to play that hard for any length of time. They had truly left it all on the court in game one. Our offense finally started to click, and we came back to return the favor on the exhausted BoB by trouncing them 11–2 in the second game.

The whole series pivoted upon the final game. Would the PC team pull it off, or would the BoB send the series to day seven? To be continued tomorrow.

Sincerely,

Orrin Woodward

Posted in Freedom/Liberty, Fun, Leadership/Personal Development, LIFE Leadership | 16 Comments »

Victory, Defeat, and the Drama

Posted by Orrin Woodward on August 22, 2013

This is part two of four on LIFE Leadership summer fun. Apply the same principles to your life that were applied in this basketball series, and you will meet with uncommon success. To read the first segment click here.

Band of Brothers PDCA

Band of Brothers

Band of Brothers

Like winners do, the Band of Brothers (BoB) upped their game the second day, playing like there was no tomorrow! Day two began with us back in our man-to-man defense, with me assigned to cover Kirk Birtles. I use that word loosely, as he and Aron Radosa played like they were on pogo sticks! Every time I turned around, they were airborne for another rebound! The BoB simply killed us, as Birtles and Morgan hit nearly every shot, and on the occasional miss, Radosa was there with the rebound. Although I was personally shooting better than day one, the PC team was no match for the BoB freight train. Even though we squeaked out a second-game victory, it didn’t matter, as we were humiliated in game three. Without a doubt, if someone had recorded the day’s competition, he would have concluded the PC team was incapable of competing against the BoB athleticism and intensity. Fortunately, however, the PC team also had some experience with the PDCA process. 🙂

I hate losing—simply HATE it! But I had to concede to the BoB that they had earned their victory. Nevertheless, Thursday couldn’t come soon enough, as I found myself envisioning a different outcome and practicing daily in preparation for the upcoming battle. Bill and Holger felt the same way, and day three was a day of redemption. Our main PDCA was a switch from man-to-man into a zone defense. This allowed Holger to utilize his size as well as his shot-blocking and rebounding skills underneath the hoop without having to chase Aron around the court. Bill and I completed the zone defense by challenging every pass, discombobulating the BoB strategy. In essence, this hindered Morgan’s ability to drive to the basket, slowing his impressive playmaking abilities. We focused on stopping their inside game and forcing the BoB to beat us on outside jumpers. Our zone threw the BoB out of their rhythm and spacing, leading to poor shot selection. Furthermore, Holger’s defense denied easy layups to anyone entering his space. This was the perfect PDCA at the time, and we won both games to take a 2–1 series lead.

The BoB are champions, however, and would not take this defeat lying down. All weekend, they planned their strategic response. Interestingly, when either team lost, they seemed to dive into why and make adjustments. In contrast, when our team won, we seemed to stand pat, expecting what worked yesterday to work again. This, however, was a huge mistake and why I teach to find a victory in every defeat and a defeat in every victory to continue the PDCA learning process. In an effort to verify that knowledge isn’t wisdom until its applied, the PC team repeatedly neglected this crucial principle, and the BoB capitalized on our error.

Day four started with us in the same zone defense that had previously worked so well. But the same cannot be said for this day. The BoB made adjustments that tore our zone apart. First, they ran picks to clear Kirk and Aron for wide-open, mid-range jumpers and hit them consistently. Second, once we started overplaying the jumper, Steve drove in and hit shot after shot off the backboard! I couldn’t believe how well they were shooting, and Bill, Holger, and myself seemed powerless to stop it. Somehow, our team fought back and tied the first game but could not hang with the fresher legs of the BoB and lost in overtime.

The second game, our zone defense looked even more porous. Jumper after jumper from Kirk and Steve killed us. Holger attempted to adjust by coming out to defend the shots, which only led to Aron killing us inside. We lost 11–4 and were never in the game. I had to commend the BoB again. They had sliced and diced our zone defense with their PDCA and left no doubt they could handle our zone defense in the future. In fact, at the time, I had no idea how we could stop their new style of play. On a personal note, adding insult to injury, Steve Morgan switched to guarding me personally, refusing to let me shoot my long-range bombs. Indeed, he did not give me an inch of space and neutralized my ability to consistently score outside to spread out their defense. Meanwhile, Kirk stepped up his defense and blocked Bill’s shots repeatedly, proving their defensive switch was the perfect PDCA. We now were in a full code red as the BoB had evened out the series at 2–2, but even more important, had the momentum going into Thursday’s event.

To be continued tomorrow.

Sincerely,

Orrin Woodward

Posted in Freedom/Liberty, Fun, Leadership/Personal Development, LIFE Leadership | 15 Comments »

Summer PDCA Fun

Posted by Orrin Woodward on August 21, 2013

PC Team

PC Team

What a summer it has been in Michigan. In fact, it may be the best summer of fun since Laurie and I purchased the property in the Columbiaville area. The LIFE Leadership promotions we ran on Saturdays were blessed with great weather and taught the communities how to Have Fun, Make Money, and Make a Difference. Moreover, because I desired to stay in shape but loath treadmills or any other fitness activity not involving competition, I asked Bill Lewis if he thought some of his free RT guys would be interested in a little three-on-three driveway basketball.

At the time, I had no idea what a big part of the summertime fun this would become. For Bill Lewis, Holger Spiewak, Aron Radosa, Kirk Birtles, Steve Morgan, and I became engaged in a basketball war in a best of seven series that will be talked about for years. It all started when we divided the teams into the PC Members (the old guys) and the Band of Brothers (the younger guys). This created two teams that refused to back down, let down, or stay down. In fact, only minutes into the first game, I realized that shooting around with my teenagers was not proper preparation for the level of intensity required to compete in these games. Not surprisingly, my timing was off the whole first day as I attempted to adjust to the level of competition.

My teammates, on the other hand, picked up the slack. Holger Spiewak, despite not knowing the game of basketball, had starred as a soccer player in his younger days, and his athleticism reminded me of a young Dennis Rodman with the Detroit Pistons. However, the quintessential basketball player and stalwart of the PC team was Bill Lewis. His playing on opening day carried us to victory, as his outside jump shot, inside drives, and quick passes allowed the PC team to win all three games. After the games, I suggested maybe we could do it again on Thursday, and an epic series was born.

Band of Brothers

Band of Brothers

I believed, since we won each of the first three games, we would really hurt them on Thursday after I started playing at the new rhythm and speed of the game. My thinking, however, foolishly missed one very important point, namely, the PDCA process. The Band of Brothers (BoB) consisted of three great athletes who understand and implement the PDCA process daily in their lives. With the inside/outside combination of Radosa and Birtles, a competitive series was  guaranteed as these two relentless rebounders pack solid muscle on their chiseled, near 200-pound frames. Moving them out of their post, in other words, was practically impossible. Interestingly, both starred in football and baseball in high school (but thankfully for us, not basketball), and neither comprehends the word quit.

The final BoB opponent was Steve Morgan. This gentleman did play basketball in high school (and in pickup games across Michigan) and thus quarterbacked his team. His knowledge of the game allowed him to make the needed adjustments to check our strategies. This ensured that neither team would run away with this series and that every victory would be earned. Steve played the point guard position, distributing the ball to whomever had the hot hand. And if we relaxed at all on defense, he would drive right past us for easy hoops. Above all, Steve’s killer instinct, upping his intensity and focus when the game was on the line, made each game a war. Nonetheless, because of our impressive victory on day one, I was lulled into passivity and only awoke after the BoB storm of day two.

To be continued tomorrow.

Sincerely,

Orrin Woodward

Posted in Freedom/Liberty, Fun, Leadership/Personal Development, LIFE Leadership | 22 Comments »

Chris Ashton Kutcher: Build Your Life

Posted by Orrin Woodward on August 16, 2013

I recently received this video on Chris Ashton Kutcher’s acceptance speech. He spoke so truth in an age of lies and didn’t need hours to do so! We need more people learning, speaking, and acting on truth if we intend to build a life, not just live one. This is exactly what LIFE Leadership is – a way to build your own life! I was extremely impressed by what Mr. Kutcher had to say and encourage more people to have the courage to learn, speak, and act on truth. Here is a summary of his talk followed by the video.

Sincerely,

Orrin Woodward

Chris Ashton Kutcher’s Speech Summary:

1. Opportunity – Opportunity looks like hard work. I have never had a job in my life that I was better than and I never quit my job until I had another lined up.

2. Sexy – The sexiest thing in the entire world is being really smart, thoughtful, and generous. Everything else is crap, that people try to sell to you to make you feel like less. Don’t buy it!

3. Living life – Something I just relearned while making a movie about Steve Jobs. Jobs said when you grow up you tend to get told that world is the way it is and your life is to live your life inside the world and try to not get into trouble. Maybe get an education, job, and family. Life is simpler when you understand that everything around us that we call life was made by people that are no smarter than you. You can build your own life that other people can live in. Build a life, don’t live one!

Posted in Family, Freedom/Liberty | 51 Comments »

Theory, History, & Ideas

Posted by Orrin Woodward on August 2, 2013

The endeavors to mislead posterity about what really happened and to substitute a fabrication for a faithful recording are often inaugurated by the men who themselves played an active role in the events, and begin with the instant of their happening, or sometimes even precede their occurrence. To lie about historical facts and to destroy evidence has been in the opinion of hosts of statesmen, diplomats, politicians and writers a legitimate part of the conduct of public affairs and of writing history. Mises concludes that one of the primary tasks of the historian, therefore, “is to unmask such falsehoods. – Ludwig Von Mises from  Theory and History

The above quote from Ludwig Von Mises changed the way I studied and read history. For it confirmed, in my mind, that history results when the ideas percolating inside the mind of human actors are birthed before the watching world. Indeed, this mental breakthrough was nothing short of revolutionary because it ultimately led to the development of the groundbreaking Five Laws of Decline.

Joseph Salerno

Joseph Salerno

Joseph Salerno, an Austrian economist and scholar,  in his fantastic introduction to Murray Rothbard’s History of Banking in the United States elaborates on Mises’s and Rothbard’s historical method. Please read carefully and notice how ideas have consequences in history. Specifically, notice how important truth is to the world’s future, since untruth acted upon leads to misery and decline.

LIFE Leadership‘s purpose is to lead people to truth by building communities that have fun, make money, and make a difference through providing life-changing information in the 8F’s (Faith, Family, Finances, Fitness, Freedom, Fun, Friendship, and Following) of life. Since, as Mises, Rothbard, and Salerno explain, ideas have consequences, what LIFE Leadership does matters greatly at the deepest of levels. Here is a portion of Salerno’s introduction.

Sincerely,

Orrin Woodward

To begin with, Mises grounds his discussion of historical method on the insight that ideas are the primordial stuff of history. In his words:

History is the record of human action. Human action is the conscious effort of man to substitute more satisfactory conditions for less satisfactory ones. Ideas determine what are to be considered more and less satisfactory conditions and what means are to be resorted to to alter them. Thus ideas are the main theme of the study of history.

This is not to say that all history should be intellectual history, but that ideas are the ultimate cause of all social phenomena, including and especially economic phenomena. As Mises puts it.

The genuine history of mankind is the history of ideas. It is ideas that distinguish man from all other beings. Ideas engender social institutions, political changes, technological methods of production, and all that is called economic conditions.

Thus, for Mises, history establishes the fact that men, inspired by definite ideas, made definite judgments of value, chose definite ends, and resorted to definite means in order to attain the ends chosen, and it deals furthermore with the outcome of their actions, the state of affairs the action brought about.^

Ideas—specifically those embodying the purposes and values that direct action—are not only the point of contact between history and economics, but differing attitudes toward them are precisely what distinguish the methods of the two disciplines. Both economics and history deal with individual choices of ends and the judgments of value underlying them. On the one hand, economic theory as a branch of praxeology takes these value judgments and choices as given data and restricts itself to logically inferring from them the laws governing the valuing and pricing of the means or “goods.” As such, economics does not inquire into the individual’s motivations in valuing and choosing specific ends. Hence, contrary to the positivist method, the truth of economic theorems is substantiated apart from and without reference to specific and concrete historical experience. They are the conclusions of logically valid deduction from universal experience of the fact that humans adopt means that they believe to be appropriate in attaining ends that they judge to be valuable.^

The subject of history, on the other hand, “is action and the judgments of value directing action toward definite ends.”!” This means that for history, in contrast to economics, actions and value judgments are not ultimate “givens” but, in Mises’s words, “are the starting point of a specific mode of reflection, of the specific understanding of the historical sciences of human action.” Equipped with the method of “specific understanding,” the historian, “when faced with a value judgment and the resulting action . . . may try to understand how they originated in the mind of the actor.

For Mises, then, if the historian is to present a complete explanation of a particular event, he must bring to bear not only his “specific understanding” of the motives of action but the theorems of economic science as well as those of the other “aprioristic,” or nonexperimental, sciences, such as logic and mathematics. He must also utilize knowledge yielded by the natural sciences, including the applied sciences of technology and therapeutics.15 Familiarity with the teachings of all these disciplines is required in order to correctly identify the causal relevance of a particular action to a historical event, to trace out its specific consequences, and to evaluate its success from the point of view of the actor’s goals.

But what exactly is the historical method of specific understanding, and how can it provide true knowledge of a wholly subjective and unobservable phenomenon like human motivation? First of all, as Mises emphasizes, the specific understanding of past events is not a mental process exclusively resorted to by historians. It is applied by everybody in daily intercourse with all his fellows. It is a technique employed in all interhuman relations. It is practiced by children in the nursery and kindergarten, by businessmen in trade, by politicians and statesmen in affairs of state. All are eager to get information about other people’s valuations and plans and to appraise them correctly! The reason this technique is so ubiquitously employed by people in their daily affairs is because all action aims at rearranging future conditions so that they are more satisfactory from the actor’s point of view. However, the future situation that actually emerges always depends partly on the purposes and choices of others besides the actor. In order to achieve his ends, then, the actor must anticipate not only changes affecting the future state of affairs caused by natural phenomena, but also the changes that result from the conduct of others who, like him, are contemporaneously planning and acting.

As Mises puts it, “Understanding aims at anticipating future conditions as far as they depend on human ideas, valuations, and actions.” – Ludwig Von Mises from Ultimate Foundation

Posted in Freedom/Liberty, LIFE Leadership | 13 Comments »

Lord Acton: Modern History

Posted by Orrin Woodward on July 25, 2013

Lord Acton

Lord Acton

John Dalberg-Acton (Lord Acton) was one of the greatest minds and historians of his era. Counselor to Prime Minister William Gladstone, Lord Acton probably understood the battle between freedom and force better than anyone. Unfortunately, his much anticipated work on the history of freedom was never completed. Nonetheless, historians, who have read his notes and annotations, have raved about his immense wisdom on people, power, and politics.

Recently, I completed a series of lectures from Lord Acton in his book Modern History. There were so many nuggets in this book that I wanted to highlight the whole thing! In any event, I want to share with you one segment of the book where he talks about the origins of England’s conflict with its American colonies. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

Sincerely,

Orrin WoodwardLIFE Leadership Co-Founder

Then came the larger question of taxation. Regulation of external traffic was admitted. England patrolled the sea and protected America from the smuggler and the pirate. Some remuneration might be reasonably claimed; but it ought to be obtained in such a way as not to hamper and prohibit the increase of wealth. The restrictions on industry and trade were, however, contrived for the benefit of England and to the injury of her colonies. They demanded that the arrangement should be made for their mutual advantage. They did not go so far as to affirm that it ought to be to their advantage only, irrespective of ours, which is our policy with our colonies at the present time. The claim was not originally excessive. It is the basis of the imputation that the dispute, on both sides, was an affair of sordid interest. We shall find it more just to say that the motive was empire on one side and self–government on the other.

It was a question between liberty and authority, government by consent and government by force, the control of the subject by the State, and the control of the State by the subject. The issue had never been so definitely raised. In England it had long been settled. It had been settled that the legislature could, without breach of any ethical or constitutional law, without forfeiting its authority or exposing itself to just revolt, make laws injurious to the subject for the benefit of English religion or English trade. If that principle was abandoned in America it could not well be maintained in Ireland, and the green flag might fly on Dublin Castle. This was no survival of the dark ages. Both the oppression of Ireland and the oppression of America was the work of the modern school, of men who executed one king and expelled another. It was the work of parliament, of the parliaments of Cromwell and of William III. And the parliament would not consent to renounce its own specific policy, its right of imposing taxes.

The crown, the clergy, the aristocracy, were hostile to the Americans; but the real enemy was the House of Commons. The old European securities for good government were found insufficient protection against parliamentary oppression. The nation itself, acting by its representatives, had to be subjected to control. The political problem raised by the New World was more complicated than the simple issues dealt with hitherto in the Old. It had become necessary to turn back the current of the development of politics, to bind and limit and confine the State, which it was the pride of the moderns to exalt. It was a new phase of political history. The American Revolution innovated upon the English Revolution, as the English Revolution innovated on the politics of Bacon or of Hobbes. There was no tyranny to be resented. The colonists were in many ways more completely their own masters than Englishmen at home. They were not roused by the sense of intolerable wrong.

The point at issue was a very subtle and refined one, and it required a great deal of mismanagement to make the quarrel irreconcilable. Successive English governments shifted their ground. They tried the Stamp Act; then the duty on tea and several other articles; then the tea duty alone; and at last something even less than the tea duty. In one thing they were consistent: they never abandoned the right of raising taxes. When the colonists, instigated by Patrick Henry, resisted the use of stamps, and Pitt rejoiced that they had resisted, parliament gave way on that particular measure, declaring that it retained the disputed right. Townshend carried a series of taxes on imports, which produced about three hundred pounds, and were dropped by Lord North. Then an ingenious plan was devised, which would enforce the right of taxation, but which would not be felt by American pockets, and would, indeed, put money into them, in the shape of a bribe. East Indiamen were allowed to carry tea to American ports without paying toll in England.

The Navigation Laws were suspended, that people in New England might drink cheap tea, without smuggling. The duty in England was a shilling a pound. The duty in America was threepence a pound. The shilling was remitted, so that the colonies had only a duty of threepence to pay instead of a duty of fifteenpence. The tea–drinker at Boston got his tea cheaper than the tea–drinker at Bristol. The revenue made a sacrifice, it incurred a loss, in order to gratify the discontented colonials. If it was a grievance to pay more for a commodity, how could it be a grievance to pay less for the same commodity? To gild the pill still further, it was proposed that the threepence should be levied at the British ports, so that the Americans should perceive nothing but the gift, nothing but the welcome fact that their tea was cheaper, and should be spared entirely the taste of the bitterness within. That would have upset the entire scheme. The government would not hear of it. America was to have cheap tea, but was to admit the tax. The sordid purpose was surrendered on our side, and only the constitutional motive was retained, in the belief that the sordid element alone prevailed in the colonies. That threepence broke up the British empire.

Twelve years of renewed contention, ever coming up in altered shape under different ministers, made it clear that the mind of the great parent State was made up, and that all variations of party were illusory. The Americans grew more and more obstinate as they purged the sordid question of interest with which they had begun. At first they had consented to the restrictions imposed under the Navigation Laws. They now rejected them. One of the tea ships in Boston harbour was boarded at night, and the tea chests were flung into the Atlantic. That was the mild beginning of the greatest Revolution that had ever broken out among civilised men. The dispute had been reduced to its simplest expression, and had become a mere question of principle. The argument from the Charters, the argument from the Constitution, was discarded. The case was fought out on the ground of the Law of Nature, more properly speaking, of Divine Right. On that evening of 16th December 1773, it became, for the first time, the reigning force in History. By the rules of right, which had been obeyed till then, England had the better cause. By the principle which was then inaugurated, England was in the wrong, and the future belonged to the colonies. The revolutionary spirit had been handed down from the seventeenth–century sects, through the colonial charters.

As early as 1638 a Connecticut preacher said: “The choice of public magistrates belongs unto the people, by God’s own allowance. They who have the power to appoint officers and magistrates, it is in their power, also, to set the bounds and limitations of the power and place unto which they call them.” In Rhode Island, where the Royal Charter was so liberal that it lasted until 1842, all power reverted annually to the people, and the authorities had to undergo re–election. Connecticut possessed so finished a system of self–government in the towns, that it served as a model for the federal Constitution. The Quakers of Pennsylvania managed their affairs without privilege, or intolerance, or slavery, or oppression. It was not to imitate England that they went into the desert. Several colonies were in various ways far ahead of the mother country; and the most advanced statesman of the Commonwealth, Vane, had his training in New England. After the outrage on board the Dartmouth in Boston harbour the government resolved to coerce Massachusetts, and a continental Congress met to devise means for its protection.

Posted in Freedom/Liberty | 19 Comments »

Murray Rothbard: Society, Freedom, & Inequality

Posted by Orrin Woodward on July 19, 2013

The Essential Rothbard

The Essential Rothbard

I finished reading David Gordon’s book The Essential Rothbard several days ago and I am simply blown away. I have read and enjoyed at least ten Murray Rothbard books, but his depth, range, and insights keep me coming back for more. Indeed, there are few authors who have read as much on diverse subjects such as economics, sociology, history, politics, and law among others! Nonetheless, to me, what’s more amazing, is his ability to tie it all together in a comprehendible and systematic framework.

In fact, outside of his agnosticism, Rothbard’s research has led him down a similar path on society, freedom, and man, as my research and leadership has led me. And, even in the Christian area, Rothbard’s Thomistic philosophy centered around natural law is about as close to a Christian mindset as a person can go without the work of God’s grace. Simply put, Rothbard is a genius of the highest magnitude.

Unfortunately, in today’s society, true genius is rarely welcomed or recognized. Let me provide just one example of Rothbard’s insights from his penetrating book Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism and the Division of LaborImagine if enough people in LIFE Leadership understand these principles and apply them in their daily lives. I truly believe a LeaderShift would result.

Sincerely,

Orrin Woodward

On the other hand, the more despotic the society, the more restrictions on the freedom of the individual, the more uniformity there will be among men and the less the diversity, and the less developed will be the unique personality of each and every man. In a profound sense, then, a despotic society prevents its members from being fully human.

If freedom is a necessary condition for the full development of the individual, it is by no means the only requirement. Society itself must be sufficiently developed. No one, for example, can become a creative physicist on a desert island or in a primitive society. For, as an economy grows, the range of choice open to the producer and to the consumer proceeds to multiply greatly. Furthermore, only a society with a standard of living considerably higher than subsistence can afford to devote much of its resources to improving knowledge and to developing a myriad of goods and services above the level of brute subsistence. But there is another reason that full development of the creative powers of each individual cannot occur in a primitive or undeveloped society, and that is the necessity for a wide-ranging division of labor.

“The freer the society, then, the greater will be the variety and the diversity among men, for the more fully developed will be every man’s uniquely individual personality.”

No one can fully develop his powers in any direction without engaging in specialization. The primitive tribesman or peasant, bound to an endless round of different tasks in order to maintain himself, could have no time or resources available to pursue any particular interest to the full. He had no room to specialize, to develop whatever field he was best at or in which he was most interested. Two hundred years ago, Adam Smith pointed out that the developing division of labor is a key to the advance of any economy above the most primitive level. A necessary condition for any sort of developed economy, the division of labor is also requisite to the development of any sort of civilized society. The philosopher, the scientist, the builder, the merchant — none could develop these skills or functions if he had had no scope for specialization. Furthermore, no individual who does not live in a society enjoying a wide range of division of labor can possibly employ his powers to the fullest. He cannot concentrate his powers in a field or discipline and advance that discipline and his own mental faculties. Without the opportunity to specialize in whatever he can do best, no person can develop his powers to the full; no man, then, could be fully human.

While a continuing and advancing division of labor is needed for a developed economy and society, the extent of such development at any given time limits the degree of specialization that any given economy can have. There is, therefore, no room for a physicist or a computer engineer on a primitive island; these skills would be premature within the context of that existing economy. As Adam Smith put it, “the division of labor is limited by the extent of the market.” Economic and social development is therefore a mutually reinforcing process: the development of the market permits a wider division of labor, which in turn enables of further extension of the market.

If the scope of the market and the extent of the division of labor are mutually reinforcing, so too are the division of labor and the diversity of individual interests and abilities among men. For just as an ever-greater division of labor is needed to give full scope to the abilities and powers of each individual, so does the existence of that very division depend upon the innate diversity of men. For there would be no scope at all for a division of labor if every person were uniform and interchangeable. (A further condition of the emergence of a division of labor is the variety of natural resources; specific land areas on the earth are also not interchangeable.) Furthermore, it soon became evident in the history of man that the market economy based on a division of labor was profoundly cooperative, and that such division enormously multiplied the productivity and hence the wealth of every person participating in the society. The economist Ludwig von Mises put the matter very clearly:

Historically division of labor originates in two facts of nature: the inequality of human abilities and the variety of the external conditions of human life on the earth. These two facts are really one: the diversity of Nature, which does not repeat itself but creates the universe in infinite, inexhaustible variety….

These two conditions … are indeed such as almost to force the division of labor on mankind. Old and young, men and women cooperate by making appropriate use of their various abilities. Here also is the germ of the geographical division of labor; man goes to the hunt and woman to the spring to fetch water. Had the strength and abilities of all individuals and the external conditions of production been everywhere equal the idea of division of labor could never have arisen … No social life could have arisen among men of equal natural capacity in a world which was geographically uniform….

Once labor has been divided, the division itself exercises a differentiating influence. The fact that labor is divided makes possible further cultivation of individual talent and thus cooperation becomes more and more productive. Through cooperation men are able to achieve what would have been beyond them as individuals….

The greater productivity of work under the division of labor is a unifying influence. It leads men to regard each other as comrades in a joint struggle for welfare, rather than as competitors in a struggle for existence.

Freedom, then, is needed for the development of the individual, and such development also depends upon the extent of the division of labor and the height of the standard of living. The developed economy makes room for, and encourages, an enormously greater specialization and flowering of the powers of the individual than can a primitive economy, and the greater the degree of such development, the greater the scope for each individual.

“No one can fully develop his powers in any direction without engaging in specialization.”

If freedom and the growth of the market are each important for the development of each individual and, therefore, to the flowering of diversity and individual differences, then so is there a casual connection between freedom and economic growth. For it is precisely freedom, the absence or limitation of interpersonal restrictions or interference, that sets the stage for economic growth and hence of the market economy and the developed division of labor.

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

American Politics: The Buck Stops Over There

Posted by Orrin Woodward on July 10, 2013

Here is an article that Oliver DeMille and I wrote on the American Political scene. In contrast to the political method of passing the buck, LIFE Leadership teaches people to accept personal responsibility. For leadership is only possible when a person accepts responsibility. With few exceptions, the Republicans and Democrats are too focused on party, promotion and popularity to lead anyone anymore. This must change. Indeed, when a person chooses to be part of the solution, and not part of the problem, he is on his way to leading change.

Sincerely,

Orrin Woodward

The Buck Stops Over There 
by Orrin Woodward and Oliver DeMille

Harry Truman: The Buck Stops Here

Harry Truman: The Buck Stops Here

President Obama’s handling of the recent scandals reveals a lot about his leadership. One of the first principles of leadership is to take responsibility– something the President has proven loathe to do. Where Harry Truman is said to have put a small sign on his desk that read “The Buck Stops Here,” the current administration prefers to point fingers elsewhere.

Yet the number of scandals continues to increase. At first, Fast and Furious seemed to be an isolated scandal, a reminder that Washington bears watching and that free societies require the vigilance of the media and citizenry. As Fast and Furious heated up in the media and on Capitol Hill, the White House deflected questions to other agencies—as if these agencies don’t report directly to the Oval Office.

This became a pattern when the IRS and Benghazi scandals dominated the news for a week, with the President and his closest advisors firing a top official (who was slated to retire anyway and wasn’t asked to leave for a couple of weeks) and casting blame on others. The agencies were at fault, the White House assured us, not the President. In fact, according to this narrative, the President was the great solution to these scandals.

Then came more scandals, and this leadership pattern deepened. Deflect blame. Act like the President is the solution, not part of the problem. Promise to clean house. Talk tough. Don’t apologize. Don’t take responsibility. Blame terrorism. Send out aides to argue technicalities. Point fingers at executive agencies, never at the Executive.

This was the Obama Administration’s response to the AP scandal, the military sex scandal, the PRISM scandal, and the revelation that the government is collecting and storing people’s emails and phone records.

The military sex scandal is particularly illuminating. The crux of the problem lies in the military’s policy of allowing direct commanders to determine how to handle allegations of sexual assault. This is a clear conflict of interest, since the commanders central mission is to win in battle. Charging soldiers with crimes removes them from their duties and weakens the commanders’ fighting force. As a result, many commanders prefer to sweep things under rug wherever possible.

The Administration seems to fancy the same approach. If an agency under its leadership abuses power, the White House is prone to make excuses, redirect blame, and act as if this was an isolated act by a rogue official. But the President and his top team are responsible for setting the tone and culture of the agencies.

Even Chris Matthews has been critical of the President’s refusal to take responsibility for executive agencies, and the The New York Times Editorial Board wrote that the President has lost all credibility on how he’s handled these scandals.
Other presidential administrations have behaved in a similar way, from missing WMDs to political targeting of state attorneys general under the Bush Administration. The executive branch must be closely watched in any free society, and administrations that pursue a policy of redirecting blame to lower agencies.

Ironically, the concern is even higher for an administration whose overall policy approach has been to increase America’s trust in government and desire for more government programs. The Five Laws of Decline are at play, and one of them, the Law of Diminishing Returns, has made it so no one person can oversee government anymore. For every scandal that gets exposed, there are others brewing.

If the President is right and the Oval Office can no longer keep tabs on the executive branch, this is a national emergency. On the current scale, it’s practically Watergate every month. If we elect a president to oversee the government, yet he protests he can’t, something is deeply, structurally wrong. If nobody can seem to find “The Buck,” Leviathan is looming.

Posted in Freedom/Liberty, Leadership/Personal Development | 43 Comments »

The Quest for Freedom

Posted by Orrin Woodward on July 2, 2013

I continue to study Walter Lippmann’s writings and enjoy his style and thoughts on the evils of collectivism. Unfortunately, when people are scared, they evidently sell their freedom for the illusion of security. This, in fact, is how collectivism thrives today. People in fear submit to masters rather than face the uncertainties of life. LIFE Leadership teaches people the art and science of leadership so that people can face life without fear. Indeed, the NY Times bestseller LeaderShift is a book describing how to avoid collectivism. Below is some of Lippmann’s thoughts on collectivism and mankind.

Sincerely,

Orrin Woodward

Though it is momentarily triumphant, it is a failure, and must fail, because it rests upon a radically false conception of the economy, of law, of government, and of human nature/ But while it is possible to lead mankind by error into disaster, suffering is a hard school in which men do learn to perceive the truth. If the collectivist doctrine conformed to the data of experience and the needs of men, it would not be necessary to administer collectivism by drilling the people, sterilizing them against subversive ideas, terrorizing, bribing, enchanting, and distracting them.

The ants live successfully, it would seem, in a collectivist order: there is no evidence that they require ministers of propaganda, censors, inquisitors, secret police, spies, and informers, to remind them of their collectivist duties. But men do not conform to this scheme of things. Though they have been known to accept servitude submissively and even gratefully, they are in some deep sense different from horses, cows, and domesticated fowl. They persist in troubling the serenity of their masters, having in them some quality which cannot be owned. The lord can count upon his cattle. But he is never so sure of his helots. There is never the same certainty in his sovereignty.

For human beings, however low and abject, are potentially persons. They are made in a different image. And though, as Jan Smuts has said, “personality is still a growing factor in the universe and is merely in its infancy,” it asserts itself and will command respect. Its essence is an energy, however we choose to describe it, which causes men to assert their humanity, and oh occasion to die rather than to renounce it* This is the energy the seers discerned when they discovered the soul of man. It is this energy which has moved men to rise above themselves, to feel a divine discontent with their condition, to invent, to labor, to reason with one another, to imagine the good life and to desire it.

This energy must be mighty. For it has overcome the inertia of the primordial savage.  Against this mighty energy the heresies of an epoch will not prevail. For the will to be free is perpetually renewed in every individual who uses his faculties and affirms his manhood.

Posted in Freedom/Liberty | 23 Comments »