This is a follow-up to my last article, wherein I write that I prefer the term “submission” over the term “enlightened self-interest.”

My aversion to the term “enlightened self-interest” comes from its common usage in economic and narrowly practical terms.

In other words, it doesn’t go far and deep enough for what I wish to convey with “submission.”

And, once again, understand that this is written from my understanding of Christian epistemology and doctrine. You may take issue with my interpretation/understanding, but if you reject Christian epistemology, then we have no basis for debate.

Enlightened self-interest largely has its roots in Adam Smith’s concept of “the invisible hand,” as found in Wealth of Nations, wherein he writes:

“By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.”

Ayn Rand’s term for this is “rational selfishness.” In The Virtue of Selfishness Rand writes:

“The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and upholds rational selfishness — which means: the values required for man’s survival qua man — which means: the values required for human survival — not the values produced by the desires, the emotions, the ‘aspirations,’ the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial practice of human sacrifices, have never discovered an industrial society and can conceive of no self-interest but that of grabbing the loot of the moment.
 
“The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash — that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value.”

In either case, we find self-interest to be grounded in the material world, confined to a mental, or rational, sphere, and narrowly defined in terms of economic exchange.

Adding the spiritual element, according to my understanding, changes, or at least broadens, the whole picture. When animated by a spiritual connection with a Supreme Being, people do things that may appear to be irrational — at least to those who place the mental realm as the highest realm of existence.

Furthermore, they may do things that may appear to have no or limited economic value, in the strictest of terms.

For example, Christ’s willingness to take upon Himself our sins and weaknesses is ridiculous and irrational to the atheist/strict Objectivist.

(Per Rand’s statement, “In spiritual issues, a trader is a man who does not seek to be loved for his weaknesses or flaws, only for his virtues, and who does not grant his love to the weaknesses or the flaws of others, only to their virtues.”)

His sacrifice, borne of submission to His Father, was not calculated to bring him money, or to prosper in narrow economic terms.

Mother Teresa didn’t run her orphanages for the purpose of exchanging her labor for money for herself. She didn’t start out thinking of “promoting an end which was no part of [her] intention.” She actually intended to achieve altruistic ends.

The good she did in the world wasn’t a mere by-product of pursuing her own interest solely — it was the target, the conscious goal.

Washington didn’t suffer through Valley Forge because of rational, mental, self-interested, economic-based calculations. Left to himself, Washington would have been a quiet farmer his entire life.

But because he had submitted to God, not only did he sacrifice, but his sacrifices actually got him closer to his true self-interest than not making them could have.

(Of course, this is an assumption based on Christian epistemology and an eternal perspective.)

Submission: The Highest Form of Applied Self-Interest

Enlightened self-interest is not, in my estimation, the highest form of applied self-interest.

While it definitely is much more preferable to selfishness, or “irrational selfishness,” it doesn’t go far enough to describe my understanding of Christian doctrine. It’s predicated upon mental calculations intended to bring us the best returns.

And, as I wrote previously, since we can’t have full knowledge of what is in our best interest at any given time, we must rely upon an external source — God — to guide our calculations.

Submission to God seems to me a much better term for the highest form of self-interest. God doesn’t ask us to be irrational brutes; He merely asks us to have faith in Him.

We’re not to shut off our mental calculations; we’re simply to trust that His recommendations (revelation) — no matter how difficult or “irrational” they may seem at the moment — supersede our calculations and will lead to our best interest.

He may ask us to choose a lower-paying job over a higher-paying one for reasons that we don’t understand. He may ask us to do things we don’t like (e.g. Washington).

He may tear our heartstrings — as He did with Abraham — in order to expand our compassion and understanding. His revelations and guidance may lead to our suffering and death (e.g. Joan of Arc, Christ’s original apostles).

Without a belief in and relationship with God, we may never perform the sacrifices that would have led us, in actuality, to our highest self-interest.

Even with a relationship with God, our self-interest can still be limited if our actions are based upon what we see in any given moment. If we can’t see how an action will benefit us immediately, we’ll choose a different (lower) path.

To conclude, I don’t prefer the term “enlightened self-interest” because it’s become, through common usage, limited, narrow, and defined strictly in terms of economic exchange. Submission is my preferred term to describe the highest form of self-interest.

It’s expansive enough to include the concept of “losing our life to save our life.” It implicitly presupposes an omniscient Being to whom we must submit, a Being who knows far better what is in our self-interest than we ever can.

It doesn’t discourage nor negate rational thought; it expands and deepens it. It transcends the physical and mental realms and opens the door into the spiritual realm.

And by the way, I don’t even pretend to be a good example of what I’m describing. I echo Seneca who said,

“I persist in praising not the life that I lead, but that which I ought to lead. I follow it at a mighty distance, crawling.”

In our e-book we reference “integral,” or liberal arts education as one of the core pillars of social leadership. I also spoke of how critical liberal arts education is in our last newsletter, “Rockin’ to the Fourth Turning Blues.”

Newsweek published an article online today, “In Defense of the Liberal Arts” by Jon Meacham, that validates what we’ve been teaching.

After recognizing that we live in “an economic and cultural climate that favors efficiency and tangibility” and admitting that “it is inarguably hard to monetize a familiarity with Homer or an intimacy with Shakespeare,” Meacham continues:

“It is just possible, though, that the traditional understanding of the liberal arts may help us in our search for new innovation and new competitiveness. The next chapter of the nation’s economic life could well be written not only by engineers but by entrepreneurs who, as products of an apparently disparate education, have formed a habit of mind that enables them to connect ideas that might otherwise have gone unconnected. As Alan Brinkley, the historian and former provost of Columbia, has argued in our pages, liberal education is a crucial element in the creation of wealth, jobs, and, one hopes, a fairer and more just nation.”

Though I wholeheartedly agree with his conclusion, I think he undercuts the full power of a liberal arts education with his opening caveats.

As an entrepreneur, consultant and writer, I can say with full confidence that my liberal arts education at George Wythe University made my career possible.

It’s not about simply having an “intimacy with Homer and Shakespeare” — though this does matter for the good life — it’s about what that intimacy does for you.

More than the knowledge acquired, the natural byproduct of exploring Homer, Shakespeare, Aristotle, Plato, Thucydides, Aquinas, Locke, Rousseau, Mill, Tocqueville, Jefferson, Mises and others is the ability to learn, think, innovate, and lead.

It helps you to recognize patterns and connect dots that others don’t see. It familiarizes you with human nature, thus helping you work more effectively with others.

It connects you with greatness, thus bringing out your own greatness. It inspires virtue and courage. It teaches you the follies and foibles of mankind, thus helping you avoid them.

“Efficiency,” “tangibility” and money are value-less and meaningless in the absence of the comprehensive context that only liberal arts can provide.

If we lose the foundation and context of liberal arts, we’ll find, to paraphrase Stephen Covey, that we’re climbing ladders that are leaning against the wrong walls, and to paraphrase Christ, we may gain the whole world only to lose our souls.

Relish the following advice for social leaders written on Mother Teresa’s home for impoverished children in Calcutta:

“People are often unreasonable, irrational, and self-centered. Forgive them anyway.

“If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives. Be kind anyway.

“If you are successful, you will win some unfaithful friends and some genuine enemies. Succeed anyway.

“If you are honest and sincere people may deceive you. Be honest and sincere anyway.

“What you spend years creating, others could destroy overnight. Create anyway.

“If you find serenity and happiness, some may be jealous. Be happy anyway.

“The good you do today will often be forgotten. Do good anyway.

“Give the best you have, and it will never be enough. Give your best anyway.

“In the final analysis, it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway.”

“I did it again!” I muttered quietly to myself, frustrated as I realized I had slept through my alarm.

The clock read 6:10 a.m. — forty minutes after the set alarm time.

I play basketball three days a week at 6 a.m., and since the gym I play in is fifteen minutes from my home, I set my alarm for 5:30.

I lay for a few minutes, feeling the frustration. I spend the bulk of my time in front of a computer screen, so it’s imperative that I meet my exercise schedule if I don’t want my body to fall apart.

Then, in those quiet moments thinking to myself in the dark, it dawned on me what had occurred, and that it was a parallel to so many other things in life.

“My choice to sleep in this morning was made last night!” I realized.

I had chosen to stay up until 11:00 the night before working on a project. Then, oddly enough, I was mad at my body for not waking up to my alarm.

But by then it was too late; I was beyond the free realm of choice and had entered the inexorable realm of consequence.

How many choices do we make on a daily basis, for which we do not see the consequences until later in life? Then, when we experience the consequences, how often do we get angry and frustrated because we’re not getting what we want?

In a broader sense, this is what is happening to America at large.

We’re frustrated with the size of our national deficit and the impending Social Security crisis, yet this was a choice we made over 70 years ago with the New Deal. New Deal for citizens in the 1930′s; very Bad Deal for us today.

We hold peace rallies after spending precious time watching movies saturated with violence. We spend millions on ads and programs to reduce teenage pregnancy after infiltrating the media and our homes with inappropriate movies, magazines, and other media that encourage such behavior. (Then, of course, we think the answer is abortion.)

Every choice carries a consequence.

When America accepts this, she will be resurrected from her current travails. And it starts with you and I, as individual citizens.

What will you choose today, and how will the consequences of that choice manifest later in your life?

Collectivism, though at its apex and seemingly more powerful than ever, is on the decline; individualism is on the rise.

With its rise, individualism, also known as libertarianism, poses threats to American culture and governance.

It also provides significant, positive opportunities that have not been available for more than a century.

It is imperative that we identify the dangers of mainstream libertarian thought and provide alternatives in order to capitalize on the opportunity to create a balanced, sustainable, free, and just society.

As is so common throughout history, we may swing the pendulum from collectivism to libertarianism to find that they are both equally dangerous and unsustainable.

The danger posed by libertarianism — or the opportunity — is predicated upon how it will be defined and practically applied.

The Decline of Collectivism

Collectivist institutions are splitting at the seams and crumbling due to financial infeasibility, dramatically changing age demographics, and the cultural mediocrity that they instill.

Foreign wars, which necessitate higher taxes and thus enable the centralization of power, are becoming less and less popular, both for financial and moral reasons.

All forms of collectivism are showing themselves to be unsustainable as a matter of empirical fact, rather than subjective value judgment.

The popularity of Ron Paul, and a general decline of trust in the government and other modern institutions, especially among the youth, also evidence the decline of collectivism.

The Fragmented Nature of Libertarianism

While there are universal tendencies shared by modern libertarians, libertarianism as a political movement and ideal has not yet gained the coherence necessary to appropriately use it as a specific, functional label.

The tagline of the Libertarian Party is “Smaller government, Lower Taxes, More Freedom,” which is about as universal as the movement gets.

However, Lew Rockwell — one of the most popular and widely read libertarian websites, boasts the tagline “Anti-State, Anti-War, Pro-Market,” which is clearly more ideological, more concentrated, and therefore more divisive.

While Ayn Rand preached the “virtue of selfishness,” Leo Tolstoy advocated self-transcendence and Christian service.

And in contrast to Rand and Tolstoy, whose messages center on personal morals and values, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Henry Hazlitt, and others generally avoid such concerns and focus primarily on the economic aspect of freedom.

Attempting to define libertarianism appears to be an irony and even a contradiction, since at its core libertarianism viscerally rejects any label or identification that would even hint at forced or inauthentic uniformity.

As a response to collectivism — or sameness — libertarianism celebrates diversity and independent thought.

However, since it appears to be the default heir to the decaying throne of American politics and culture, defining it is one of the most vital steps to steer it in the right direction.

And doing so must take place within the context of identifying its flaws, in order to correct them.

Three Prominent Dangers of Libertarianism

In spite of its fragmented nature, libertarianism in general displays three universal characteristics that, unless replaced, will limit its impact and sustainability as a freedom movement.

As a disclaimer, understand that identifying them is a difficult task, since libertarianism largely remains undefined and open to interpretation.

In other words, if you identify yourself as a libertarian yet do not associate yourself with these flaws, then this does not apply to you. If the shoe fits, wear it; otherwise do your best to steer mainstream libertarianism in the right direction.

1. Self-Interest

A product of Ayn Rand, who has emerged as the preeminent spokesperson for modern libertarianism, self-interest is expressed in the oath taken by Rand’s ultimate hero, John Galt:

“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.”

At the heart of libertarian thought seems to be the sentiment, “I want to be left alone to live my life the way I see fit.”

While the quest to be free from governmental oppression is natural and commendable, this is hardly an inspiring alternative to liberalism.

Wanting to be left alone to pursue one’s self-interest is a poor substitute for wanting to make the world a better place.

2. Flawed Definition of Freedom

The default definition of libertarian freedom is the freedom to do whatever a person wants, as long as they do not harm or encroach upon the natural rights of others.

In other words, “license” is probably a more accurate word than “freedom.”

Johnny Kramer, columnist for Lew Rockwell, recently wrote an article entitled What Libertarianism is Not wherein he says,

“Libertarianism is not a philosophy of morality or a guide to proper behavior. It is simply a political philosophy that holds that everyone should be legally free (in other words, free from coercion) to do as they please, so long as they don’t violate anyone’s body or property (in other words, so long as they don’t initiate coercion against anyone else); and that the State, if it should exist, should be bound by the same rules as the rest of society.”

This misguided and limited definition quickly degenerates into hedonism, decadence, and ultimately, societal decay, as displayed by the Greeks and Romans.

3. Emphasizes Individualism; Downplays Family, Community, and Religion

James Ure wrote in a previous article:

“Tellingly, the word ‘individual’ appears fifteen times in the first twenty sentences of the [Libertarian Party] platform, but the words ‘family’ and ‘school’ only appear once each, the words ‘church’ or ‘religion’ only appear a few times, and the words ‘community’ and neighborhood’ do not appear at all.”

As we also learn from Mr. Ure, family, community, and religion are “institutional mediating entities” that balance the desires for individual freedom with the demands of communal cooperation.

An overly individualistic society is a fragmented, unsustainable society, lacking forms to perpetuate itself.

Three Counter-Balancing Ideals

To counteract the above three dangers of libertarianism, three ideals should replace them, with a deliberate, conscious, and transparent effort: public virtue, an expanded definition of freedom, and a shift from focusing on the individual to focusing on family, community, and religion.

1. Public Virtue

“There must be a positive Passion for the public good, the public Interest, Honour, Power and Glory, established in the Minds of the People, or there can be no Republican Government, nor any real liberty.” -John Adams

As one of the Four Foundations of Freedom, public virtue means to voluntarily sacrifice personal benefit for the good of society.

For example, Robert Morris, a relatively obscure figure in American history, was one of the wealthiest colonists who spent his entire fortune — and even borrowed from others — to finance the Revolutionary War.

As Oliver DeMille writes:

“One [historical] record remarked: ‘If it were not [proven] by official records, posterity would hardly be made to believe that the campaign…was sustained wholly on the credit of an individual merchant.’

“When the War ended, this self-made millionaire spent three and a half years in debtors prison after he lost everything. His wife…watched possession after possession disappear during the War. When Robert went to prison after giving so much to the cause of freedom, she tended a borrowed little farm and walked each day to the prison with her daughter Maria to visit her husband.

“Robert left prison a broken down old man and died shortly thereafter. The financier of the Revolution, and his family, understood public virtue…”

In most cases, such a profound display is not necessary; we simply have to do our best to serve others on a daily basis.

It’s grossly incomplete to proclaim that the government should not take care of people; those who are able and privileged have the duty to care for the handicapped and the aged, serve the underprivileged, uplift the impoverished, and educate the illiterate.

The easiest and best way to eliminate bureaucratic and illegitimate government entitlement programs is to replace them with private institutions operated voluntarily by virtuous individuals.

Most libertarians believe that the proper role of government is to protect unalienable rights. But keeping the government contained in its proper sphere is predicated upon the people expanding their love of rights to include a strict adherence to their duties to their fellow man.

As Viktor Frankl wrote,

“Being human always points, and is directed, to something or someone other than oneself — be it a meaning to fulfill or another human being to encounter. The more one forgets himself — by giving himself to a cause to serve or another person to love — the more human he is and the more he actualized himself…Self-actualization is only possible as a side-effect of self-transcendence.”

Instead of starting with the thought, “I want to be left alone,” a better approach would be to start with, “I want to do my best to serve others so that the government doesn’t have to.”

The one says, “Leave me alone”; the other says, “How can I serve?”

It’s obvious which one leads to a more healthy, sustainable society. The incomplete sentence, “The government should not redistribute wealth” must be finished with “…and the people have the duty to ensure that all members of society are well cared for.”

The rejection of forced charity must never lead to the neglect of the right forms of voluntary charity, as does Ayn Rand’s philosophy.

2. Expand the Definition of Freedom

Freedom is so much more than being free from the illegitimate constraints of the government. Freedom is a much broader, more comprehensive concept than “freedom from“; it also includes “freedom to.”

The new definition of freedom must include two critical aspects: 1) a primary focus on how an individual can become personally, internally free regardless of external circumstance, and 2) the fusion of rights with duties.

Spiritual, financial, physical, mental, and emotional freedom are ultimately far more important than governmental freedom, since the one is predicated upon the other; the more personally free individuals are in a society, the more free their government will be.

Viktor Frankl, locked in a concentration camp cell, is more free than the drug or pornography addict in America.

As Edmund Burke said,

“Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without.”

It’s nice to be free from governmental tyranny. But we must also realize that we are free to love in the face of hatred, forgive cruelty without hesitation or reservation, to love those who hurt us as much as we love those who honor us.

We are free to eradicate all feelings of revenge, bitterness, enmity, and malice; to replace hatred with love, bitterness with understanding, pride with humility, vengefulness with forgiveness, cruelty with mercy and compassion. We are free to choose how we respond to oppression.

Furthermore, we must realize that inherent with our rights to freedom are corresponding duties.

We have a right to free government; we also have the duty to maintain such a government. As Thomas Paine wrote:

“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.”

We have the right to do whatever we choose to do with our bodies; we have the duty to be true to marital covenants and to protect the unalienable rights of unborn children.

We have the right to view whatever we want; we have the duty to shun pornography in all its forms.

We have the right to administer our finances how we see fit; we have the duty to stay out of debt and produce more than we consume.

Political philosophy removed from personal morality is like an individual without a heart or an automobile without an engine; personal morality is what makes political and economic liberty function.

In the words of Benjamin Franklin,

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

3. Shift From Individualism To Familial & Communal Association

Healthy society isn’t comprised of individualistic hedons doing whatever they feel like doing; it’s comprised of virtuous, faithful, and tight-knit families and communities who know and serve one another, who provide support and encouragement to each other, who work together, who mourn with each other, and who share a common heritage and common values.

Collectivism and individualism are opposite sides of the same imbalanced coin. Family, community, and religion provide balance. They preserve and perpetuate culture. They restore society when it has lost its way.

While collectivism leads to an oppressive, centralized breakdown of society, individualism causes divisive decay. The solution to each is to bolster the health, strength, and vitality of family, community, and religion.

Conclusion: The Opportunity

Libertarianism has an unprecedented opportunity to reclaim America’s freedom. But to do so it must eliminate its flaws and define itself appropriately.

Specifically, it must eliminate the flaws of misguided self-interest, a limited definition of freedom, and an excessive focus on individualism.

It must define itself as a movement that includes political and economic freedom from oppression, as well as personal freedom to do what’s right. It must stress duties as much as it stresses rights.

It must shift from individualism to communalism — not forced or governmentally-imposed collectivism, but voluntary familial, communal, and religious associations.

The foundation of libertarianism must be much more than wanting to be left alone; it must be based on a desire to serve, to contribute in meaningful and lasting ways to society.

Some may say that these proposed ideals stray from being universal.

While it’s imperative for any movement to stick with universals in order to create coherency and momentum, it’s even more important to define what those universals are.

If the libertarian universals are simply “smaller government, less taxes, and more freedom,” the impact and sustainability of libertarianism will be severely limited.

If, on the other hand, it expands its universal tenets to include the morality of public virtue, the depth of personal freedom beyond mere political and economic freedom, and the necessity of strong families, communities, and religious associations, it can be the movement that restores the American republic and secures liberty for generations to come.

If you’re researching economic opportunities, read this article to discover four specific principles that will determine whether or not you should invest your time, money, and/or effort.

If you apply these principles, you’ll avoid wasting money, time, and effort and learn to quickly identify the right opportunities.

A couple years ago I had an opportunity to apply the lessons that Garrett Gunderson and I teach in Killing Sacred Cows: Overcoming the Financial Myths that are Destroying Your Prosperity.

I had been studying affiliate marketing to see if it is a viable opportunity with a solid value proposition.

Online affiliate marketing means to market the products and services of others in order to earn a commission from the product creator.

On the surface it sounds like a great model–you don’t even have to create your own products, all you have to do is market, and you can supposedly earn great money.

But the industry is plagued with scams and scammers.

So what were the problems I uncovered, and how can the lessons I learned apply to your life?

1. Backwards Motivation

For most people, the primary motivation for getting into the business is to make money, not to create value.

They go into it asking the question, “How can I make more money?” rather than “How can I better serve others?” or “What does the marketplace need that I can provide?”

If your primary motivation is to make money, you’ll be chasing money for the rest of your life. Even if you end up making a lot, you’ll live in scarcity because your primary concern is money, not value creation.

You’ll be plagued with the worry of losing it. You’ll be less inclined to be generous. You’ll attach more value to material things than to people.

2. Problematic Value Proposition

As Garrett and I write in Killing Sacred Cows:

“A value proposition is simply the identification of how value is created for others through specific actions, investments, business proposals, etc.

“A good value proposition comes in the form of a very clear and concise statement that explains how value is being created and how it will be sustained…

“One excellent way to analyze opportunities and mitigate risk is to ask and answer the following five questions:

1. Is this in alignment with my passion and values?
2. Will it increase and/or utilize my human life value?
3. How will it benefit others?
4. How will it benefit me?
5. Is it based on sound economic principles?”

One could say that the value proposition of affiliate marketing is that it creates value for product sellers by increasing their reach and duplicating their efforts, while creating wealth for those willing to share their product.

The problem comes when we ask if it’s creating value for the ones paying for the entire process-the end buyers.

Most affiliate marketers simply go to Clickbank, a broker of online products, choose a product that looks like it will sell, then promote it without knowing if it’s actually benefiting end users.

They’re not even using the product themselves. The main things they study about the product are its commission rate and popularity, not its value to society and end users.

Some products may create value for buyers. The problem is that affiliate marketers don’t know for themselves if the products are valuable or not.

They’re not in it to create value or to identify a solid value proposition; they’re in it to make money regardless of any such considerations.

3. Unethical Practices

It’s a common practice for affiliate marketers to identify three products in a particular niche, then create a “review” site, such as this one , showing the pros and cons of each.

Again, it sounds like a potentially great service–end users can ostensibly benefit from the research performed by the marketers and choose the product that best fits their needs.

So what’s the problem? Most “reviewers” are rarely reviewing anything–they’re making it all up and choosing three products that will pay them a good commission.

Also, every user of Clickbank, the product broker I mentioned above, agrees to certain terms and conditions when they create an account. Agreeing to an online form is just like signing your name–your integrity is on the line.

In the case of one company I researched, the creator of it admits outright that he is a liar.

After describing a deceitful technique he promotes, he writes,

“Technically, this is against Clickbank’s terms and conditions, but I know of plenty of affiliates who do it (many of whom make $300 and upwards per day –- see if you can draw a causal link). I have only heard of a few people being told to stop offering bonuses by Clickbank, and I have never heard of a single case of an affiliate being banned for doing so. I do it myself, so that should tell you where I stand on the issue.”

Two pages later, after describing another deceitful technique, he says:

“Now once more, this is against Clickbank’s policies (and I have anecdotal evidence to suggest they dislike this more than the bonus offer), but I do again know of some $500/day affiliates who do it. I have tried it myself on two occasions with moderate success…”

In other words, as long as everyone else is doing it and as long as you don’t get caught, it’s all right. Anyone else see a problem with this?

Such practices are not built on solid economic principles and so they will always fail.

There will undoubtedly be a few who make good money doing it, but most people will find nothing but heartache pursuing these types of businesses. And even those who do make money aren’t truly prospering anyway.

No amount of money is worth your self-respect and the talents that will be uncovered when you set out to serve others, talents that remain largely undiscovered if your primary concern is how to make more money.

Unless you’re really creating value for others, serving them, providing them with what they really need in a principled fashion, you will never find prosperity.

4 Steps to Economic Certainty

Follow these four simple steps any time you are presented with a business opportunity to discover if it is the right thing to do:

1. Start by asking, “How can I serve?” and “What does the market need that I can provide?” as opposed to “How can I make more money?”

2. Identify the value proposition, and trace it back through every level down to the end user.

Look beyond the hype and sift through your feelings of scarcity. How is the business/investment creating value for others, for the economy, and for society at large? Is it truly helping others, or just selling them?

Do you personally know how it’s helping others, or are you just believing the hype presented by the seller?

3. Never engage in unethical or illegal practices, no matter how many others are doing it.

Keep your word. Live the spirit and the letter of all of your agreements. Be a person that others can trust and you will always prosper.

You reap what you sow–reap lies and you will sow mistrust and eventual failure. Reap truth and honesty and you will sow trust, loyalty, and prosperity.

4. Never spend time, effort, and money on anything–no matter how much money you can make–that does not align with your passion, values, and Soul Purpose.

Find what you love to do and do it in the service of others.

Bill Gates gave the Harvard commencement speech in 2007. Stating that “reducing inequity is the highest human achievement,” Mr. Gates continues by sharing the challenges he and his wife have faced in using their resources to do the most good in the world.

After reading an article about the “millions of children who were dying every year in poor countries from diseases that we had long ago made harmless in this country,” they were shocked to learn that there were interventions that could save lives but weren’t being used.

Mr. Gates says:

“If you believe that every life has equal value, it’s revolting to learn that some lives are seen as worth saving and others are not. We said to ourselves: ‘This can’t be true. But if it is true, it deserves to be the priority of our giving.’

“So we began our work in the same way anyone here would begin it. We asked: ‘How could the world let these children die?’

“The answer is simple, and harsh. The market did not reward saving the lives of these children, and governments did not subsidize it. So the children died because their mothers and their fathers had no power in the market and no voice in the system.”

He goes on to share his hope that there are solutions. What comes next is the most poignant part of his speech:

“I am optimistic that we can do this, but I talk to skeptics who claim there is no hope. They say: ‘Inequity has been with us since the beginning, and will be with us till the end –- because people just … don’t … care.’ I completely disagree.

“I believe we have more caring than we know what to do with.

“All of us here in this Yard, at one time or another, have seen human tragedies that broke our hearts, and yet we did nothing –- not because we didn’t care, but because we didn’t know what to do. If we had known how to help, we would have acted.

“The barrier to change is not too little caring; it is too much complexity.

“To turn caring into action, we need to see a problem, see a solution, and see the impact. But complexity blocks all three steps.” [emphasis added]

This is precisely why social leadership is so desperately needed. It’s the answer to the complexity conundrum.

As millions of “common citizens” begin addressing simple problems they see with passion, dedication and perseverance, slowly but surely enough momentum will be built to inspire real, sustainable and positive change.

No individual can handle complexity alone, but millions can handle tiny parts of the complexity simultaneously.

So stop dreaming of grandiose accomplishments and instead get in the trenches of simple service.

What do you see today that could and should be improved, and what can you do about it?

While reading Montesquieu’s The Spirit of Laws, I came across the following quote, which describes contemporary American culture and politics perfectly:

“When virtue is banished, ambition invades the minds of those who are disposed to receive it, and avarice possesses the whole community.
 
“The objects of their desire are changed; what they were fond of before has become indifferent; they were free while under the restraint of laws, but they would fain now be free to act against law; and as each citizen is like a slave who has run away from his master, that which was the maxim of equity he calls rigor; that which was a rule of action he styles constraint; and to precaution he gives the name of fear.
 
“Frugality, and not the thirst of gain, now passes for avarice. Formerly the wealth of individuals constituted the public treasure; but now this as become the patrimony of private persons.
 
“The members of the commonwealth riot on the public spoils, and its strength is only the power of a few, and the license of many.”

Public virtue — voluntarily sacrificing personal benefits and desires for the good of society — can be a tough concept to grasp and believe in.

This may be so because it can seem like a daunting task; we may feel like small and daily sacrifices just don’t cut it.

We may read accounts of men like George Washington suffering through Valley Forge and think that comparatively our daily efforts are insignificant and meaningless.

This isn’t the case at all; in fact, the best way for us to show public virtue is by making a small yet significant effort every day to make the world a better place.

Without each of us living the proper role of citizens, our republic cannot last.

With this in mind, I have compiled a list of 101 ways that contemporary Americans can display public virtue in small, significant, practical, and consistent ways:

1. Vote
2. Pick up garbage in your neighborhood
3. Read to a child/teach a child how to read
4. Volunteer at a soup kitchen
5. Attend a city council meeting
6. Make a meal for a struggling family
7. Donate money to a non-profit organization
8. Get out and stay out of debt
9. Study the Constitution
10. Volunteer at your child’s school
11. Spend more time with your family
12. Forgive someone who has hurt you
13. Develop a better relationship with God and make an effort to be more religious, i.e. attend church regularly, pray, meditate, read sacred works, etc.
14. Teach a free community seminar on something that you’re passionate about
15. Feed a homeless person
16. Teach a work skill to someone struggling in their career or with finding a job
17. Learn how the electoral college works
18. Write a letter to the editor bringing something important to light
19. Join the political campaign of your choice and volunteer your time
20. Take your neighbor’s garbage can to the street on garbage day
21. Volunteer for Habitat for Humanity
22. Give anonymous Christmas presents
23. Memorize the Declaration of Independence
24. Memorize the Bill of Rights
25. Run for office
26. Counsel with someone struggling with abortion or an addiction
27. Donate blood and/or plasma
28. Start a community crime watch program
29. Start a local club on financial or constitutional literacy, or anything that contributes to society in a meaningful way
30. Start a book group that reads classics and discusses them at least monthly
31. Join an “Adopt-a-Highway” program
32. Make and keep a goal to eat more nutritious food
33. Make the leap from employee to business owner
34. Make time to call a friend just to tell them that you appreciate them
35. Make a goal to write a gratitude note to one person each day
36. Write a book and donate a percentage of the profits to a non-profit organization
37. Get a college degree, no matter what it takes, and no matter how old you are
38. Urge your family and friends to vote
39. Start a non-profit organization
40. Overcome an addiction
41. Choose a job/career/business that aligns with your passions and life purpose
42. Face and overcome a fear, such as public speaking
43. Read the Federalist Papers
44. Make new friends deliberately and consistently
45. Tell your parents that you love them
46. Tell your children that you love them
47. Give someone a ride that needs it
48. Watch less TV
49. Stand up for someone who is being harmed
50. Write a letter to your senator or congressman to express your views about something important
51. Say you’re sorry to someone you have hurt
52. Start a community organization to help with the problem of pornography
53. Visit people in a convalescent home
54. Learn a new skill
55. Commit to ongoing education, attend seminars, read at least a book a month
56. Babysit for friends so they can go on a date as a couple
57. Forgive a debt
58. Smile and laugh more
59. Do the estate planning that you’ve been putting off, make a will and trust
60. Stop to help someone who is stranded on the freeway
61. Start a garden
62. Put together a one-year supply of food and water
63. Homeschool a child who is struggling in school
64. Make a concerted effort to listen to others better
65. Help someone move
66. Commit to not watch movies, read books, or visit websites that excessively portray violence or sexuality
67. Spend more time in nature
68. Commit to spending at least a half hour every day of quiet, introspective, and reflective time
69. Develop more patience
70. The next time you’e tempted to engage in road rage, even a little bit, don’t
71. Keep the speed limit
72. Study the Federal Reserve (I highly recommend The Creature From Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin)
73. Do a material resources purge: go through your house and find all of the stuff you don’t use anymore and donate it to a thrift store
74. If you’re considering a divorce, try marriage counseling instead
75. Read biographies of great men and women (Recommendations: The Real George Washington, Up From Slavery, And There Was Light)
76. Start an emergency fund by saving 10% of your income
77. If you’re in a job that you hate, quit and find something that you love to do
78. Volunteer to go shopping for someone who is aged or disabled
79. Visit a developing country
80. Plant a tree
81. Start a family blog that brings your immediate and extended families closer together
82. Start a “Citizen’s Journalist” blog: write about one positive thing you observe in your community every day
83. Write down how you would like to be remembered in detail and share it with everyone you know so they can hold you accountable to bringing it to pass
84. Commit to not duplicating or using music or movies that were not purchased legally
85. Write a letter to yourself
86. Keep your word: if you tell anyone you’ll do anything at any time, do it no matter what
87. Post what your grateful for at World Gratitude Journal
88. Remove graffiti in your community
89. Organize a community concert to benefit a cause
90. Organize a local food drive
91. Volunteer to be a Big Brother/Sister
92. Clean up a local cemetery
93. Help out with an Eagle Scout project
94. Organize a neighborhood garage sale and donate the proceeds to charity
95. Get CPR certified
96. Sponsor a scholarship for a child to attend school
97. Adopt a child
98. Do your genealogy
99. Consistently write in a journal to be used for posterity
100. Adopt a senior that has no family nearby. Take them for rides, shopping, and lunch or a special dinner.
101. Help a single mother with home repairs

A friend once asked my perspective on the question, “Was Jesus Christ a Liberal Socialist?”

The first step to answer this question is to define the terms. Much disagreement exists not because those arguing fundamentally disagree, but because they’re simply defining terms differently.

If by “liberal socialist” one refers to a person who seeks to serve his fellow man with compassion and charity, and who spends his life voluntarily clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, liberating the captive, educating the ignorant, and caring for the sick and afflicted, then yes, Jesus Christ was a liberal socialist and we should all strive to be liberal socialists.

If being a liberal socialist means striving to attain just and equitable society, a society where there are no rich or poor, where all men are treated equally, then Jesus Christ was a liberal socialist.

If liberal socialism means to give of our talents and substance to serve and uplift others, then Jesus Christ was a liberal socialist.

For those readers who are choking on my words, please read on carefully to digest the full context.

Consider the following excerpts from the Bible:

Matthew 19: 16 – 21
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him…if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness.
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love they neighbour as thyself.
20 The young man saith unto him, All of these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me.

Luke 6:35-38
35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

Matthew 25:34-46
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

In an interview with Pastor Rick Warren, Barack Obama, currently the most prominent liberal in America, said,

“America’s greatest moral failure…has been that we still don’t abide by that basic precept in Matthew, ‘Whatever you do to the least of my brothers, you do for me.’ That basic principle applies to poverty, it applies to racism and sexism, it applies to not…providing ladders of opportunity for people to get into the middle class…This country, as wealthy and powerful as we are, we still don’t spend enough time thinking about the least among us.”

I agree with those words — in a certain context — and I think that Jesus Christ, as I understand His life and teachings, would agree as well.

Content Vs. Context

Let’s pause a moment. Understand that no truth exists without context. Needles are content; using them to insert drugs or life-saving medicine are examples of context. Water is content; watering crops and drowning a person are examples of context. Needles aren’t good or bad — it’s how they are used that determines their virtue, or destructive power.

The words “liberal” and “socialist” are nothing but content; without understanding the context in which they are used it’s impossible to determine whether or not Jesus Christ was a liberal socialist.

To counteract my claims above that Jesus Christ was a liberal socialist, now consider a different context:

If by “liberal socialist” one refers to a person who justifies using force to steal from one person or group of people to give to another, then Jesus Christ was the furthest thing from a liberal socialist.

Force Vs. Voluntarism

The crux of the argument lies in understanding the purpose and function of the government. As I have written elsewhere, government is force. No policy can ever be enacted through government without it being backed by a gun to the head of every citizen who chooses to disobey the law.

Those who claim that Jesus Christ was a liberal socialist, and who believe that liberal socialism is enacted by government force, misunderstand the voluntary nature of charity.

As I wrote in an essay entitled On Bridge-Building:

“Unprincipled social workers seem relatively harmless on the surface, yet when an entire culture embraces a false sense of government-sponsored philanthropy, the long-term consequences are an irresponsible society operating under a crippling sense of entitlement. The desire to lift and serve others is good, but the danger from the group I speak of comes from using government force to impose their sense of morality upon the populace. This degenerates into a moral cannibalism that ultimately destroys the society.

“When the true sense of public virtue is distorted and counterfeited to become forced wealth distribution, the virtue is lost and replaced with resentment and anger by those forced to give, and the loss of dignity and self-reliance on those who depend on the givers. False charity destroys those who know how to fish at the expense of those waiting for fish to be given to them. The cruel irony is that the people who are hurt the most by forced welfare schemes are the same people that misplaced charity is precisely designed to help. People who set out to ‘serve society’ and who do not operate under moral principles inevitably seek to ‘lift’ the bottom by forcefully taking from the top. The result is a miserable mediocrity for all.”

The gospel of Jesus Christ is, at its core, one of voluntary virtue. Being forced at gunpoint to support others is not virtue at all — it is unabashed theft.

While Jesus Christ demonstrated the path we should follow by washing Peter’s feet, He also taught, “Thou shalt not steal.”

Interestingly, contemporary liberals and socialists break one of His laws in order to fulfill another. They justify theft in the name of charity — ironically rendering charity obsolete in the process.

I wholeheartedly agree with Barack Obama — and Jesus Christ — that the ideal society is one in which all citizens seek the interest of their neighbors and do everything in their power to serve and uplift the downtrodden, the oppressed, and the underprivileged.

And I also believe and strive to adhere to the commandment, “Thou shalt not steal.”

Using the government to take from one person or group to give to another is an act of force. Strip away all of the nice-sounding language about “social justice” and the concept of the “village” and all it is is one person putting a gun to another person’s head and saying, “You will give this money or you will be shot dead, or at the very least imprisoned.”

“…a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” -Thomas Jefferson

If charity is not implemented on a voluntary basis it is thievery, it is moral cannibalism, and it fails every time, as proven throughout history.

So, was Jesus Christ a liberal socialist? It depends on the definitions and the context. Our challenge is to follow Him without resorting to force.