The American framers overcame domination by an elite upper class by establishing a new system where every person was treated equally before the law.

This led to nearly two centuries of increasing freedoms for all social classes, both genders and all citizens—whatever their race, religion, health, etc.

During the Industrial Age this system changed in at least two major ways.

First, the U.S. commercial code was changed to put limits on who can invest in what.

Rather than simply protecting all investors (rich or poor) against fraud or other criminal activity, in the name of “protecting the unsophisticated,” laws were passed that only allow the highest level of the middle class and the upper classes to invest in the investments with the highest returns.

This created a European-style model where only the rich own the most profitable companies and get richer while the middle and lower classes are stuck where they are.

Second, the schools at all levels were reformed to emphasize job training rather than quality leadership education.

Today great leadership education is still the staple at many elite private schools, but the middle and lower classes are expected to forego the “luxury” of opportunity-affording, deep leadership education and instead just seek the more “practical” and “relevant” one-size-fits-all job training.

This perpetuates the class system.

This is further exacerbated by the reality that public schools in middle class zip-codes typically perform much higher than lower-class neighborhood schools.

Private elite schools train most of our future upper class and leaders, middle class public schools train our managerial class and most professionals, and lower-class public schools train our hourly wage workers.

Notable exceptions notwithstanding, the rule still is what it is.

Government reinforces the class system by the way it runs public education, and big business supports it through the investment legal code. With these two biggest institutions in society promoting the class divide, lower and middle classes have limited power to change things.

The wooden stake that overcomes the vampire of an inelastic class system is entrepreneurial success.

Becoming a producer and successfully creating new value in society helps the entrepreneur surpass the current class-system matrix and also weakens the overall caste system itself.

In short, if America is to turn the Information Age into an era of increased freedom and widespread economic opportunity, we need more producers.

***********************************

Oliver DeMille is the founder and former president of George Wythe University, a co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd Online.

He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.

Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.

Nothing will have more impact on the future of the world than the future of families.

This truism is sobering as we watch the decline of the family.

As we consider the industrialized world, it is disturbing to note that even amongst those who espouse, promote and live a strong family lifestyle, some of the most basic roles have been lost.

For example, consider the following from an editorial by John Rosemond:

“A journalist recently asked me to name the number one problem facing today’s family. I think she expected me to address education, the economy, or some other “hot” topic. To her surprise, I said, ‘A confusion of roles.’

“In today’s parenting universe, married women with children think of themselves first and foremost as mothers. This is confusion. If you are married with children, you are first and foremost a wife or a husband. In your wedding vows, you did not say, “I take you to be my (husband, wife) until children do us part.” Those vows, many generations old, read the way they do for a reason.

“I’ve been telling recent audiences that parenting has become bad for the mental health of women. Today’s all-too typical mother believes that whether her child experiences success or failure in whatever realm is completely up to her. If she is sufficiently attentive to her child’s needs and sufficiently proactive in his life, he will succeed. If not, he will have problems. The natural consequence of this state of over-focus is anxiety, self-doubt, and guilt.”

Marriage is the central relationship of society, and in society, no roles are more important than husband and wife.

As I talk to young people about their plans for life, career is usually the first thing they mention.

Once in a while, a young man will mention that his main goal is to be a good father, and a little more frequently a young woman will say that she really wants to be a great mother.

But I’ve never heard the following: “I want to be a great wife,” or “my most important goal is to be a great husband.”

This is a concern. In a way, feminism has had moved society by persuading our generation to focus on parenthood even more than marriage.

I’m convinced that most people who say they want to be great parents just assume marriage as part of it. But that’s the problem. Just assuming marriage isn’t enough. It reflects a lack of emphasis on our primary roles.

The future of the world certainly depends on the quality of fathering and mothering in the twenty-first century.

The quality of marriages is even more important. The state of the world ten, twenty, even seventy years from now will be determined by the depth and quality of our marriage relationships. Parenting will largely be determined by the level of success our marriages attain.

The recent politicization of the institution of marriage raises concerns in the minds of virtually everyone, no matter where they stand on the issue.

Of most concern to me is that 64% of married women and 82% of married men responded to a survey in the early 2000′s that they had been unfaithful to their marriage vows.

I see no greater threat to the institution of marriage than the tepid level of commitment of the spouses, and the way they characterize and fulfill their roles.

Marriage is hard work, worthy work–the work of a lifetime. If there is one thing we should teach our youth, it is the value of building a great marriage.

More precisely, we need to teach—by precept and example whenever possible—that “wife” and “husband” are vital roles to society, requiring preparation, consideration, emphasis and great effort.

Once married, these must always be the primary roles of each individual—not secondary to career, social endeavors, or even parenthood.

***********************************

Oliver DeMille is the founder and former president of George Wythe University, a co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd Online.

He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.

Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.

Read Part One Here

Must an education be limited to completing a checklist of courses in order to receive a certificate of conformance to present as evidence to a prospective employer of having met a minimum standard of proficiency in practical, productive job skills?

Is an education limited to passing through a “liberal arts” program at a name brand institution in order to gain entrance into the power circles standing guard and carefully bestowing limited access to positions of power in government, business, and law?

Or is an education limited to the fine art of intellect-building, culling knowledge from the great ideas of the past and the present, simply for the sake of knowledge?

What is an education, and what is its purpose?

The study of languages offers a portal into the exploration of at least a partial answer to such a worthy question.

Learning begins with an awakening to something previously unknown—a glimpse of the view from a different vantage point—an expanded perception of the world.

Right learning takes our perceived reality a step closer to actuality.

The true language of math trains our minds to recognize patterns, think in the abstract, and logically reason.

The true language of science increases our capacities to observe, to measure, to think in the concrete, and to make and test theories.

The true language of art teaches us to both appreciate and express beauty, symmetry, elegance, emotion, and feeling.

The study of foreign languages introduces us to human cultures and worldviews distinct from our own, allows us to recapture nuances once lost in translation, and offers a gesture of respect to others with whom we want to seek common ground and understanding.

A personal worldview may be likened to peering through a monocle.

Depending on the quality of the lens, the view can be clear and magnified or in places it may be somewhat clouded and distorted.

With only a single eye, the view is inherently limited in scope and depth.

Learning another language is much like adding another monocle, thus creating binocular vision.

It adds another vantage point that in many ways complements, enriches, and completes the original picture.

Of course, in another sense, the new monocle may also compete to be fitted to the dominant eye.

The challenger may present alternative values and goals that, by definition, are incompatible with the status quo.

A hearing will be demanded and a choice must be made.

The virtue of Hebrew is that it offers both a completing and a competing lens to consider.

Completing Features I live in a western world that is highly influenced by our Greek and Roman heritage.

The Greeks teach me the static nature of things at rest.

Things simply are.

They are fixed and inflexible, ordered, calculated, reasoned, planned, and rational.

Ideally, life is peaceful and harmonious; it is meant to be lived in moderation—a virtuous compromise centered between the vices of the extreme.

The Hebrews offer me a distinct, yet complementary, alternative.

Theirs is a verb-oriented language.

The foundation of nearly all ancient Hebrew words is a three-letter root whose basic meaning expresses movement or activity.

Other letters are then added as prefixes, infixes, and suffixes to derive the other grammatical forms: verb conjugations, nouns, adjectives, etc.

Thus, the very construction of the Hebrew language emphasizes the dynamic and active nature of things.

They are changeable and in motion.

Take, for example, a mountain, a decidedly static object to my Greek eye.

Point at it.

Declare it a noun.

“But wait…” interrupts the Hebrew. “Do you see ‘that which looms’ in the distance?”

The primitive root for mountain is a verb meaning to rise up or loom.

In the same sense, a door is that which opens wide.

Mountain and door—that which looms up and that which opens.

The nuance is dynamic, masterful, and energetic.

In contrast to the peaceful and harmonious, life is vigorous, passionate, and explosive.

Life in all its light, color, voice, sound, tone, smell, and taste is meant to be experienced, not spectated.

To my Greek mind, appearance holds highest priority.

It favors an objective, outsider’s point-of-view: observe beauty as displayed in the ideal form and symbol.

Consider, for example, the golden ratio and other optical refinements in the Parthenon and the vast architecture, sculptures, and paintings of Ancient Greece.

Hebrew, in contrast, teaches me to value impression, a subjective, experiencing, insider’s perspective: feel beauty as revealed in function—that which fulfills it purpose—that which lives in excitement and rhythm.

Rather than the architecture, the sculpture, or the painting, see the transformation of the stone, the clay, and the canvas in the master’s hand.

How is Noah’s ark to be constructed? Of what is the Tabernacle made?

Dimensions and materials are defined, but a visual image of these edifices does not come easily to mind.

Compare that to the much more visually descriptive cave in Plato’s allegory, or to the gods of Homer and Hesiod.

The Greeks argue that the power of the mind is measured in its capacity to think logically, to gather and synthesize, and to reason its way to truth.

Points, lines, and planes offer visual and spatial elements for working Euclid’s geometry.

Aristotle’s logic systematically reasons to a right-minded conclusion.

To know for the Greek is to see what is.

“Seek learning” in order to furnish a proof.

Hebrew, on the other hand, proposes to me that the power of the mind be measured in its capacity for psychological understanding, its ability to analyze by dismembering and separating.

Experience, rather than observation, is the primary path to knowing.

Truth is steady, faithful, sure, constant, trustworthy, and certain; and that certainty comes through recollection.

Time, rather than being expressed spatially—timeline, point in time, from time to time—is rhythmic.

It has a beginning and an end; but it alternates between light and darkness, warmth and cold.

Again, this notion is carried in the very construction of the language.

In English, verb tenses are related to time: past, present, and future.

“He spoke. He speaks. He will speak.” In Hebrew, verb tenses are related to action.

The action is either complete or incomplete.

“The speaking is finished. The speaking is not finished.”

To know for the Hebrew is to hear and feel what becomes.

“Seek learning” to find a point.

The challenge before me is to somehow attend equally to both of these heritages; to find a synthesis between what at first glance appears to be diametrically opposed biases—similar to resolving the dual-nature of light, which at times demonstrates a wave-like structure and at other times a particle nature.

Studying Hebrew is another monocle to awaken my awareness to other possibilities, offering a distinct, but complementary, vantage point—a more accurate perception and an expanded worldview.

**********************************

Shanon Brooks is the President of Monticello College, the Director of Education and Training for Humanitarian Visions International, S.A., and a founding partner of the Center for Social Leadership. He co-authored Thomas Jefferson Education for Teens.

Shanon and his wife Julia are raising their six children in Monticello, Utah.

Connect With Shanon:

“A powerful tide is surging across much of the world today, creating a new, often bizarre environment in which to work, play, marry, raise children, or retire. In this bewildering context, businessmen swim against highly erratic economic currents; politicians see their ratings bob wildly up and down.Value systems splinter and crash, while the lifeboats of family, church, and state are hurled madly about.”
—Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave

1-Sources of Modern Conflict

We live in a society deeply troubled and increasingly distressed, partly because we have refused to accept a definition of what constitutes “truth”.

For some, True is what is sincerely believed; for others, True is what is scientifically proven. Some believe that the True is what works, and others define Truth as that which sells.

One solution is to substitute Wisdom for Truth. Can’t we all agree that, whatever sources and methods will give us ultimate truth, we can certainly learn wisdom from many (perhaps most) sources?

From ancients to moderns, our sages have urged us on a pursuit of wisdom. Stephen Covey recommends that people make a lifetime study of the great “wisdom literature,” a profound term for the classics and great books of human history. Indeed, the idea of wisdom literature narrows the classics that must be read and simultaneously broadens the list of books that should be considered “great.”

Plato considered wisdom the ruler of all other virtues, and Socrates dedicated his life to showing that no men were entirely wise. He said that humility is necessary for wisdom, and that only God is truly wise. Both the Greeks and the Hebrews were seekers of wisdom. Sophocles wrote, “Wisdom is the supreme part of happiness,” and Aristotle agreed.

Interestingly, as Mortimer Adler points out:

“Wisdom is more frequently and extensively the subject of discussion in the ancient and medieval than in the modern books. The ancients seem to have…a greater interest in understanding what wisdom is and how it can be gained.”

We may well have lost much wisdom simply because it is not a priority in modern times.Is it any wonder that we don’t find what we aren’t even seeking?  We don’t begin to approach the ideal that we never aspire to.

“In the tradition of the great books, the moderns usually assert their superiority over the ancients in all the arts and sciences. They seldom claim superiority in wisdom. With the centuries, far from increasing, wisdom may be lost.”

A unique and potent feature of wisdom is that it “cannot be misused”—unlike art, science, technology, leadership skills, knowledge, courage, loyalty, belief and power. All of these have at times been used for destructive or narcissistic goals, but any misuse of wisdom is patently un-wise, and therefore a counterfeit.10 Real wisdom is always, by definition, used positively—wisely.

Art, science, religion, mathematics—all celebrate wisdom, and all profess to seek wisdom. Yet few textbooks or academic manuals make any claim to it. Modern scholars are not expected to be wise. They are instead asked to be expert, focused, precise and prolific, among other things—but seeking wisdom is often a dangerous tact in many modern academic settings.

And our culture does little to learn wisdom from its elderly, despite the fact that this was the major source of wisdom for most people in history.

2-The Fall and Decline of a Primary Value: Wisdom

Some historical societies have placed duty as the highest goal, while others emphasized righteousness, and still others strength or progress. All of these require wisdom. For example, to paraphrase Aristotle, if a society’s definition of duty, righteousness, strength or progress is noble, then seeking duty, righteousness, progress or strength is laudable.11 But if the society’s definition of these things is bad, then seeking them is mere “cleverness.”

A society like ours that frequently puts success as the highest priority needs a wise definition of success. Otherwise, seeking success is merely selfishness.

A wise definition of success necessarily includes genuine happiness.  In other words, part of wisdom is prudence, which includes the ability and habit of seeing how the lessons of the past and events now occurring will most likely impact the future and allow us to provide for it.  Another vital part of wisdom is knowledge, and still another is understanding.

Aristotle went a step further: “…it is impossible to be practically wise without being good…”

Socrates says that no talents, strengths, abilities or virtues are of any real value absent of wisdom. Wisdom strengthens every other strength, and its absence nullifies or at least weakens any supposed strength. Socrates says that “…everything the soul attempts, under the guidance of wisdom ends in happiness.”  Aristotle applies this same thing to nations.

Wisdom is the indispensable element of success—personal, national, societal.

Likewise, for those who see progress as highest goal of society, a wise definition and application of progress is needed. Progressives at times forget this, as do those seeking success. While some have defined progress in terms of economic justice, others have put it more in terms of political liberty.

The American founding ideals combined these in a complexly considered yet ultimately simple formula: All people must have equal opportunity before the law by being treated as part of the same class.

The innate differences in individuals and their choices preclude an exact equality of results, but equality of opportunity before the law is the starting point of real freedom.   The goal of the American framers was thus a truly wise government.

In our time, unfortunately, the goal of wisdom has been largely lost and is certainly undervalued and seldom discussed. It may be assumed by some, or even many, but it has lost its place as the first and most prominent value in our society.

Societies that once held wisdom as the highest value only to lose it later include Athens, ancient Israel, the Roman Republic, and Britain, among others. When they lost the central priority of wisdom, they soon lost their place as world leader. And it shouldn’t be forgotten that the wisdom priority was part of what brought them each to power in the first place.

One key to overcoming this modern slide away from wisdom is to remember what government is really for. Aristotle taught that “…the state is the last stage in the development of social life which begins with the family” and therefore all government actions can be easily, and effectively, judged by how they positively impact the family.

Sometimes a return to the most basic principles is the height of wisdom.

Aristotle says that the study of truth is “…in one way hard, in another way easy.”  It is hard when we want to know every detail of truth, easy when we simply seek to find and apply wise principles.

3-An Indispensable Element of Success

What if we turned the modern debate between science, art, politics, conservatives, liberals and all the various “-isms” away from ultimate truth and focused instead on wisdom. A return to studying wisdom would likely coincide with what Covey called the replacement of the Success approach with a renewal of the Character ethic.

Are we a society obsessed with noticeable achievement or dedicated to meaningful contribution? Do we mostly value marketability or quality?

These naturally separate into competing categories. The first category, called Great, includes wisdom, character, quality and meaningful contribution. Against this is pitted the second category, Good, which includes the positive but lesser values of success, marketability, notability and achievement.

In business parlance, the good is the enemy of the great.

Which is more important to our future: a society arguing about truth or a society seeking to learn and apply wisdom? Do we need a nation of people who want to be seen as leaders, or do we need a society of people who lead?

Too often the language of modern experts is like the following talk show parody: “All brontosauruses are thin at one end; much, much thicker in the middle; and then thin again at the far end.”  This is a factual statement, but it’s not very helpful. You can prove it using science, but knowing this truth doesn’t accomplish much.

Another example: “Even if World War I consisted of nothing but a very, very large number of quarks in a very, very complicated pattern of motion, no insight is gained by describing it this way.”

These ridiculous examples are a lot like the reality, however. Steven Pinker wrote:

“Social psychologists have amply documented that people have a powerful urge to do as their neighbors do. When unwitting subjects are surrounded by confederates of the experimenter who have been paid to do something odd, many or most will go along.

They will defy their own eyes and call a long line ‘short’ or vice versa, nonchalantly fill out a questionnaire as smoke pours out of a heating vent, or suddenly strip down to their underwear for no apparent reason [just because everyone else in the room is doing so].”

Certainly politics frequently proves this sad reality.

Truth alone is limited. It needs wisdom to make any sense.Indeed, only with wisdom can we actually understand truth when we find it. Yet we have emphasized and idealized truth for over a century in modern society—leading to stagnation in our political and national progress. Those on the right have tended to seek truth for success, while their counterparts on the left have sought truth for progress.

Both have achieved much, but we have reached a point where both are failing to deliver solutions for our major challenges.

4- A Solution

Today we need a widespread paradigm shift to a Wisdom society—a people diligently seeking wisdom.

Does it make any sense in our increasingly post-modern society to keep engaging in the debates between science, art, religion, conservative, progressive, socialist, libertarian, hawk or dove? These dialogues have been in a rut for decades.

If real progress in such arguments seemed likely, we would of course keep talking.But America is increasingly divided into like-thinking cliques that reinforce shared views and attack everything about alternative perspectives. These voluntary factions frequently isolate themselves from competing viewpoints and increase their adamant views.

This enclave style of thinking is the norm in our current world, and the Internet has drastically exacerbated the problem.

There are fortunately some exceptions to this trend. The rise of political independents may be the rescue of the current e-closing of the American mind.  It also remains to be seen how the Millennial generation (born between 1984 and 2001) will combine social media with political involvement—they might choose a more inclusive, open and dialogue-oriented approach than Boomers and Gen Xers.

Given their generational values and tendencies, this could well be the case.

In the meantime, how can we resurrect a belief in the importance of wisdom? So far wisdom hasn’t been a driving force on social media. But then neither has it been a major priority in modernism itself. Our schools seldom emphasize teaching us to be wise, and few business, government, religious, media or other major institutions seem committed to such a course either.

Despite notable exceptions, in general wisdom is a lost priority, like fertile soil or turntable records. A few people care a great deal about these things, it is true, but the society has moved on.

Putting the goal of wisdom behind us is a major mistake. Wisdom should be the ultimate purpose of every school, every American teacher,every business and social leader, and a high priority for the rest of us. A national revival of the search for wisdom is long overdue. Only the incredibly naive claim to be wise, but the free nations of history were made up of citizens deeply committed to the continual search for wisdom.

We must also recognize and utilize wisdom when we do find it. Tocqueville noted that while Americans were less formally educated than the European elite of his day, they were constantly learning and prone to apply their knowledge in practical ways.

Indeed, advanced formal education is at times a roadblock to creative thinking.

Ultimately wisdom is about more than mere knowing—it requires doing. We must apply wisdom, or it isn’t really wisdom.

This is true both in domestic and international affairs. Washington has lost its reputation for wisdom across America and around the globe. Our increasing dependence on experts since the 1950s has even reduced the role of parents as the wise ones in the home. Wisdom is undervalued at nearly all levels of of our modern world.

Our society is deeply in need of a rebirth of interest in wisdom. We talk incessantly of things like Success, Talent, Progress and Getting Ahead. We trust IQ, promote EQ, and try to stay well-versed on the latest theory of personality types. Regular citizens across the nation keep an eye on fashion, health, technological, parenting, architectural, entertainment and cultural trends.

We glorify high test scores, prestigious associations and personal status symbols.

But we undersell, or simply ignore, the indispensable element of lasting success and truly progressing society—wisdom. We need a healthy dose of optimism in our society, and perhaps nothing would merit more optimism than a national paradigm shift to A Wisdom Society.

***********************************

Oliver DeMille is the founder and former president of George Wythe University, a co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd Online.

He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.

Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.

Connect With Oliver:

Rights, a paradox of leadership.  In most cases, people become leaders to defend or increase the rights of others. Martin Luther, Martin Luther King Jr., George Washington, Gandhi and Mother Teresa are easy examples.

Think about Steve Jobs, your local insurance agent, professional athletes and your local AC repair guy.

The leaders in these fields defend others’ rights as well. At the very core, they defend people’s rights to have a choice in products, service and employment. Given our free enterprise system, that right that they are defending is paramount to our country’s growth.

The paradox is, to be a leader and defend other people’s rights, you must give up the very right you are defending.

Martin Luther King Jr. was a leader of the victims of racial discrimination and segregation. To be a leader he had to give up his right to be a victim.

Henry Ford was a leader who offered affordable transportation to the average middle-class income earner. To be a leader he had to give up his right to be average.

Michael Dell defended peoples’ rights to have greater choices in personal electronics. To be a leader he had to give up his right to fit in with the status quo as he was expelled from college for making and selling computers on campus.

Michael Jordan created the highest spectator demand for the NBA. To be a leader, he gave up his right to be a spectator.

Your local AC repairman gives up his right to a comfortable work environment.

Doctors give up their right to work in a healthy environment.

George Washington led a fledgling group of disjointed Colonies to defeat the strongest army in the world. The colonies had been under the tyranny of King George III. Washington’s leadership started a ragtag, disconnected community on its path to becoming a great nation.

To lead, he gave up an innumerable amount of rights, the most noteworthy of which was the right to accept the title of King. After the war, the Continental Army had conspired to make George Washington King of America. With a short and simple speech George Washington disbanded the conspiracy and gave the world the right to live without tyranny.

Whose rights are you defending? What rights are you willing to give up to be the leader they need?

***********************************

Kevin Mogavero is a co-founder of “Six Degrees of Leadership,” a personal development company that empowers people to live their purpose and passion by building “Social Capital.”

A graduate of West Point Academy, Kevin served six years as an officer in the U.S. Army Field Artillery.  He held a combat arms leadership role for his entire career, except one staff position, during which he obtained a Master’s Degree in Leadership and Management. He also served in Iraq during “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” Since the military, Kevin has worked for Honeywell as an earned-value analyst in the aerospace department, in Phoenix Arizona.  

He started testing his leadership skills in the entrepreneurial world by starting several companies, to include a real estate company and a business mailing-address company. Kevin loves to serve people who have a yearning to create a better life for themselves and others.  He is passionate about teaching people the importance of something that most take for granted: relationships.

Kevin lives in Phoenix with his wife and two daughters. Read and subscribe to Kevin’s Warrior Blog here.

“A myth is a fixed way of looking at the world which cannot be destroyed because, looked at through the myth, all evidence supports that myth.” —Edward de Bono

If, as I claim in my book Killing Sacred Cows, much of what we’re taught about money is false, then why are these myths so prevalent, and where do they originate?

Most of the money myths we’re taught today originated during major economic or cultural developments (such as the Great Depression), are solidified by financial institutions that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and are spread through the misguided advice of well-intentioned family members and friends.

We rarely think to question the financial concepts we believe in and follow. Seldom do we consider that these “tried-and-true” strategies might in fact be false.

We’re trained in our perceptions of money from a young age. Our parents pass along to us their own ideas about money. Even if their ideas are not explicitly stated, we absorb them through observation of our parents’ use of money.

If they were careless spenders, we will likely spend our money carelessly. If they were cautious and suspicious of others, we will hold tight to our money in like manner and miss opportunities to grow our wealth.

Or we will adopt the polar opposites of their behavior about money and get ourselves into entirely different trouble. Without even knowing the source of our feelings about money, we will behave in ways that perpetuate financial mismanagement through our lifetimes and those of our children.

The members of our families and communities contribute to our miseducation through their own buying habits, through employment and investment advice, and through other motivating behaviors.

Most people have good intentions, but their advice relies on the same myths they were taught or information that may be pertinent to their situations but does not relate to our own.

The myths we absorb from our parents and community are supported by society as a whole. Our culture offers “wisdom of the ages” in the form of clichés about money that we rarely question.

These clichés are often rooted in historical events that have little to do with our current economy or our personal financial situations. For example, the Great Depression resulted in hoarding and a scarcity mindset that permeated American culture and heavily influenced succeeding generations. And the post–World War II boom led to the belief that financial security came from tying oneself to a corporation.

These beliefs are perpetuated by institutions within our society because they support their goals or because the people within the institutions don’t know any better either.

“Nothing is more difficult than competing with a myth.” —Françoise Giroud

Financial services companies sell their products by promoting perspectives and methods with fancy names such as “The Miracle of Compounding Interest.”

These marketing messages have been used for so long that we have come to accept them as viable and trustworthy financial strategies.

But financial institutions have always practiced and continue to practice the very things that we are either told to avoid or are completely unaware of. The ideas they promote are good for them, but not necessarily good for us.

Conventional retirement planners are usually no more helpful in the quest for true financial freedom.

Not only do retirement planners receive their training from financial institutions, but they often work directly for these companies as well. Even if a retirement planner is knowledgeable in correct economic principles, he usually has an underlying incentive to sell suboptimal products.

This does not mean that financial institutions are inherently evil because they pursue their own interests. It does mean, however, that we must be aware that institutions are in business for a reason: to increase their revenues and their bottom line.

My goal is not to tell you to completely avoid financial institutions; it is simply to point out that they have their own distinct interests and those interests may not coincide with yours. The better we under- stand the agendas of financial institutions, the more wisely we can utilize their policies for our benefit.

Educational institutions aren’t effective at combating the myths that financial institutions propagate. American schools fail at educating students in correct principles of personal finance.

A very different approach to money management is taught to students in personal finance courses as opposed to those in corporate finance courses.

Personal finance directs learners to accumulate net worth, pay off debt, invest for the long term, and protect their possessions with term insurance.

The corporate finance course teaches velocity of money, cash flow, risk management, and permanent insurance strategies. These principles and methods are far superior to and less risky than the personal finance techniques. In fact, corporate finance strategies are intended to take advantage of the investment dollars tucked away by people using personal finance methods.

What isn’t taught to the average American is that corporate finance strategies can be employed on a personal level and used to achieve far greater wealth with equal or better security.

To combat the compounded influence of family, community, experts, education, and society—a daunting task—we must realize that popularity and the majority’s opinions don’t necessarily point to the truth.

In other words, fifty million people saying a dumb thing doesn’t make it any less dumb.

The herd mentality is destructive. Consider this question: If only a minority of people are wealthy, why do we follow what the majority of people do financially?

True principles of personal finance exist that can lead to prosperity for anyone in almost any circumstance. But succeeding with these principles requires the courage to step away from the crowd and to choose “the road not taken.”

*******************************

Garrett Gunderson is an entrepreneur, financial coach, the founder of Freedom FastTrack, and the primary author of the New York Times bestseller Killing Sacred Cows: Overcoming the Financial Myths that are Destroying Your Prosperity.

Garrett loves inspiring others to turn their potential into production. He has dedicated his life to living and teaching a unique concept known as Soul Purpose that reveals how anyone can live a more prosperous and rewarding life.

As a finance and business productivity coach, Garrett instructs both large and small groups of business owners and financial service professionals nationwide.

Connect With Garrett:

“All men are created equal” is perhaps the least understood and most abused phrase in American Independence literature.

As with most other historical concepts – stripped of original context – it has come to be the philosophical authority for virtually every social doctrine, special interest persuasion, international proceeding, and progressive ideology.

As a side note, this phrase and the paragraph it belongs to have almost entirely overshadowed the actual Declaration of Independence.

Most people memorize, or are familiar with, the first two paragraphs. Yet these are only the philosophical reasoning and authority for the last paragraph – the most important paragraph in defense of State Sovereignty.

It is the last paragraph that declares independence: “That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown…”

Another critical feature is Jefferson’s direct transition from Colonies to Free and Independent States. But, the last paragraph and the subject of Independent States is a theme for another article.

Our immediate concern regards the word equality and the various styles in which it was used during the founding era.

There were many usages of the terms equal and equality present in governmental dialogue of Independent America. In general themes, there were five common usages.

Two came from Locke, a third was best expressed by John Taylor of Caroline, another related directly to “freemen,” and a fifth was propagated by the Scottish Common Sense school of Philosophy under the pen of Francis Hutcheson (whom Jefferson was heavily influenced by).

THE FIRST LOCKEAN PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY held that no man has a natural or God-given right to rule over another person.

There were some who used this argument as an invalidation of the institution of slavery. However in the main, it was used only against the regal doctrine of divine right of kings.

In other words, most who embraced this idea extended its implications only to those who ruled over them – to kings – but not to those whom they ruled over.

Those who held positions of power and responsibility did so by graces of the people. They stood in their position on grounds of good behavior and if that trust was violated they were promptly removed.

It was that relation, between kings and subjects, that almost all Americans agreed all men were created equal. Birth or position does not automatically separate a man from his fellows and grant him special dispensation to exercise authority over them.

THE SECOND LOCKEAN PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY derives from the premise that human beings are born with a blank slate – a tabula rasa.

Aristotle was the first to propose this idea. He described the mind of man as an unwritten tablet and only gains knowledge by experience and sense perception.

Thomas Aquinas, Francis Bacon, David Hume, John Locke and others whose writings heavily influenced the founders embraced this idea.

Essentially adult human beings are a product of social and familial tradition, time, circumstance, and individual experience. A natural philosophical development of this belief is education is critically important to the formation and operation of a good society.

Since all men are born equally ignorant, they must be taught how to be a good citizen and what proper conduct is within a free republic. Jefferson latched on to this idea with his whole heart. Virtually to his death he preached on the theme of education as the safeguard of lasting liberty.

This theme has modern undertones in the writings of Freud, Dewey, and other social engineers.

THE THIRD IDEA OF EQUALITY was directly concerned with morality.  The average 18th century person was steeped in the belief of an afterlife and final judgment.

The existence of deity was a social given as was the belief that all men – black and white – were directly accountable to Him; and thus were equally bound by moral duties with obligation and authorization to perform them.

John Taylor of Caroline was arguably the most outspoken advocate of this opinion. Though writing after the revolutionary era, he claimed his opinions accurately represented the true approach of the great American revolutionaries.

He felt most historical forms of government motivated man’s evil tendencies and thus corrupted his moral sense. But if the government were properly framed and it’s policies were true to the promotion of man’s honorable tendencies then man would be most inclined to perform his moral duty.

Such duties included hard work, self accountability, industry, education, along with the defense of freedom of religion, speech, press, inquiry, adequate division of power between sovereigns, elections by freemen, and representative democratic forms.

The equality thus shared by all men was no trivial abstraction but one they were obliged to defend here for they would be accountable for it before the King of kings.

THE FOURTH VIEW OF EQUALITY had direct reference to men – specifically “freemen.”

The word “men” in the phrase “all men are created equal” has, in our day, been extrapolated to include all human beings regardless of race, age, or gender. Whether this is acceptable or not in the legal American tradition is not relevant here. We are solely concerned with its substantive meaning then.

This idea of equality is the most common reference used today: that of equality under the law. What is missed in this argument is that during the founding era women, slaves, and children had no legal standing politically or in the courts.

Traditionally, Freemen were those who were not tied – or bound – to the land as in medieval feudalism. In America it excluded indentured servants, domestic servants, and of course slaves.

This class of people made up “the citizens” because they held legal status. In the convention of 1787 there was intense debate surrounding the question of who should receive the privilege of voting.

There were many who advocated property requirements in order to vote on grounds that if those without property could vote they, being in the majority, would use that privilege to vote themselves benefits out of the purses of the propertied class.

This idea of limiting the rights of citizenship to “freemen” was also entirely compatible with commonly held principles of republican theory and government.

Upon reexamination of the specific Declaration phrases in light of this concept of equality we arrive at an entirely different view of “all men are created equal” than is commonly preached.

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men (freemen) are created equal, that they are endowed by their created with certain unalienable rights (the rights of freemen are unalienable, those of servants or slaves obviously were not) that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

To be sure the rights of liberty alone, not to mention life and the pursuit of happiness, were not granted to “all men” – but to all “freemen.”

As an aristocratic elitist mentality this approach can and has been the subject of censure. Yet there were very few indeed who viewed it that way. For most it was a matter of course, practicality, and good government policy.

Extending the legal franchise to all people, period, has historically been a leading cause of social decay and disintegration. The framers were conscientious of framing a system of government that would go as far as possible in overcoming the ills and weaknesses of those forms of government.

In the view and understanding of a reasonably well informed individual of the revolutionary era, the phrase “all men are created equal” had reference to the common understanding of the concept of “freemen.” And equality under the law applied only to those who enjoyed legal status.

THE FIFTH CONCEPTION OF EQUALITY came from the Scottish Common Sense school of Philosophy, the specific doctrine of which was that all human beings are born with a moral sense. Born with an innate knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, and a principled nature – all men, wrote Francis Hutcheson, “are originally equal.”

As such they have equal ability to determine their representatives and judging whether the behavior of their choice is good or evil, right or wrong. “Nature makes none masters, none slaves” wrote Hutcheson.

Quite apart from the fourth concept of equality, the logical step from this premise is a position of extreme democracy. All will be involved in government: rich and poor, bond and free, male and female.

Jefferson, among others, grasped this theory and preached it till his death. Ironically for Jefferson, this position alone completely negated the institution of slavery as morally acceptable on the premise of the “original equality.”

Such are the generally held ideas surrounding the concept of equality in the founding era. I make no allusions to which is right or wrong. The point is to clarify the fact that there were many different approaches and the same is true with virtually every other philosophy surrounding the eventful time.

Therefore what? With such different and diverging views what constructive conclusion can be drawn for us in our day?

I offer a few observations.

Revolutionary America was more than just a war of swords but a war of words, of ideas, of philosophy, and of application. History can be summed up as man’s reaction to the world around him. It is the sum of all the decisions made by human beings as a response to his environment, senses, perceptions, and beliefs.

The ideas that win the day rarely do so because they are morally right and divinely inspired. Rather, they win because they are clearly understood and fearlessly fought for. The opinions of men are largely shaped by those who tirelessly and heroically prosecute their cause – whether good or evil.

Unfortunately the evil people have been more tireless and thus more successful at getting their philosophy adopted by governments and the people. If we want an opinion or idea to be accepted and adopted we must fight for it with all our heart, mind, and strength; using every means possible and available to propagate the philosophy.

It is never sufficient to blindly assert the past when the present is fraught with ambiguity and deception. In order to apply the past to the present it must be clearly understood. Then one must decide where he stands.

A blind man has very little reference points to ascertain his position. He is hardly able to say where he is in relation to any given object. We must strive to understand things as they were that we might be able to confidently, fearlessly, and humbly engage things as they are.

The idea that the founders had a monopoly on all principles of good government and understood and agreed on all philosophy of social arrangement is simply false. The founding era was a titanic struggle amongst a multiplicity of factions, interests, and belief systems.

Many of the framers themselves claimed their ideas were insufficient and they relied on future generations to improve on the science of good government and social structure and fix what they had missed.

We must do with them as Newton did and stand on the shoulders of those giants and improve on what they have done.

*******************************

Kyle Roberts is a small business owner who has committed his life to the cause of freedom. He is dedicated to recreating strong local self-government in his community by creating, and helping others create, institutions that create and preserve freedom.

He teaches a four-part lecture series on the Original Understanding of the Constitution for free to the community.

Kyle and his wife Kim own and operate Prudent Living Food Storage. They live in Spanish Fork, Utah with their two children.

Connect With Kyle:

By Orrin Woodward

Don’t let the issues outside of your control, stop you from addressing issues inside of your control.

If I have seen it once, I have seen it a thousand times, a talented person with a willingness to work, stopped cold by dwelling on issues outside of his control. 

This type of thinking takes on many forms, but here’s an example to help you recognize it in your own thinking.

Suppose you are looking at attending a certain school.  Upon learning that one of your friends attended the school, you seek him out to learn from his experiences. 

If he shares that he quit the school because it was too hard,  that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t attend.

If you have a dream, and are willing to work, it doesn’t tell you anything about your potential experiences at the school. Education, like nearly all life, is a matter of personal responsibility.  But, if your friend’s failed attempt at school, blocks your dream to even apply, then two failures have occurred.  One is a failure of action, the other a failure of thinking.

How do you control your friends work ethic?  How do you know if your friend was truly committed to the school and his dreams? Why let your friends actions hinder your opportunities?

Leaders can only control themselves and the decisions they make. With others, they have only influence, not control.

There are numerous examples of poor thinking in allowing issues outside of your control to affect the issues inside of your control.

Here are some other poor thinking scenarios:

1. I don’t attend church because a hypocrite goes there.  Why allow a hypocrite to stop you from learning Truth for you and your family?
2. I am not a business owner because I had a bad experience with a business person. Why allow a bad business person to deny you of future opportunities?
3. I don’t go to doctors because I had a bad experience with a doctor.  Why threaten your health because of one doctor’s incompetence.
4. I don’t read, because a teacher told me that I was dyslexic and would never be able to read. Why allow a teacher’s label to halt your personal growth.
5. I don’t talk to people because my parents told me that I was shy.  Why allow your parents label, when you were a child, to hinder your future?
6. I don’t attempt great things for God, because my family has never accomplished anything great.  Why allow your family’s past to hinder its future?
7. I don’t save money, because I was told that I would always be in debt.  Why allow someone’s poor thinking on money become your thinking?
8. I don’t dream, because I saw my friend dream and fail.  Why not learn from failures versus become one?
9. I am not getting married because so many people get divorces.  Why not learn the successful marriages versus focus on the failed ones.
10. I am not having children because the world is so messed up.  Why not learn how to prepare children for life versus deny them the opportunity for life?

I could go on, but you get the point.  Instead of allowing the things that you don’t control (other peoples thoughts and actions), to create your reality, why not focus on what you do control (your thoughts and actions)?

I grew up in Columbiaville, Michigan, a small village with few, if any, big thinkers.  It would have been easy to succumb to the ‘stinking thinking’ around Laurie and myself, but through God’s Grace, and a ton of effort, we broke free from the mold.

Instead of dwelling on our parents faults, Laurie and I focused on our parents strengths.  We learned work ethic and the ability to think from our parents, and applied them to every endeavor we undertook.

One of the keys to breaking out is majoring on your majors, not the failed minors of others.  Yes, people will let you down, but that shouldn’t stop you from fulfilling your purpose.  Yes, your family may hurt you at times, but that doesn’t stop end your responsibility to love and lead them.

Yes, your vision, like a ship, may take on water every now and then, but leaders understand that it’s part of the journey, rebuilding the ship bigger and stronger.  Your dream cannot be stolen, but through poor thinking, it can be surrendered.

Life is much easier, since Laurie and I decided to press on regardless of the actions of others.  We decided that we were in the game no matter what.

This released the stress and anxiety felt by most people, who are not truly committed to a course of action.  Leaders decide, backing the decision with full commitment, making the decision right by overwhelming passion and effort.

Did we have setbacks? Of course.  Did we have people make promises while not following through?  Many examples.  Did we stay the course?  To the best of our ability and know how, an emphatic yes.

We cannot control other peoples poor decisions, but the last thing we should do, is to compound the mistake by piling on.  Laurie and I have witnessed many people, with more talent than us, sabotage their own success through poor thinking.

Usually, by the time the weeds have ruined their thinking, they no longer are interested in hearing advice to help pull the weeds.  They even get offended at the suggestion that they are growing weeds.

I do my best to help point out the improper thinking, if they are willing to listen.  But, at the end of the day, people are responsible for the fruit, or lack of fruit, produced in their minds.  Pulling weeds when identified is standard fare for leaders.

Thus, one of the biggest weeds that can grow, is permitting issues outside of your control to hinder your attitude and actions on the issues inside of your control.

For example, if you aren’t reading, listening and learning daily in your chosen field, thinking what’s the use, since you aren’t getting the results in life that you want, then you are revealing a huge weed in your own thinking.

It takes time to develop mastery in any field.  In fact, it takes 10,000 hours according to Malcolm Gladwell and Geoff Colvin, both authors who write on achievement.  But most people quit in despair long before this.

By allowing things outside of your control to stop you from building up the 10,000 hours to reach mastery in your field, you ensure that mastery will never arrive in any field.  It truly is that simple, though not that easy.

Success in life, is simply a matter of staying focused on the areas that you control. It is surrendering to God the areas that are outside of your control.  What  a leader discovers is that others, influenced by their example, improve their community through a leader’s influence, not control.

The community, inspired by the leaders courage, make the tough changes in their lives to grow.  None of this would have happened, if the leader dwelled upon areas that he doesn’t control.  It was because the leader stayed the course, even when it hurt, that the resolve of others was strengthened to change their lives.

Are you that type of leader for your family, community, and team?

One of the best decisions that a leader will ever make in life is to be “all in”, in whatever field that s/he is pursuing.  Greatness doesn’t happen to those who dabble or deliberate, but only to those who decide.

Laurie and I are “all in” for our 8F’s – Faith, Family, Friends, Freedom, Finances, Fitness, Following, and Fun.

What are you “all in” for in life?  Life has become so much fuller by learning the secret of sacrifice.  When Laurie and I sacrifice our current conveniences for our convictions, we receive a ten fold return on, not only on our own 8F’s, but also in the joy of seeing others develop their 8F’s.

Look back upon your own life, didn’t you achieve more when you kept your mind focused on the areas that you could control, instead of dwelling upon what you didn’t control?  Today is the day to start thinking like the leader you plan on becoming.

****************************

Orrin Woodward is the co-founder of Team, a leadership development and training company, and the New York Times best-selling co-author of Launching a Leadership Revolution.

Named by the International Association of Business as a Top 10 Leadership Guru, he is dedicated to building leaders and entrepreneurs and promoting freedom and prosperity.

Orrin blogs regularly at Orrin Woodward. He lives in Port St. Lucie, Florida with his wife and four children.

Connect With Orrin:

Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence read “life, liberty, and property.” However, property was edited out at the suggestion of Ben Franklin because of its implications towards slavery.

The pursuit of happiness replaced it and has become the commonplace recitation.

This unfortunate expediency edit has played a significant role in removing from public discussion and common education the study of the unalienable right to property, along with the affixed dominant founding-era principles of property rights.

Instead, the pursuit of happiness dominates public discussion. Of course happiness is wholly subjective and the pursuit of it is predicated on how happiness is defined.

This gives rise to all kinds of social philosophy and policy that unfortunately empowers the state, not the people as intended.

What people don’t understand is that the legitimate pursuit of happiness is predicated on sound public understanding and acceptance of property rights.

Two Historical Theories of Property Rights

Under the Israelite theocracy of the Old Testament, God was the Lord of the land.

He permitted rural lands and village property to be leased but perpetual ownership could not be transferred from the tribe or family to which it was assigned originally and absolutely.

This created a unique form of unalienability. In the year of jubilee, all leased real property reverted to the original tribe or family to whom it was assigned. The tribe could not transfer the land perpetually or completely. It was unalienable (non-transferrable) but was still leasable.

The lease price was determined according to how many years remained before the year of jubilee. (Leviticus 25:15-16, 23-33, 27:17-24; Numbers 36:4; Jeremiah 32:7-16, 25, 44; and Ezekiel 46:18.)

This type of ownership and its accompanying rights was called allodial. It was the absolute ownership of real property by the people. No acknowledgment was given to any other man or government, to any superior or overlord on the earth.

The policy of allodial property rights was used by the Israelites and the Anglo-Saxons and formed the basis for what the English called Common Law.

A majority of civilizations, however, have followed the other theory of property rights: feudalism.

Feudalism is a system or economic policy where all real property is held by a superior or lord: usually the King, Sultan, or Prince. The superior imposes “fees” (taxes) on those he allows to use his real property and has the unabridged right to regulate his property as he sees fit.

Real estate as we know it today is derived from this system. Real (the King) estate (holdings or possessions).

It is a sort of pyramid system where there is only one allodiary — the King — and all property rights are delegated by him to others. Either directly to those who will use the land, or to managers (barons, lords) who will parcel out the land and manage it.

The King, who is the sole allodiary, possesses all allodial — or absolute — property rights. Everyone else has privileges or immunities and must pay rent for the land and submit to the regulations imposed on its use.

The allodial rights reserved by the King were of four basic kinds:

• subject to the right of the King to require servitude from the property;
• subject to the right of the King to repossess the property;
• subject to the right of the King to inherit the property; and
• subject to the right of the King to regulate the property.

These two theories, allodialism and feudalism, are at direct odds with each other. They advocate opposing economic systems and place property rights in the hands of different entities.

Since most people have heard of feudalism, and very few have heard of allodialism, there are a number of words associated with allodialism that need clarifying. Let’s consult some founding era lay and legal dictionaries.

ALLODIUM, n. [Ger. origin; al all, and ohd possession, property. It means, therefore, entirely one's property.]

• Freehold estate; land which is the absolute property of the owner; real estate held in
  absolute independence, without being subject to any rent, service, or acknowledgment to a superior. It is thus opposed to feud. In England, there is no allodial land, all land being held of the king; but in the United States, most lands are allodial.
• Pertaining to allodium; freehold; free of rent or service; held independence of a lord paramount; opposed to feudal.

William Blackstone’s Commentaries on The Laws of England, Volume 2 :

• Absolute property in land, wholly irrespective of any superior Lord, and without any
  duty of rendering rent or service.

John Bouvier’s Law Dictionary Adapted To The Constitution and Laws of The United States of America and of The Several States of The American Union:

• Signifies an absolute estate of inheritance, in contradistinction to a feud. In this country the title to land is essentially allodial, and every tenant in fee simple has an absolute and perfect title.

There are many other dictionaries we could cite but the meaning is clear. Allodium is the direct opposite of feudal.

Here are the other words associated with allodialism:

An allodiary is a person who owns real property in allodium. Allodification is the process of making non-allodial (or feudal) real property allodial. Infeudation is the process of making allodial lands feudal.

Allodialism comes from the Greek phrase, “but from God”; which means there is no earthly ruler or superior who can claim lordship over real property held in allodium by another individual, since God is the direct Lord of it and has granted power to exercise dominion over it to the allodiary.

Blackstone says the

“…grand and fundamental maxim of all feudal tenure is that all lands were originally granted out by the lord sovereign, and are therefore holden either mediately or immediately of the crown.

The grantor was called the proprietor, or lord; being he who retained the dominion or ultimate property of the feud or fee: and the grantee, who had only the use and possession according to the terms of the grant, was styled the feudatory or vassal, which vassal or tenant upon investiture did usually homage to his lord.” (Commentaries V.2)

Under the feudal economic system people did not have unalienable property rights, they had granted privileges of use from their Lord subject to all kinds of taxes, fees, regulations, and military service.

There is only one sole allodiary (a person who owns real property in allodium) under that system.

By contrast, in a free market system where all individuals have unalienable rights to property (not just the King), all real property is held in allodium by individuals; which is the condition of absolute ownership. No recognition is given to a superior or overlord with respect to it and it is not subject to taxes, fees, or external regulation.

The allodial rights of individuals are supreme with respect to their property. Allodial real property is owned absolutely without being subject to any rent, service, or right of superior or lord, including the state.

The Unalienable Right To Property And The Free Market

In a free market setting different products come on and off the market as they are transferred from owner to owner. When I purchase a widget at the store I am laying claim to a piece of property held previously by another owner.

When there is no regulation whatsoever over the transaction by any government it is called a free market purchase.

Similarly, when there is no subsequent regulation or taxation over how I use the widget (short of violating the rights of others) then my unalienable rights to my property are secure.

The same is true of real estate. We have to understand that land is just another commodity on the market. It is not separate from market operations.

The founders felt it was the most important property right to protect because of its foundational role in determining the level of freedom a society could enjoy.

For when allodial rights in property (specifically dealing with land) are not secure then private property is abolished.

Legal rules for real property must be developed by the government to govern the use of real property, the resources thereon, and to regulate occupancy.

One dramatic consequence of a shift away from allodial rights and real property held in allodium is that the means and factors of production are transferred into the hands of the state.

For the sole allodiary is the only entity which possesses the rights to the resources upon its free-hold estate.

As in feudal times, the sole allodiary was the King. He dictated the use, cost, and occupancy of his lands.

In his Summary Review of The Rights of British America, Jefferson laid claim to the fact that American land was allodial in nature:

“America was not conquered by William the Norman, nor its lands surrendered to him,
or any of his successors. Possessions there are undoubtedly of the allodial nature.”

However, when the people are no longer the sole allodiaries, their allodial rights – or their unalienable rights to property – are transferred away. They become subject to the regulations and dictations of the usurping sole allodiary.

In a free market, there is no difference between purchasing a bike and purchasing land. They are both commodities the value of which is determined by the choice preference and subjective value judgements of individuals.

Neither are regulated by the state before, during, or after purchase.

The Meaning of The Unalienable Right To Property

I have said elsewhere that unalienable means non-transferrable and that a right is the authorization to act. It is not the action. Also, that our unalienable rights come from God.

We have discussed above the true nature and legal meaning of absolute ownership in property, or allodial rights, or property held in allodium.

Therefore, the unalienable right to property, or allodial rights, means: the non-transferrable authorization by God to man, for man to own and act upon, free and clear of any other entity on the earth, the goods, commodities, resources, and elements of his land without any regulation, fees owed, or taxes due to any other person or government on earth.

As it relates to land, allodial rights include the authorization to act upon the topsoil, timber, crops, metals, buildings, livestock, wildlife, contractual improvements or any other good or resource found on the land without any interference by any other entity.

Under plenary allodialism, such real property could not be taxed or regulated.

This is the basis of a free market. There is no government intervention whatsoever with market-based actions and ownership.

If allodial rights in land are stripped from the people then we have a situation of totalitarian government. The four rights of the feudal lords are reapplied, but the names are changed. These are now referred to as taxation, expropriation, escheat and eminent domain.

The right of the government to own specific portions of land for specific reasons is clearly spelled out in the Constitution. (This is a topic for another article)

However, nowhere is power granted for them to retain public land for unenumerated purposes, nor is power granted for them to regulate private property. This has come from an improper interpretation and construction of the commerce clause.

The power to regulate property is a right reserved to each individual property owner. Not because the government granted it, but because it is unalienable.

It is this unregulated pursuit, acquisition, and use of property that defines and enables the pursuit of happiness.

A free market world where our unalienable allodial rights are secured is a world, the happiness, success, growth, glory, progress, and order of which we do not now enjoy nor comprehend.

Yet, it is a world worth giving our life, fortune, and sacred honor for.

*******************************

Kyle Roberts is a small business owner who has committed his life to the cause of freedom. He is dedicated to recreating strong local self-government in his community by creating, and helping others create, institutions that create and preserve freedom.

He teaches a four-part lecture series on the Original Understanding of the Constitution for free to the community.

Kyle and his wife Kim own and operate Prudent Living Food Storage. They live in Spanish Fork, Utah with their two children.

Connect With Kyle:

I wrote in an earlier review of several recent articles and books on “the end of men.” Such writings sparked a lot of discussion on the national scene, mostly among women.

Men, it seems, aren’t paying much attention to such things. Where men do take exception to the predictions and statistics about man’s falling value to society, it has mostly come in the tone of irony.

For example, Colin McEnroe slaps back in the September 2010 issue of Men’s Health with arguments like:

“But listen up, ladies: The buttons on that remote aren’t going to push themselves.”

“They would miss us, right? There would be subtle repercussions. For example…jar opening, wasp-nest nuking, rodeo riding…knife fights in malls…”

“Women are still free to seek our elimination, of course, but my advice is to keep a small number of us—300 or 400—in some kind of zoo, for breeding purposes. Like albino alligators, we may play roles in the ecosystem that even we cannot see.”

And Jeff Wilser says the top seven man rules are:

• Tip well;
• You only recognize primary colors;
• Know how to give a compliment;
• Never say “blossom”;
• Keep an empty urinal between you and the next guy;
• Pack two pairs of shoes or fewer;
• and Outperform the GPS.

Male joking aside, the man’s role is in serious question—among men and women. The use of humor often highlights the fact that this topic is definitely on the docket in the American dialog.

The New Man Rules

A few things are clear. During this post-economic-meltdown era, certain things are in, like brown dress shoes, a little facial hair, leather bands on watches, v-neck sweaters, cuff links, and sneakers that are simple and cool.

“Women may not take note of the hours you log working out, but they will notice if you wear sneakers outside the gym,” one column assures us. The Prohibition-era look (recession, but not yet depression) and early sixties fashions are in — a rebellious comment against the Establishment.

But the serious advice to men is worth noting: “Optimal living isn’t about saving time. It’s about seizing control over the ways you spend it.” Get more done by getting out of bed as soon as you wake up, take real vacations to reboot, and “buy a trip, not a toy.”

Men are also told that “The New Rules for Men” include standing for something that matters, unplugging from electronics when it’s time to do important things, customizing many of the things you buy in life to fit your real needs and wants, and accepting that you can’t control everything.

“Standing for something” was the title of a book by Gordon B. Hinckley promoting, among other things, being a real man by being a truly good person, husband and father.

The “ideal of unplugging” was taught in the seventies by John Naisbitt in the bestselling Megatrends; he called it “High Tech, High Touch.”

“Customizing” was predicted in the 1990s as a major growing trend in our times by business guru Harry S. Dent, and the promotion of “accepting that which we cannot change” (and taking positive action to change those things we can and should) are as old as the Cicero, Cato, Aurelius and the Stoics. But bringing them all together for our time in history is, I think, quite profound.

It seems that while some women commentators are noting the popular ascendance of women and relative decline of man’s power, others are quick to point out that the equality of women is still a major unfulfilled challenge for feminism.

And where some men are ignoring or brushing off the trend with humor, at least one significant thing is happening among men: A lot of them are talking about what it means to be a man, how to be a real man, and what being a good man is all about. That’s not a revolution or a reform, it’s an internal renaissance among men.

This trend started (mainly among religious groups and authors) in the nineties, but it is taking on an increasingly mainstream tone.

For example, Philip Zimbardo of Stanford and John Boyd of Google teach in The Time Paradox that men who want to keep up with the coming future take more risks, remain goal-oriented, have strong impulse control, and take time to enjoy the present more often. Sounds almost Biblical. Or Shakespearean.

Boys 2 Men

Men are telling each other to be good. Somehow, in some way, the Great Recession moved a lot of men away from the playboy values of the roaring nineties toward more grown-up ideals.

Current advice to men includes: Eat better, drink more water, add fruits and vegetables to most of your meals, listen to more relaxing music, stop smoking, get more sleep, and so on.

This sort of advice has been served up for a long time, and there is a lot of the play-while-you’re-single commentary still, but some things have a newer ring: Work out more often in chores like “chopping and splitting wood,” “planting trees,” and “operating a floor sander,” eat more eggplant and also kale.

Also: Read more often in the deepest books, express more gratitude to your significant other, go out on more dates with her instead of just hanging out, give more service to your charity.

Make your own fate. In a political discussion, turn things to solutions instead of attacking sides. Spend less at restaurants and cook for her more often. Clear and clean the dishes.

Turn off all electronic devices at least 30 minutes before bed to increase the quality of your sleep. Be yourself, and better yourself.

Do wild things that make you feel like a man, and do them smart. Start a business. Increase your education. Take long hikes (customize and make your own trail mix).

“What a fairy-tale, romantic version of a man,” my 18-year-old daughter said when she read this. “Where did that list come from?”

When I told her it was mostly from one issue of Men’s Health, she was shocked. “That’s sooooo cool!” she exclaimed.

“I know, right?”

Be strong, innovative and reliable—these are some of the main messages men are now sending to men. And many women seem to agree. Where teen heart-throbs such as the unshaven young Leonardo DiCaprio used to be the choice for sexiest man alive, the top three right now are 47-year-old Johnny Depp, 42-year-old Hugh Jackman, and 36-year-old Christian Bale.

C.S. Lewis once wrote an article titled Men Without Chests to argue that we need more leaders who stand up for the good and against the bad, even when it is unpopular or difficult.

Decades later, The Weekly Standard published an article called “Men Without Chest Hair,” noting that then-teenager Leonardo DiCaprio had become the new male icon.

Today the grown-up, and very-non-teenage-looking, 36-year-old DiCaprio is still high on the list of “sexiest man alive.”

Teenage-looking men, like Zac Efron or Twilight’s Robert Pattinson, are rarely listed. Only five of them are in the top fifty, and even most of these look like they’re trying to appear older.

The most popular drama on television, according to Emmy voters, is Mad Men, which features middle-age men as its “handsome” leads. A headline in the woman’s magazine Glamour reads: “From silly boys…to ‘mad men.’”

Manhood 2050

I don’t know if the age of man is over or not, but the world can only benefit if more men work to become better. Not as a government program, mind you, but as a self-led-personal-improvement stimulus.

As corporate keynote speaker Bill Perkins suggested, there are times when real men need to break each of these six rules:

• Never get in a fight;
• Never risk it all;
• Never give up;
• Never ask for help;
• Never lose your cool;
• Never look stupid.

There are things worth fighting for, times to take more risk, habits and behaviors each of us should give up, times we really should ask for help, situations that require our full energy and passion, and experiences where humility and being willing to look stupid are exactly the right thing. Done correctly, all of these are characteristics of strength. There are many others.

I think maybe we’ve reached a point where the concern is a lot less about the differences between men and women than simply this: How can I be a better person?

Conclusion

We can wait for government, society, another institution, the experts, some great artist or something else to help us reconcile the male/female debate and bridge the gap between the various schools of thought on how men and women should be.

Or, finally, we can just get to work on truly improving ourselves. In this particular case, we all need to say “I” a lot more than “we.”

• I am improving the way I spend my evenings
• I am reading more things that matter
• I am spending more truly quality time with my kids
• I am doing more just because it is fun
• I am eating better
• I am taking long walks with my grandchildren
• I am making my work a real mission to improve the world
• I am smiling, laughing and relaxing a lot more
• I am finding so many fun ways of serving my wife
• I am helping build things that really make a positive difference
• I am working hard to…
• I am changing the way I used to…
• I am serving others in such great ways by…
• I am improving myself so much by…
• I am loving my new focus on…
• I am…

Regardless of the experts, what each of us does in our personal life is the key to the future. (And are there really any true experts on being a real man, husband and father—except, perhaps, great men, husbands and fathers—and, of course, your wife.)

There are so many things we can do, as men, right now to become better and to improve the world. We can do so much that is fun, that requires strength, that makes us feel truly alive. We can add so much meaning to the world.

Whatever the experts say, I believe we are living in the beginning of a renaissance of manhood. If not, it is time to start one.

***********************************

Oliver DeMille is the founder and former president of George Wythe University, a co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd Online.

He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.

Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.

Connect With Oliver: