What makes some companies and some individuals always near the top of the pack?

The biggest differentiator in the new economy is a constant and never-ending quest for excellence. The Japanese have a word for this: “kaizen.”

Do you practice kaizen in your personal and professional life?

If you were hiring a doctor, lawyer, builder or accountant—wouldn’t you hope they were practicing constant and never ending improvement in their personal and professional lives?

If you discovered they were not interested in excellence would you think of hiring someone else?

I am shocked by how many people are accepting of the mediocrity in their personal lives and yet expect excellence in others.

We would be upset if the waiter or waitress does not refill our water when it is empty, but think nothing of giving less than 100% on our own jobs or businesses.

Why the double standard?

Let’s decide today to live our lives in all areas to a standard of excellence in all that we do.

Anyone desiring to live a life of excellence must declare war on average.

If you can do better, then it is time to start giving the world your better on your way to best.

How can we possibly change others if we will not do the hard work of changing our own average habits?

The world will flock to a man or woman who is focused on giving their absolute best to their chosen profession.

If you wish to get more—you must begin by giving more!

In fact, I would tell you to give more even if you never get more. Success is an inside job and the satisfaction obtained from knowing you did your personal best is the ultimate reward.

My attitude anytime I speak, write, or mentor is to give my personal best. Regardless of whether anyone recognized it or not—I still feel great because I know I did my personal best.

There is a story told of Joe DiMaggio of New York Yankee fame that exemplifies this principle.

Joe was one of the greatest hitters of all time and Hall of Famer.

In a spring training game that did not count in the standing or statistics—Joe drove a ball down the first baseline.

Instead of jogging to first with a single, Joe sprinted around first and dove head first into second just ahead of the outfielder’s throw.

Joe hit a double in a meaningless game that did not count in the record book.

Yet it looked like Joe was playing in a World Series game and not a spring training exhibition.

Why did Joe do that? A reporter after the game asked the same question, wondering why Joe sprinted out a double and risked injury in a spring training game.

Joe’s answer ought to be taught to every person in every profession.

Joe said he couldn’t help but think that some mother or father had brought their young daughter or son to the game. Maybe this was the only time they would ever see Joe DiMaggio play the game of baseball.  He wanted to be sure to give them something to remember.

Wow! That gives me goose bumps just thinking about it!

In your life, are you giving people something to remember? Are customers raving about your quest for excellence in all that you do?

Many people remember watching Joe play the game because he was in a quest for excellence in his chosen field.

Joe understood that success was from the inside out and if he played baseball he would play it at his high standards.

I encourage you today to live a life in a quest for excellence. Listen to your customers and seek ways to improve their satisfaction with your service.

The more you have them raving about what you do, the easier it is to market your profession.

A satisfied customer is the best advertisement for what you do.  An unhappy customer is the worst advertisement for what you do.

You will never make everyone happy, but you must start with making yourself happy with your efforts. If you are not happy then it is no surprise that others are not.

Today is the day to make your life a quest for excellence and live kaizen in your life.

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

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:

A couple friends and I had the brilliant idea to go canyoneering through Spry Canyon in Zion National Park in the middle of winter.

Canyoneering is hiking through slot canyons that require a lot of rappelling to traverse, and they also involve hiking through a lot of water and extremely rough country.

Did I mention that this time we went in the middle of winter? Oh yeah, there was also six inches of snow on the ground, covering a lot of ice and tons of steep slick rock.

And there was also that minor detail of the head park ranger (a very experienced woodsman who had done our particular hike multiple times) calling us — not once, but twice — to practically beg us not to go in such conditions.

Being the intrepid (i.e. naive) youngsters that we are, we headed out against his advice and, we found out later, pretty much every survival instinct known to man.

An Uneventful — Yet Ominous — Hike

For the first mile or so, we enjoyed a leisurely, level hike down a sandy, dry riverbed. The subsequent hike up about 2,000 feet of snow and ice-covered slick rock should have been our first clue (no wait, second, counting the park ranger’s advice) that it might not be a good idea to attempt the canyon in those conditions.

After much dangerous slipping and sliding, we made it to the top of a high ridge, only to face a precarious descent down the other side.

We made it to the bottom and resumed our hike for probably another half mile, and at 1:15 in the afternoon arrived to the top of the biggest rappel in the entire canyon, a drop of 165 feet.

Staring down from the top of that, with ice and snow completely covering the entire descent, should have been our third clue that we might be getting into something over our heads.

Of course, hindsight is 20/20…

The Plunge

I was the first to go down. The day was filled with dumb mistakes, and this descent was no different.

One major mistake was that we failed to throw our ropes out far enough, so that they would drop to the bottom without getting tangled. As a result, I was fighting tangles and snarls in the rope the entire way down.

The rope got so tangled that it left a fateful knot at the bottom that would play a significant part in the rest of the day.

At the bottom of the cliff lay a pool of water covered in three inches of ice. The pool was about 15 feet wide, and I had no idea how deep it was.

I stood on the ice, held my breath, and prayed that I wouldn’t break through. I took off my backpack, got down onto my hands and knees, and tried to carefully creep across the ice.

After about five feet the ice betrayed me and I heard those sickening creaking and cracking sounds. Sure enough, it was too thin to hold and I plunged into freezing water.

Thankfully, the water was only waist deep, and so I hustled to break through the remaining ice and climb out onto a ledge on the other side.

I climbed out and I couldn’t feel anything from my waist down. It was straight out of those nightmare adventures you see on the Discovery channel or read in Reader’s Digest.

I started jumping up and down to get the blood recirculating. Meanwhile, my friend started his descent. Apparently my plunge into the water hadn’t yet dampened our spirits (or knocked the stupidity out of us).

A Disastrous Knot

After about 45 minutes, all three of us were standing at the bottom of this 165-foot cliff, ready to continue onward.

That’s when I made yet another major mistake.

In all of the anxiety of getting through the water, I failed to remove the knot from my rope and forgot all about it.

I pulled the rope through from the bottom until the knot hit the ring at the top, and my heart dropped through my stomach.

We were stranded.

We couldn’t go forward because our rope was stuck, and to go back up it would require an extremely difficult ascent.

My friend Barry decided to try the ascent. Nn experienced rock climber, he made it safely to the top.

Next up was Kent, a strong but lightweight guy who made it up with relatively little trouble.

That left me. I’m a 200-pound guy and I’ve never lifted weights in my life. Most one-armed men would have had a better chance of getting up that formidable cliff than me.

When I latched on to the ascenders and attempted to pull myself up, I felt what it must feel like to be a slug.

I was borderline hypothermic, hanging on to a rope and dangling at the bottom of a 165-foot cliff, not having a clue how I was going to drag myself out of that canyon.

Barry and Kent undoubtedly had fleeting thoughts of leaving me, but probably calculated the unpleasant task of telling my wife what happened, and decided against it.

So there I hung. I felt so helpless, and it was painfully frustrating that I had so little to add to the task of getting me to the top.

Somehow, some way, with a combination of Barry doing some innovative pulley systems with the ropes, and both Barry and Kent pulling from the top, we heaved my virtually useless body to the top.

I was completely dependent on the strength and position of Barry and Kent, and Barry’s knowledge, skill and ingenuity with ropes.

Furthermore, Barry’s foresight and preparation in bringing the right equipment saved us all; my lack of preparation, skill and strength was completely at the mercy of my friends.

Had it not been for their help, I would have been stuck at the bottom of that near-disastrous cliff. Where I was weak, they were strong. The process of getting me to the top took about two and a half hours.

After a miserable, 3-hour hike, we finally made it back to our car.

But we made it. We made it together, the strongest and the weakest, through teamwork, patience and longsuffering.

So what does all of this have to do with charity?

We are all on a wearisome journey together, in a slot canyon that we call earth life. We’re all doing the best we can to scramble and struggle our way through the incredibly arduous journey.

All of us make unwise choices or face challenges that are not even of our own making, and find ourselves at the bottom of precipitous cliffs, standing in dangerously cold water, staring up at the top wondering how in the world we’re going to climb out of what seems to be an impossible situation.

When those times come, the only thing that can save us is friends throwing down a rope to us and helping us climb out.

There are even some who refuse to grab the rope when it’s thrown down to them. We can’t force them to hold on, but we must still throw down the rope to every stranded sibling that we find along the way.

That’s our most important and divine job — to throw down ropes to our lost Brothers and Sisters and pull them to the top, so that we can all arrive safely Home together.

The strongest and the weakest, the bravest and the most fearful, the healthy and the afflicted, together, hand in hand.

There may be times when we’re tempted to condemn those we find at the bottom of forbidden cliffs, and justify our lack of charity by saying that they did it to themselves. But we’re all beneficiaries of one rope or another at various times in our lives.

So who can you throw a rope to today?

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

Stephen Palmer is a marketing consultant and persuasive writer with KGaps Consulting, a co-founder of The Center for Social Leadership, and the New York Times best-selling co-author of Killing Sacred Cows: Overcoming the Financial Myths that are Destroying Your Prosperity.

He is a liberal-arts graduate of George Wythe University and a graduate of the “non-traditional business school” Wizard Academy.

Stephen resides in Round Rock, Texas with his gorgeous wife Karina, awesome son Alex, and princess daughters Libby, Avery, and Laela. Stephen and Karina blog about their magical life on Palmer Journeys.

Connect With Stephen:

Email: spalmer [at] kgaps [dot] com

However, this desire can lead down a path that will take us away from where we want to go. In Leo Tolstoy’s novel Resurrection the author shows us the darker side of allowing society to influence us instead of individuals influencing society.

The story centers around a formerly idealistic young man who experiences a dramatic change (for the worse) over a course of three years and then ten years later is placed face-to-face with the consequences of his actions.

Tolstoy introduces us to Prince Nekhlyudov, describing how idealism (what is eternally real, not temporally real) is a discovery of how wonderful life can be and how it is a determination to pursue that life in its ideal.

“During that summer at his aunts’ Nekhlyudov experienced that rapturous state of exaltation when a young man discovers for himself, without any outside recommendation, all the beauty and significance of life, and the importance of the task allotted in life to every man; when he sees the endless perfectibility of himself and the whole universe; and devotes himself not only hopefully, but in complete confidence to attaining the perfections he dreams of.”

What does Tolstoy mean that one “discovers for himself, without any outside recommendation?”

Human beings have a profound ability to reason and believe and find truth. When we are depending on faith in God, the wonders of nature, our own reason, and great books/thoughts, most individuals will come to very similar and correct ideas about life.

What a difference it would make if we see the world and others as Tolstoy describes that the idealist (one who acts based on eternal truths) sees it: as something completely perfectible in work, word, deed, and act…it changes everything.

For Nekhlyudov, time with nature and family was what brought out this perspective.

In the story, Tolstoy teaches us the process through which the way see the world changes from an idealistic to a pragmatic view:

1. One begins to care for own enjoyment only.
2. Life loses its mystery and everything depends on relative circumstances
3. We lose communion with nature and “thinkers” (there are relatively few of theses about) and start to depend on social status and affairs of what others think (especially experts and those already accepted by society).
4. Women become a “familiar means of enjoyment,” instead of a mystery and enchanting, as in the case of Nekhlyudov. Relationships with the opposite sex become strictly physical with gratification as a goal.
5. Spending money without thought of why, how, whom and the underlying philosophy of spending and consuming.
6. Once we change how we see ourselves, how we see everything else changes.”[Prior to the change, Nekhylyadov] had regarded his spiritual being as his real self; [after this transition] his healthy virile animal self was the real I.” This is likely the fundamental actor here.

What brings about the change in the way we see ourselves? Tolstoy gives the answer. Nekhlyudov came to trust this virile ”animal self” because:

“…he had ceased to put his faith in his own conscience and had taken to trusting others. And he had ceased to trust himself and begun to believe in others because life was too difficult if one believed one’s own conscience; believing in oneself, every question had to be decided, never to the advantage of one’s animal self, which seeks easy gratification, but in almost every case against it.

“But to believe in others (and their sense of right and wrong) meant that there was nothing to decide: everything had been decided already, and always in favor of the animal ‘I’ and against the spiritual. Moreover, when he trusted his own conscience, he was always laying himself open to criticism, whereas now, trusting others, he received the approval of those around him.”

Slowly, the opinion of the world begins to matter more than our opinion and this leads to a shift in allegiances, from God and that spiritual self that is so intimately tied to Him, to an allegiance to others, and eventually to evil.

This is at first difficult for Nekhlyudov; however he began to smoke and drink, which dulled his sense of right and wrong and there by “forgot the uncomfortable feeling and even experienced great relief.”

Why do we grant society such influence over us? Why do we give more weight to what others think than to our own reason and conscience?

Tolstoy argues that human beings make better decisions trusting in their conscience, studying others’ ideas and spending time in true reality (nature) instead of in the false reality of concrete, computers, TV, and movies.

Human nature creates society through our desire to cooperatively work together; but we cannot allow society’s influence to draw us away from trusting ourselves and God.

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

Mike Wilson received his B.S. degree in Chemistry from Brigham Young University and pursued graduate work at the University of California, San Diego, where he earned a M.S. degree in Biomedical Sciences prior to obtaining his M.D. at the UCSD School of Medicine.

He lives in Cedar City, Utah with his wife Jenni and their six children and practices emergency medicine in St. George, Utah while working on a Ph.D. in Constitutional Law at George Wythe University. He is also an Associate Mentor at GWU.

Mike’s passion is promoting idea that the common man has power and capacity to affect grand change in the world through true principles of love, goodness, and virtue. Because of his Jeffersonian trust in the common man, he considers himself a “little d” democrat (an ideal, not a political party).

He believes that the cause of liberty is founded essentially in widespread powerful education, checks on power, and promotion of virtue and goodness. Force is never a real solution to problems for Mike and the statesman’s role is to understand the ideal, see where society is, and then put himself in a position to move society in the direction of the ideal.

Connect With Mike:

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.

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

Stephen Palmer is a marketing consultant and persuasive writer with KGaps Consulting, a co-founder of The Center for Social Leadership, and the New York Times best-selling co-author of Killing Sacred Cows: Overcoming the Financial Myths that are Destroying Your Prosperity.

He is a liberal-arts graduate of George Wythe University and a graduate of the “non-traditional business school” Wizard Academy.

Stephen resides in Round Rock, Texas with his gorgeous wife Karina, awesome son Alex, and princess daughters Libby, Avery, and Laela. Stephen and Karina blog about their magical life on Palmer Journeys.

Connect With Stephen:

Email: spalmer [at] kgaps [dot] com

Thoughts Are Things

Henry Van Dyke

I hold it true that thoughts are things;
They’re endowed with bodies and breath and wings;
And that we send them forth to fill
The world with good results, or ill.

That which we call our secret thought
Speeds forth to earth’s remotest spot,
Leaving its blessings or its woes
Like tracks behind it as it goes.

We build our future, thought by thought,
For good or ill, yet know it not.
Yet, so the universe was wrought.
Thought is another name for fate;
Choose, then, thy destiny and wait.
For love brings love and hate brings hate.

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.

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

Stephen Palmer is a marketing consultant and persuasive writer with KGaps Consulting, a co-founder of The Center for Social Leadership, and the New York Times best-selling co-author of Killing Sacred Cows: Overcoming the Financial Myths that are Destroying Your Prosperity.

He is a liberal-arts graduate of George Wythe University and a graduate of the “non-traditional business school” Wizard Academy.

Stephen resides in Round Rock, Texas with his gorgeous wife Karina, awesome son Alex, and princess daughters Libby, Avery, and Laela. Stephen and Karina blog about their magical life on Palmer Journeys.

Connect With Stephen:

Email: spalmer [at] kgaps [dot] com

Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a darling of the forces of so-called “law and order” (so long as it’s being enforced against someone else), was quick to take a stand in defiance of the court’s ruling by launching an immigration sweep timed to coincide with the law taking effect.

In the meantime, the airwaves bristled with the outraged pronouncements of individuals who are utterly convinced that illegal immigration is the prime source of America’s problems–followed closely by the Muslim question and Barack Obama’s true nationality.

Not to be outdone, the more radicalized supporters of illegal immigration began staging noisy demonstrations of their own by taunting supporters of the law and demanding repeal of SB 1070.

The illegal immigration issue is quickly developing into a perfect storm of obnoxious ideologues eager to collide head-on at 100 miles per hour.  

Sadly, it appears both groups are likely to get their wish.

Let’s suppose for a moment that we could wave a magic wand and effectively deport every person who is in this country without official government permission.  

Another wave of the wand would make our borders airtight thereby stanching the flow of illegals into the U.S.  

Now, take a deep breath and tell me what about our nation’s situation will have fundamentally changed?

Will our nation still be drowning in public and private debt?

Will out-of-control taxation and government spending on entitlement programs at home and projecting imperial power abroad still continue unabated?

Will American society still be continuing its descent into a cultural cesspool of false education ideas, immorality and the worship of material things?

Will the expansion of government at every level continue to intrude further into our personal lives even as our liberties diminish in the name of security?

Be honest.  

Do the cries for a stronger crackdown on illegal immigration address the greatest problems facing our nation or do they simply address one symptom of a much larger problem?

Henry David Thoreau:

“For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil, there is one striking at the root.”

While illegal immigration and its attendant problems are a real concern, they are hardly the root of the what’s destroying America.  

The real tragedy is that so many Americans have allowed themselves to be duped into being defined by who they are against rather than by the principles for which they stand.

It’s easy to be against something and easier still to be against someone.  All you need is a grudge and a convenient target against which to direct your outrage.

But to actually stand for something is a much more weighty matter.

Standing for something requires one to understand both the problem at hand and the principles at stake.

This distinction is too often lost in the swell of emotion that is the hallmark of the angry mob.

Connor Boyack, a kindred spirit in the defense of liberty, puts it like this:

“It is unproductive and pointless to debate an issue without analyzing the underlying principle. Practicality, logistics, feasibility, popularity, and all other secondary interests should be set aside until all parties understand the core of the issue.

Whether the discussion is about illegal immigrants, Muslims, home schoolers, polygamists or any other group, we cannot lose sight of the fact observed by Will Grigg when he noted that even our supposed enemies are created in God’s image.  

With this principle as our baseline, we can begin to examine solutions that don’t require us to reduce others to a caricature that, at best, downplays their humanity and, at worst, diminishes them to mere insects to be stomped on.

For those who are truly interested in making a difference, Shanon Brooks of ReValue America asks a question that is worth considering:

“Do we have a reputation of community service and sacrifice or are we seen as the ‘angry radical’ that can only point a finger and identify the flaws of others?”

There are many good people who see the problems that must be addressed, but they remain uncertain as to how they can best “do something” that will have impact.  

Standing and shouting with the angry mob may be cathartic, but those who invest the necessary time and effort to quietly gain understanding and then to apply it through meaningful service to others will provide solutions that have far greater impact.

We sometimes forget that it only takes one person leading out correctly to inspire positive action in others.

Consider becoming that person.

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

Bryan Hyde is a radio host, husband, father, graduate student at George Wythe University, and seeker of truth. He does professional voice work through his company One Clear Voice.

Bryan blogs at The White Rose Society and writes firearm reviews for The Truth About Guns. He and his wife Becky are raising their six children in Cedar City, Utah.

Connect With Bryan:

“Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it… The foundation of every government is some principle or passion in the minds of the people. The noblest principles and most generous affections in our nature, then, have the fairest chance to support the noblest and most generous models of government.” – John Adams in Thoughts on Government

At the core of political philosophy and constitutional government is the issue of human nature; we can’t know how to govern unless we fully understand whom is being governed.

Designing and managing a polity must take into consideration who human beings are, how and why they act, and how to best promote their happiness.

Human nature is composed of two things: 1) motivations, and 2) tendencies.

Human Motivation

The Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises formulated a methodology for understanding human action that he called “praxeology.” Mises deduced fifty laws of human action, which include the following highlights:

1. Choice determines all human action.
2. Human action is purposeful; people make choices for reasons.
3. Action is the attempt to change the state of being for a more satisfactory state.
4. No person does anything except what they think will improve their satisfaction.

The core of Mises’ laws is that we act to increase our satisfaction. From getting up from the couch to get a soda, to going to church, to perpetrating violent crime, every human action is designed to bring the actor more satisfaction than he or she currently feels.

A well-designed body politic, then, will allow its citizens to seek and gain satisfaction in any way they see fit, as long as they do not encroach upon the unalienable rights of others. As the Roman statesman Cato said,

“By liberty, I understand the power which every man has over his own actions, and his right to enjoy the fruit of his labor, art, and industry, as far as by it he hurts not the society or any members of it, by taking from any member or by hindering him from enjoying what he himself enjoys.”

Human Tendencies

Are human beings good, or evil? Are we fallen beings, or are we enlightened beings of light and love? Do we seek depravity, or degeneracy?

Yes.

Most philosophers seemingly take the either/or view of human nature; some say we are good, and some say we are bad.

It seems clear to me that we are both, that inherent to every individual is the potential for divinity and degeneracy.

Why It Matters

The purpose of government isn’t to change human nature; it’s simply to allow us to be free and to prevent us from using our freedom to harm others.

It’s not–or at least should not be–a positive, offensive force employed to mold people and institutions; it must be merely a negative, defensive force used to protect unalienable rights.

If you want to change people for the better, the government is the absolute worst place to do so, since by nature government is force.

You can’t force people to be and do good; you can simply influence, inspire, and persuade through love and example. As George Washington said,

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.”

Inevitably, imperious dictators and benevolent demagogues end up in government; it’s the quickest–and laziest–route to “do good” and impose one’s will upon society.

The Connection Between the Human Spirit & Liberty

One cannot believe in liberty without also believing in the power of the human spirit, our capacity to transcend external circumstances, our persistent desire to find truth and virtue in the midst of violence and degeneracy.

If you don’t believe in people and their ability to succeed, you’ll eventually come to believe that you must be their guardian and caretaker.

This mindset inevitably leads to a condescending benevolence and false philanthropy using the force of government, as opposed to humble service through voluntary virtue.

If you believe that people are fundamentally evil and that you must change them, you’ll become a dictator to impose your will upon others; you’ll force them to change, believing that they won’t change otherwise.

If you believe in the human spirit, your modus operandi for enacting societal change will be through loving persuasion and humble service using private, voluntary institutions such as religion, family, charitable organizations, business, etc.

If you believe that human beings are fundamentally weak and selfish–but you feel called upon to “help” them–chances are that you’ll use the force of government to attempt to change human nature.

In the first scenario, your view of others will be from the position of a servant looking up; in the second your view will be as a ruler looking down.

Conclusion

Using the force of government is the absolute worst way to help or to change people; it leads to nothing but tyranny, bureaucracy, mediocrity, and stagnation.

The government must allow its citizens to pursue their own forms of satisfaction, as long as they do not prevent others from doing the same.

People can be both good and bad–when government stays in its proper role to protect unalienable rights it encourages the good and prohibits the bad.

People must be helped and influenced to change through voluntary private institutions.

Recommended Reading:

• The Uncomfortable Mirror: Overcoming Self-Deception Through the Study of History
• Thoughts on Government by John Adams
• Human Action by Ludwig von Mises

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

Stephen Palmer is a marketing consultant and persuasive writer with KGaps Consulting, a co-founder of The Center for Social Leadership, and the New York Times best-selling co-author of Killing Sacred Cows: Overcoming the Financial Myths that are Destroying Your Prosperity.

He is a liberal-arts graduate of George Wythe University and a graduate of the “non-traditional business school” Wizard Academy.

Stephen resides in Round Rock, Texas with his gorgeous wife Karina, awesome son Alex, and princess daughters Libby, Avery, and Laela. Stephen and Karina blog about their magical life on Palmer Journeys.

Connect With Stephen:

Email: spalmer [at] kgaps [dot] com

Really? It’s a tough choice of whether or not we’ll pass on trillions of dollars of debt to our children and grandchildren?

Really?

I’m leery of anyone who promises they’ll “make the tough choices.”

For anyone who has their head screwed on straight, most of these choices people debate are incredibly easy.

They may not bear pleasant consequences, but it’s crystal clear what the choice should be. Except for those wallowing in self-deception or who benefit from obfuscation.

I don’t want pandering politicians who promise to make the hard choices.

I want authentic leaders who say what everyone else is afraid to say: The right choice is the easy choice. Now deal with it.

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

Stephen Palmer is a marketing consultant and persuasive writer with KGaps Consulting, a co-founder of The Center for Social Leadership, and the New York Times best-selling co-author of Killing Sacred Cows: Overcoming the Financial Myths that are Destroying Your Prosperity.

He is a liberal-arts graduate of George Wythe University and a graduate of the “non-traditional business school” Wizard Academy.

Stephen resides in Round Rock, Texas with his gorgeous wife Karina, awesome son Alex, and princess daughters Libby, Avery, and Laela. Stephen and Karina blog about their magical life on Palmer Journeys.

Connect With Stephen:

Email: spalmer [at] kgaps [dot] com