Books about Money

I've read many books about money, building wealth, etc. While many have been helpful, insightful, etc., I've settled on the following collection of discourses more than any book as the most solid foundation for financial understanding, even if they require a bit more study to tease out the principles.

• The Use & Abuse of Blessings by Brigham Young -- https://jod.mrm.org/1/248
• True and False Riches by Brigham Young -- https://jod.mrm.org/1/264
• Constancy Amid Change by N. Eldon Tanner -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1979/10/constancy-amid-change?lang=eng
• Household of Faith by Bishop Clarke -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1980/10/the-household-of-faith?lang=eng

That said, I did recently find one book that was more holistically complete about generating wealth than any other I've read:

• Katie Bell and the Wishing Well by Nephi Zufelt

Admittedly, I've read better written books, but it's solid enough that I can't not recommend it.

Lastly I'll comment about money itself. This is just a nugget I've teased out from my own study.

Money is a medium of exchange. It's a technological blessing! It makes so many more products and services possible. Imagine having to barter without money -- what good or service would you give a farmer in exchange for food? How often? And with how many, to get different types of food? What would you offer a builder for a home? Or rather, the framer, the plumber, the electrician, the hvac guy, the drywall, the... and on and on. Personally, I can't imagine going to the grocery store (if those would even be possible) and saying "hey, can I write you up a few lines of back-end server code for some bananas, oatmeal, eggs, and yogurt today?" lol!
Money is a technological blessing as a medium of exchange!

A currency is a specific implementation of money, e.g. dollar, peso, bitcoin, etc.

There are three requirements for an effective currency:
1) Ease of Use -- if each dollar were a 1 lb igneous rock, imagine how heavy and hard that would be to lug around. And what a pain to have to weigh them with every exchange! Credit / Debit cards and other connected electronic systems have improved ease-of-use even further. (Some may find there to be unworthy trade-offs, here, but such tech does increase ease-of-use.) Ease of use also includes how easy it is to keep secure from theft.
2) Transparent Supply Management -- How scarce (or not) is the supply? How does it get inflated / deflated? How clearly well known is that to the society that uses it? (Inflation, btw, is not rising prices, it is an increase in the currency supply, nothing more, nothing less. Rising prices is an effect of inflation as the decreased scarcity also decreases the value.) This includes, how easy is it to counterfeit? If easy, it will not serve as good money because it can be inflated without transparency. Transparent supply management is crucial to the societal credibility of the currency in question.
3) Trust of social use / adoption -- I'm not going to accept a specific currency as exchange from you unless I believe I can exchange it somewhere else for something I want. It may as well be monopoly money at that point. Sometimes this comes by a ruling government saying "you will accept this currency or else." In a free market system, this often comes by "backing" the currency with an already trusted money or asset, e.g. gold. So even if I don't trust that I can exchange your currency with someone else to get what I want, I know that I can exchange it for an asset that I will be able to then exchange with someone to get what I want.

The Four Personality Types and Core Associations

Four personality types and their fears.

Task Oriented vs. People Oriented

Reserved Nature vs. Outgoing Nature (not the same as Intro/Extro-vert)

I'm wondering about this. Do I have these more or less right? Are these four fears the basic core fears humanity faces? I wonder.

* An Oracle (Task + Reserved) fears being in the wrong. The bigger the decision, the greater the fear.

* A Visionary (People + Outgoing) fears doing wrong by someone. Often this looks like hurting someone, but not only.

* A Warrior (Task + Outgoing) fears failing in an accomplishment. The more important the task, the greater the pain of failure.

* A Healer (People + Reserved) fears failing to matter/make-a-difference to anyone. To put in effort and have it be brushed off as irrelevant or unimportant because no one cares.

Hindsight Ignored

You know how we talk in hindsight about how unjustified it was for SS soldiers in concentration camps to say "I was just following orders," or "I was just doing my job." 

It is incongruous, then, that as a society we continue to punish and ignore those who stand up and say "no" to similar circumstances.

Here's a brief overview from Exhibit A:

Appearing in an Alexandria, Virginia, courtroom, the 33-year-old Hale told U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady that he believed it “was necessary to dispel the lie that drone warfare keeps us safe, that our lives are worth more than theirs.”

“I am here because I stole something that was never mine to take — precious human life,” Hale said. “I couldn’t keep living in a world in which people pretend that things weren’t happening that were. Please, your honor, forgive me for taking papers instead of human lives.”

U.S. drone operations abroad since 2004 have killed as many as 2,200 children and multiple U.S. citizens, [but] U.S. military has a practice of labeling all individuals killed in such operations as “enemies killed in action” unless proven otherwise. 

“Hale was also charged with disclosing a secret rule book detailing the parallel judicial system for watchlisting people and categorizing them as known or suspected terrorists without needing to prove they did anything wrong. Under these rules, people, including U.S. citizens, can be barred from flying or detained in airports and at borders while being denied the ability to challenge government declarations about them. The disclosure of the watchlisting rule book led to dozens of legal actions and important court victories for the protection of civil liberties.” 

“With drone warfare, sometimes nine out of 10 people killed are innocent,” Hale said on Tuesday. “You have to kill part of your conscience to do your job.” 

Hale’s defense lawyers said that he had “felt extraordinary guilt for having been complicit in what he viewed as unjustifiable killings” through his involvement in the drone program and argued that his disclosures were compelled by a sense of moral duty

“According to Hale, what he did was legally wrong but morally right.” 

Hale is a descendant of Nathan Hale, the American patriot who was hanged by the British for stealing documents in 1776. Addressing the court Tuesday, Hale quoted the words often attributed to his famed ancestor: “My only regret is that I have but one life to give to my country, whether here or in prison.” 

“I believe that it is wrong to kill,” Hale said, “but it is especially wrong to kill the defenseless.” 

America would do well to make Daniel Hale's name lauded nationwide, but most will likely never know of him.

Exhibit B could be Edward Snowden, who lives in exile as a wanted criminal. Why? For exposing evidence that the NSA was illegally spying on US citizens. Where are the criminal charges against the NSA? Why only against Snowden?

Exhibit C could be Julian Assange who's been detained or in prison since 2012, currently under maximum-security conditions, despite having never been convicted. 

It could go on and on.

Principles of Liberty

NOTE TO SELF: I feel like this post isn't well written. It needs more maturing and development.

So what are the principles of liberty?

The context of the word liberty can be vast, and while some of the principles I'll discuss here hold true to the vast sense, some are more specific to my intended topic of the moment: political liberty.

Please note that no principle is axiomatic, i.e. self-evident or unquestionable, but rather each is worthy of deep consideration and discussion. What I propose here as principles, I believe truly so to be. I might be wrong. Wresting with such matters, however, is not what this post is about. What this post is about is putting multiple principles together and considering the implications that result.

The first principle of political liberty to consider is this: government is force. Government is incapable of taking any action except through coercion.

Next is this: government consists of human actors. Government doesn't do anything--it is people who are the actors.

So to be more precise with a previous comment, government representatives, i.e. human actors i.e. people, can not act on behalf of that government without it being backed by either the threat of or actual coercion.

In our consideration then of government action, it is prudent to consider principles of human nature such as this one: "as soon as [a human] get[s] a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion." (D&C 121:39)

Now, much could be made of the words unrighteous dominion, and I do not doubt that various insights could ensue from so doing. However, for the object of simplicity here, I will simply sum it up with the idea that said authority is used in ways that perpetrate against others.

Much can be expounded upon with just these three principles, but I don't want to dive in just yet. Let's consider just a few more principles of liberty.

By definition, a free society is one in which the individual liberties of all people in said society are protected and maintained. So how are individual liberties maintained? An individual's liberties can only be maintained as individual responsibility is also maintained. When one person wrongs another, intentionally or accidentally, they can choose or not to try to see things through and make it right, inasmuch as is possible. When a person is unable or unwilling to act thus responsibly, they have unavoidably infringed on the liberties of another.

Of note: this statement does not imply its converse. If my liberties are restricted, directly or indirectly, by another's actions, it does not necessarily mean that that person has wronged me.

How does justice interact with liberty? Justice is the consequence of responsibility. Responsibility is the boundary by which liberty is protected and maintained. Without responsibility, there is no justice. The enforcement of justice, then, is no more nor less than the enforcement of responsibility. Devalue or dismiss justice and you gut responsibility of its meaning, with liberty lost as a price paid. 

Does this mean rigid, cold, heartless justice should master our hearts and our politics? No. Justice can be satiated with, but not robbed by, mercy. For this to avail, mercy must be given freely, either by a third party who freely makes reparations on behalf of the debtor (debtor to justice), or by the creditor of justice directly. Mercy can only be given freely, or it is not mercy at all. It is common to see favoritism promoted under mercy's guise, which ironically is a robbery of justice.

Aside: In her book Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand unsuccessfully attempted to spurn mercy. She only succeeded in spurning its counterfeits, and, pun intended, justly so.

Lastly, the purpose of government is to provide liberty by upholding justice. Frederic Bastiat said it this way: "the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop [the] fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work."

Now, before we come to the point of all this, here again are the aforementioned principles listed out for reference.

• Government is force.
• Government consists of human actors.
• As soon as [a human] get[s] a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
• A free society is one in which the individual liberties of all people in said society are protected and maintained.
• An individual's liberties can only be maintained as individual responsibility is also maintained.
• Justice is the consequence of responsibility.
• Mercy can only be given freely.
• The purpose of government is to provide liberty by upholding justice.

So now, with these principles together, let us consider what the best approach toward government might be.

Consider the scenario. An unavoidably human actor, who will be inclined to exercise unrighteous dominion, is given or takes the ability to use force over others. How likely is it that justice will be upheld and liberty maintained? How likely is government to become the very perpetrator against the justice and liberty its whole purpose is to uphold and provide? Do not the annals of history abound with example after example after tyrannous example of this?

I am unaware of any type of organization, instrument, or idea that has had a more eviscerating effect on the liberty of the human race than governments.

So what are we to do? How are we to approach government, if given the chance?

I believe Thomas Jefferson understood well what to do. "In questions of power then," he said, "let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution."

Thus the intent of the constitution of our country: to hold back man's natural inclination for unrighteous dominion so that government can fulfill its true purpose, that of providing liberty by upholding justice.

As long as man is fallen, anything more or less than this is folly.

Principles and Positions in Current Politics

I'm currently reading "They Thought They Were Free" by Milton Mayer. If any book describes how the common German became engaged with the Nazi party, this is it. In many aspects, it's startlingly... normal.

At this moment, we're in the heart of the Corona Virus/COVID-19 pandemic. Pretty much everywhere has a mask mandate in place.

Some, myself included, are concerned about this intrusion into our liberties. Most of society, however, is quick to judge and call anyone who doesn't wear a mask "selfish," that wearing a mask is compassionate, and if you don't wear one, then you're obviously not.

There are many principles being breached here including an unwillingness to seek understanding, haste in judgment, victimhood, inappropriate assignment of responsibility, inconsistency in risk assessment, and more.

However, what I wish to focus on at the moment is the need for principles to be our guide rather than opinions or emotions.

Many individuals concerned about liberty are using a "slippery-slope" type argument. e.g. "today it's mandated masks, tomorrow it's mandated vaccines." Logically, this argument on its own is a logical fallacy.

Quoting from Your Logical Fallacy Is .com:

"You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture."

By using this argument/fallacy, we're allowing the discussion to be based on "where's the appropriate line?" In other words, we're focused on the position, not the principle.

From a principled perspective--principles of liberty, that is--mask mandates are a breach of appropriate government powers. Mandated vaccines would be as well. And while one may seem more sever than another in consequence and extent, from the perspective of principles, they are no different. If you don't believe one shouldn't be mandated because freedom, then you will be in a logically self-contradicting state to also believe that the other should be mandated because safety. You may not realize it, and you may rationalize it, but when you look at and understand the principles, it becomes clear.

Circling back, the experiences in Nazi Germany were certainly a slippery slope. Each little item was justified because "it wasn't so bad," even if the person wasn't totally comfortable with it, until it got to the point that there was nothing they could do about it. If they had stood on principle from the beginning, there would never have approached the slope. Easy to say in hindsight, harder to say when we're in the middle of living it.

Am I saying that mask mandates are the path to becoming like the Nazi party? No, certainly not. I am saying that they go against principle, and the more that happens, the more our liberty is compromised.

When arguments are discussed, the strongest presentations will be built on principles, not positions.

Consistency and Principles in Political Views

One of Stephen Covey's Seven Habits of Effective People is "seek first to understand, then to be understood."

This is a principle of healthy relationships and of humanity at large. Online social media would be a much friendlier place if this principle were more widely applied!

In an effort to live this principle in the political space, I've often asked people questions about their views and beliefs, especially when contrary to my own. I've found I much prefer discussion to debate and understanding to competition. Not that I don't have some of the competitive edge in me, but I value understanding much, much more.

As I've considered various political views, my own have drifted further and further toward libertarianism. The views themselves I will likely include in other posts; at the moment, I'm more interested in exploring why my views have gone that direction.

One of my great fears in life is being in the wrong. I... hate it. And yet, it's not like I'm unfamiliar with the experience.

Still, this has driven me to seeking logical and philosophical soundness in my ideas and views. Politically speaking, libertarianism holds a lot of appeal here; namely, it's consistent.

It seems that most Republicans and Democrats (and often Independents), whether they consider themselves conservative, liberal, or moderate, seem to struggle with consistency. This is most pronounced in the two major parties.

Politicians today are pressured to adapt their views for so many things, be it public opinion, party solidarity, campaign funding, lobbying, other remunerations some above board, some not, and on and on. It's widely accepted that politicians largely yield to all these pressures and more. It seems a moral failing to me that we, as a people, elect and re-elect such politicians.

Libertarianism is different--it's consistent. Now, to be clear, I'm not talking about the Libertarian party. I'm talking about libertarianism (lower case 'l') as a philosophy.

It's tempting at the moment to explore the principles of libertarianism, but to stay true to the focus of this post, I'll try to only touch on them lightly. Actually, this last sentence holds the key to why I think libertarianism is consistent: it's not based on opinions and facts around issues, it's based on principles.

The principles that frame libertarian ideas are principles like non-aggression, agency, individual sovereignty, and the proper role of government.

When people discuss (or debate) political views, they often come up with "but then what about x-y-z?" When I tried to discuss the views I grew up with (classical Republican, so-called conservative), I found it hard to navigate without internal indicators going off saying "that's not quite a true representation of things."

When I first watched Republican debates with Ron Paul, I didn't yet agree with his ideas, but I was drawn to him because he obviously did not play the games that other politicians did. He was clear, and he was consistent. I'd laugh because, even though I didn't agree, I thought he made the other candidates look like laughing stocks! (Amusing considering many considered him the laughing stock. I now think that was a deliberately orchestrated tactic as it was the only one available to Republican party leaders who didn't like him.)

All this caused me much pause and reflection. As I heard more libertarian-type arguments in my discussions and listening, I found myself drawn to their consistency. After a time, I began to argue their point of view for the sake of testing out their ideas. As I did, I found my arguments more and more persuasive because I didn't have any of those alarm bells going off! The viewpoints (I wouldn't claim them as mine yet at that time) came out sound, time after time. I had concerns come up sometimes, some "but what about this situation?" type ideas, but with some thought, I was each time able to find a sound conclusion within libertarian ideas. By sound, I mean logically consistent.

Since then, I've studied more and have much yet to learn. Yet I've experienced enough to feel confident in saying that libertarian principles of government are morally, ethically, and logically sound.

Happy Wife, Happy Life... and, Happy Life, Happy Wife

Not long ago my nephew Nate got married to his beautiful bride, Rebecca. It was a lovely experience as weddings often are. At the luncheon, there was a time for open-mic to tell stories and give advice. I didn't offer any advice at that time, but it got me thinking, and here's what I would probably say if I had the chance to go re-live the experience.

Some people say "happy wife, happy life." While it holds some merit, this phrase is incomplete. Yes, "happy wife, happy life," but also, "happy life, happy wife."

Rebecca, when you met Nate, I'm pretty confident you weren't thinking along the lines of "oh, he's just so... pathetic! He has no hope in life of being happy or... anything unless I go save him from himself!" Mmmm... nope! And visa-versa, Nate, right?  You fell in love because the other person brought something to the relationship--they had something to offer that was attractive to you.

Nate, Rebecca's going to have a bad day sometimes. At least once a month is predictable, but probably more than that too, right? If you think it's your job to make her happy, then it won't take you long to become a failure. And visa-versa, this all goes both ways, right? Before long, when she has a bad day, you'll let it drag you down and you'll have a bad day too, because "if the doña ain't happy, nobody's happy." Right?

But what are you really doing? You're pushing the responsibility for your own happiness on to her. Pretty soon, she's going to resent that. She'll feel like she isn't allowed to have a bad day because if she does, then you will too, and it'll all be her fault. For the record... that's not very romantic!

So Nate, don't think it's your responsibility to make her happy, and don't think it's her responsibility to make you happy. It isn't. Your happiness is your own responsibility! It's something you generate, you create, and you bring it as an offering to your marriage. "Only when you're at home inside yourself do you have someplace good to invite your spouse to visit."*

When Rebecca has a bad day, of course you care for her--love is all about having an anxious concern for her well-being!** But you don't care for her by putting on your grumpy pants! You do it by holding on to your own self, your own happiness, without trying to force it on to her. Let her be grumpy! And you be happy. And when she's feeling better, she'll love you all the more for it.

And visa-versa.

* From Passionate Marriage by Dr. David Schnarch, p.180
** From quote: "True love is not so much a matter of romance as it is a matter of anxious concern for the well-being of one's companion." --Gordon B. Hinckley