Rick Koerber Indicted? Schmucks, Grand Juries, & the Trials Ahead.

As our modern culture hurls itself imperviously over the rocky cliffs of socialism in the name of rescue and bailout, normal people seem to be losing their ability to think critically and distinguish decency, fairness, civility, and honesty from rumor, rhetoric, political posturing and gossip. Its a cultural battle being waged every day in the business world, and I don’t mean just big business, I mean small business America too. The competition is decency vs. defamation. Do-gooders, versus society’s most valuable doers. In my world, the constant reminder of this battle is the fact that hardly a week goes by without someone asking me if I’m going to be indicted.

A chilling result of the crisis will be furthering the deadly process of criminalizing business failures.  In the old days when an enterprise failed, the proprietors often ended up in debtors’ prison…But in recent years, particularly after the Enron/WorldCom corporate scandals, federal and local prosecutors began actively pursuing evidence of fraud whenever a big business went bust. Yes, there has been corporate wrongdoing, and miscreants have been tried and jailed. But many noncriminal individuals have been pursued.

One notorious case was the IRS’ attempt to prosecute KPMG and a number of its partners and employees for alleged tax fraud. The shelters KPMG sold in the 1990s were not illegal. The IRS still determined, however, that they weren’t valid. That kind of tax dispute would normally be settled in civil court. Instead, prosecutors threatened KPMG with annihilation: Settle on our terms or we will hit you with an enterprise-killing indictment. Arthur Andersen had recently been destroyed by such an indictment, even though the courts subsequently threw the charges out. The feds even pressured KPMG not to pay the legal bills of the targeted individuals–which would have forced these people to settle, as they couldn’t afford the massive legal costs of defending themselves. Thankfully, a courageous federal judge stopped this abuse.

But the itch to indict remains. No sooner had Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and AIG gone bust than criminal investigators swarmed in. They will find evidence of “fraud”–why didn’t you more aggressively mark down the value of suspect paper even if there wasn’t a market for it? Why the expressions of confidence in the soundness of your businesses when the rumors of trouble were surfacing? Lost in all this will be the fact that Lehman and AIG didn’t know they were in mortal peril until almost the very end. There will be indictments. The chilling lesson: Unsuccessful risk taking or failing in business can send you to prison. (Steve Forbes, “How Capitalism Will Save Us” Forbes Magazine, Nov. 10, 2008) Emphasis added.

It’s a dumb question really. It’s not like the government, even with the most corrupt bureaucracies, normally calls up the subject of its investigation on the telephone to say, “Hey, just for your information, we’re planning to indict you.” But, the brain-off among us don’t have to be bothered with thinking—they’re too busy indulging in feeling.

In January of this year a local news reporter came to my house and asked me point blank, “But, is it fair to say you expect to be charged?”

The reporter, Brian Mullahy, and I had been having a conversation about the fact that there have been rumors about me being in trouble with the law, despite no charges, nor formal complaints and no formal allegations of wrong-doing, over the course of the last five years.  In that context, I had complained that the very existence of these persistent rumors—even the ones with no credibility whatsoever—had actually given bureaucrats the ammunition they needed to continue their years long investigation of me and my companies without any reasonable basis.

In answer to an earlier question I explained that I, in fact, had not been indicted or charged either on the state or the federal level and that I did not know what was being planned by prosecutors.This was the context for his question “But, is it fair to say you expect to be indicted?”  I thought about his question and reluctantly answered, “Sure, sure.”

I went on to say in our interview that given the modern business climate in America any businessman in a situation like mine—regardless of his innocence—would be foolish not to prepare as if an indictment were coming.  Of course, all this context was dropped when the evening newscast aired with the headline, “Utah Businessman Facing Federal Charges.”  This, of course, is a lie.  I was not then, nor have I ever in my life, been facing federal charges.

It used to be a criminal offense to slander someone like this, but now we live in a world where it’s considered by many to be journalism—while at the same time businessmen are routinely accused of criminal behavior by vague allegation, outright defamation, and little attention given to facts or statutes and usually without the businessman having done anything that can be demonstrated to be clearly against the law.  This situation, which is the fruit of socialistic ideas in government, has been a growing reality in America for the last full generation and is now a defining legacy.

As a result, it is practically impossible for a lawyer to determine what business conduct will be pronounced lawful or unlawful by the courts. This state of affairs is equally embarrassing to businessmen endeavoring to obey the law and to Government officials attempting to enforce it.” (Robert H. Jackson.  Assistant Attorney General of the United States. Later Supreme Court Justice of the United States. Anti-Trust Legislation Seen Necessary, New Jersey Law Journal, February 3, 1938, 6 N.J.L.J. 37 (1938) c. 1938 ALM Properties, Inc.)

So, our modern itch to indict, as referenced by Steve Forbes, continues to have affect in my life, and the same questions come week after week.  The rumors this past week were stirred up by none other than prominent Salt Lake attorney Rodney G. Snow.  He should know better, but we’ll talk more about that in a minute.

Indictment, indictment, in·dict·ment! Sometimes the questions come from those secretly hoping the rumors are true and that soon I’ll end up behind bars (for just what exactly, they can never quite articulate).  Sometimes the questions come from brain-off, but kind hearted friends who just want to express their sympathy (again, for what, they can’t quite articulate.) It all makes me want to throw up, to tell you the truth.

I’ve reached a point in my life where I just can’t stand the slobbery thickness of brain-off emotionalism. I care nothing for the predicaments of those whose own emotional insecurity has brought them to the point of thinking that I’m somehow a villain in their life story when at the same time they don’t have the courtesy, civility, or kind feelings sufficient to talk to me and either get the facts to clear up their misconceptions or, on the rare occasion that there is actually something amiss between us, give me the chance to take responsibility for whatever wrongs or mistakes may, in fact, be mine.

Even worse, I’ve grown sick of the ever growing popularity of the notion that in the present era of bail-outs, bank failures, unemployment and rampant foreclosures, a consumer being stupid (or at least imprudent) and loosing a lot of money somehow qualifies him or her to randomly assign blame and self-righteously demand guilt from whatever businessman seems to fits the bill at the moment—facts be damned. These people are schmucks, and those who are moved by their groveling selfishness enable the sad state of affairs, so often talked about these days.   They are complicit in our societies unyielding march towards disaster.

Do I have empathy for those whose financial situation is bleak?  Of course.  I’ve dedicated my life reaching out to and teaching these very people.  However, that is part of the problem.  Whenever you dive into deep water, in an effort to save a drowning person, you become at risk yourself.  I can’t otherwise explain how so many people whom I’ve never done business with can be so maliciously engaged in the spreading the negative rumors and gossip—almost wholly started years ago by unprincipled, privately motivated, reckless and vindictive government employees.

I once read a post on the Internet that stated, “I would love to talk to someone about the $140,000 that Rick Koerber has of mine that [he] ‘can’t pay’ me back.  Thanks. Ryan in St. George.”  Evidently I don’t qualify as the kind of  “someone” this person wants to talk with, because I have never been contacted by him.  Not only do I not recognize his name or situation, the sad reality is that I don’t know anyone in St. George, Utah named Ryan who has ever given me anywhere close to that kind of money.   I certainly do not have, nor do any of my companies have, to the best of my knowledge, any unpaid debts in any amount to someone named Ryan in St. George.

Such a small thing like this illustrates a major problem in our world today, particularly with federal grand juries.  I have known, for example, that as early as March 2008 there have been witnesses being called by the US Attorney in Salt Lake City, to testify before a federal grand jury regarding my supposed business dealings.  But in a federal grand jury proceeding I don’t have the right to confront any witnesses.  The rules of evidence are not the same, and there is no cross examination or rebuttal.  So, this guy named Ryan could be called before the grand jury, asked to testify about his $140,000, and this could be used as undisputed grounds to issue an indictment. The problem is compounded by grand jury secrecy.

The fifth amendment to the US Constitution is the legal cornerstone for federal grand juries, and the original purpose of a grand jury, including the secrecy of its proceedings, was originally to protect citizens from government abuses.  During the era of the Founders (most would be surprised to learn) there were no government attorneys.   But, today the US Attorney oversees cases before the grand jury and he (or a member of his staff) is essentially given de facto control over access to the grand jury by the public, and the secret proceedings they carry out.   Once a fair minded person begins to think through the implications of this modern court setting, serious issues regarding justice and fairness begin to emerge.

What is true about the danger of “enterprise-killing” charges today, was also true in the days following America’s revolution.  The Founders sought to protect citizens from overzealous government by ensuring federal felony charges could not be brought whimsically or too easily, thus the requirement of a grand jury.  Secrecy, during grand jury proceedings was a long standing English tradition dating back to the Magna Charta.  A critical defense of free society rests upon the notion that the very allegation of wrongdoing, made by the government, can be punitive in-and-of itself, and the process must therefore be strictly guarded.

So, the grand jury is generally supposed to be private/secret.  The idea is that before charging a free citizen with a crime, a person who is presumed innocent until proven guilty, give a jury of his or her peers the opportunity to consider the case first, without exposing his reputation to ruin by the process.   Of course, there are other reasons for secrecy but the rights of individual citizens are at the foundation of the issue.

The problem today is that, with permanent government prosecutors essentially in charge of the grand jury proceedings, what was once a protection for citizens now, too often, is only an advantage to the prosecutor.  Today, there is very little check against malicious prosecution or prosecutorial misconduct when all the proceedings are conducted in secret.  Take for example the political motivation to tip the party balance in the United States Senate which utilized prosecutorial corruption in the recent case of former Alaska Senator Ted Steven’s whose case was just thrown out—after he suffered great harm to his reputation and after he lost his Senate seat, all because of the situation I’m describing.  It is therefore, not surprising, that according to experts in the field, in 95% of the cases, prosecutors simply get an indictment, whenever one is wanted.

This means that a businessman has no way of knowing in advance whether the action he takes is legal or illegal, whether he is guilty or innocent.  It means that a businessman has to live under the threat of a sudden, unpredictable disaster, taking the risk of losing everything he owns or being sentenced to jail, with his career, his reputation, his property, his fortune, the achievement of his whole lifetime left at the mercy of any ambitious young bureaucrat who, for any reason, public or private, may choose to start proceedings against him…It is a form of persecution practiced only in dictatorships and forbidden in every civilized code of law.  It is specifically forbidden by the United States Constitution.  It is not supposed to exist in the United States and it is not applied to anyone-except to businessmen. (Ayn Rand. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, pg. 50 – from a speech given at the Ford Hall Forum, Boston, on Dec. 17, 1961)

In my case, after a failed attempt by rogue state regulators that felt just as Ms. Rand describes, I’ve now learned more about what the federal government is up to, and what is happening before the grand jury, through rumor and gossip—than is supposed to be publicly available at all.

What good does it do to say to me, “We’re protecting your reputation Rick, by ensuring everything is done in secrecy,” when attorneys, government employees, and even members of the prosecutor’s staff are reportedly giving information about secret grand jury proceedings to their colleagues like Mr. Snow, who seem driven to spread the word around.

Lest you think its just any old attorney involved in such behavior, Mr. Snow’s resume shows just how connected he is, having worked as an Assistant US Attorney for this very same office earlier in his career.  Mr. Snow, by his privileged position, evidently not only receives special illegal exemption from the legal requirements of secrecy, but he gets to use them to further his law practice at my expense.

There is a strange, almost unnoticed drum beating in our popular culture, where economic hard times (which are the persistent handmaiden of socialism and its relatives) bring average Americans to believe that society’s producers are now somehow the villains.  Even worse, our bureaucrats, government employees, and government officials are supposed to become our heroes.  In the Founder’s generation we elected heroes to office, to keep abusive government in check.  Today we try to make heroes out of those who like to cast aspersions without consequence, spend money without accountability and who send out bureaucrats and government agents with guns, threats, and the delegated force of the people—to satisfy our itch to indict and to punish society’s white collar villains—who, in rapidly growing percentages, are increasingly men and women whose crimes can’t be described or articulated and whose actual performances and intentions are almost entirely irrelevant.  Lost is the idea that businessmen, entrepreneurs, and even corporate executives (regardless of their supposed crime) are still citizens, in a free country, presumed innocent until proven guilty—also born like the rest of us, with unalienable individual rights.

Only businessmen – the producers, the providers, the supporters, the Atlases who carry our whole economy on their shoulders-are regarded as guilty by nature and are required to prove their innocence without any definable criteria of innocence or proof, and are left at the mercy of the whim, the favor, or the malice of any publicity-seeking politician, any scheming statist, any envious mediocrity who might chance to work his way into a bureaucratic job and who feels a yen to do some [governing]. (Ayn Rand. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, pg. 44 – from a speech given at the Ford Hall Forum, Boston, on Dec. 17, 1961)

While we’re not yet France, we are not far behind.  Did anyone notice the report yesterday from Reuters about the poll in Paris, where almost half of all citizens now think its okay for laid off employees to actually “lock up” or “take hostage” corporate executives—without any due process of law—as part of labor bargaining?

Or, did you notice that just this week, the day after North Korea successfully test launched a long range ballistic missile that means they can not only threaten our Asian allies but Hawaii and Alaska as well, our government announced its intention to actually reduce our missile defense budget, including the money allotted for existing self-defense based weapons systems stationed in Alaska. This brings to mind former US President Ronald Reagan’s warnings in the 1960’s against appeasement and unilateral surrender to the Soviets.  But, I don’t want to get too distracted.  How about his statement regarding creeping socialism and the risk to the American businessman?

It is time we realized that socialism can come without overt seizure of property or nationalization of private business. [My note:  Today, the federal executive speaks openly about seizure and nationalization of banks and financial institutions]

It matters little that you hold the title to your property or business if government can dictate policy and procedure and holds life and death power over your business. [My note:  The President of the United States just fired the chief executive of GM]

The machinery of this power already exists. Lowell Mason, former anti-trust law enforcer for the Federal Trade Commission, has written “American business is being harassed, bled and even blackjacked under a preposterous crazy quilt system of laws.” There are so many that the government literally can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. (Ronald Reagan. A Time for Choosing, Speech given October 27, 1964)

This is a reality far too few American’s have sobered up to realize.  Which, brings me back to where I started.  Have I been indicted? No.  Will I be indicted?  I don’t know.  Am I preparing for it?  As best I can. Regardless of what happens, I’m sure its only more likely that I’ll eventually be indicted as I continue to criticize the government, government employees, the lazy government PR media, and now complicit lawyers.

The point, however, is that it’s not really me who will be put on trial in such a case.  It’s America, and its citizenry who are already on trial, today.

As for me, I’d actually be kind of a glad—in an odd sort of way—if I am ever indicted, because at least then I’ll be extended the courtesy and privilege of defending myself against actual charges, rather than vague insinuations and secret rumors.  Don’t get me wrong, I am not anxious to plunge headlong into a legal battle where most of the deck is already stacked against me, but I will not run from it either.  Though I’m certain it would be an extremely difficult road if that day does come—following the example of others who have tried to negotiate with unprincipled, power corrupt bureaucrats and over zealous prosecutors whose pre-condition for negotiation is an admission of guilt, is not something I will choose to accept.

I’m optimistic that this kind of conflict can still be avoided in my case, and I take steps regularly to try and ensure that is the case.  But, if it cannot be avoided, while its impossible for me to see the details in advance, or the outcome of such a fight—I refuse to fear it.  Why?  Well among other things, in most cases, there are still twelve free citizens at the final end of any verdict.

The world of [regulation] is reminiscent of Alice’s Wonderland: everything seemingly is, yet apparently isn’t, simultaneously…It is a world in which the law is so vague that businessmen have no way of knowing whether specific actions will be declared illegal until they hear the judge’s verdict – after the fact.  (Alan Greenspan.  Later Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Paper given at the Antitrust Seminar of the National Association of Business Economists, Cleveland, September 25, 1961.)

While those with an eye to see, do indeed know the final end to this story (to paraphrase Dr. Skousen), none of us knows the details regarding our own personal challenges on the path to our ultimate rendezvous with destiny (to paraphrase another great hero of mine).  The only option is to choose; to make a choice when the options are clear, and the chaos and tension that accompanies conflict has not yet become overbearingly personal.

I made my choice early on, when I first encountered these people.  I made my choice before the huge successes and before the tragic business failures that have defined the last several years.  I’m not proud or happy about the business or financial failures that have so closely affected my life, and the lives of so many of my friends and loved ones.  Nor can I rest from my own labor to compensate for the ones for where I bare primary responsibility.  But failure, financially—short or long term, has never been the enemy of free citizens in America, or throughout history.   Failure, morally—to stand up for right, for freedom, and for truth—this is a failure that I consider the most serious enemy of all.  As economic freedom is threatened broadly, across all parts of the world’s citizenry, each of us are increasingly exposed the fact that we have an inescapable choice to make, individually.

How about you?  How will you react when you have your day in court (literally or figuratively)?  Do you think that somehow you can escape the consequences of the rocky cliffs ahead?  Will you just coast along the tidal wave of life that carries you about from day-to-day while you complain as you go that your life isn’t what you want? Or, will you stand up?  Will you say to freedom’s common enemy, “There is a certain point beyond which you cannot pass!”

I’m sure the slobbery thickness of brain-off emotionalism will continue to bring more people to my door in the future asking about some supposed, pretended, or actual indictment–or maybe even worse.  But, in the mean time, me and those who stand with me (including the consistently growing numbers of those who will be standing with me tomorrow and the next day, and the days after that), we will keep producing, educating, and organizing.  And, when we can squeeze it in (and I’m pretty sure it’s something we’ll not soon forget), we’ll also do what we can to make sure the complicit schmuck’s (including those in the media, the legal profession, and in key government positions) who keep overstepping their bounds, to the detriment of innocent and free citizens, are also made to face the legal consequences of their own wrongdoing.  I doubt that they’re any more anxious to face a just tribunal than have been any of history’s well known tyrants and their dimwitted, brain off accomplices.

God is a Capitalist: Answering Ruble Fisher

This past week a Facebook friend of mine, Ruble Fisher, wrote on my Facebook wall the following critique of my oft repeated observation that “God is a Capitalist.”

Rick, you definitely have not forgotten to suggest that God is a Capitalist, but I must say that this is not true. God’s economic system is Consecration, not Capitalism. Capitalism, Communism and Socialism all have the same flaw; they are man-made systems that ultimately lead to only one place, and that is destruction.

I answered Ruble on his wall, but since that time I’ve had several people who can’t access my post, ask about my response.  So, I figured I’d just post it here (with some minor edits and several additions based upon Ruble’s subsequent responses).

I wrote: Ruble, the error in your logic is that you’ve made my proposition a tautology. You choose to see the concept referred to in my statement, by the word Capitalism, as a man made concept. You then connect this choice with your choice—to see everything not directly made by God as doomed to destruction. So in essence what you are saying is that, “Whatever is made by God will prevail, whatever is not made by God will fail and whatever Rick says (including his choice of the term Capitalism) is made by Rick, not God and therefore it is self-evidently true that Capitalism will fail.”

However, here is the challenge put to you, that you ignore.  The concept I refer to when I use the term Capitalism (and this is not my choice uniquely) is the concept that the initiation of FORCE by one man (or group) against another (man or group) is immoral and unjust.

When I say that “God is a Capitalist,” I am making the argument that the concept of capitalism is NOT man made. This is the challenge you ignore by defining the proposition as a tautology and simply assuming through your restatement of your proposition that capitalism is “man made.”

Since it is an assertion inseparable from your tautology, if I want to engage you in rational discussion, I can’t respond without you claiming that whatever I say or whatever concept I uphold is “man made” since I (the one speaking) am indeed a man. Or, in other words, your position boils down to the claim that MAN can never understand God well enough to accurately label God’s truths or laws and subsequently communicate them to others.  While you don’t make this argument explicitly, its implied in your position.

Your stance, of course, is self-evidently false, when at the same time you claim that God’s system is consecration. You see, the word consecration is also a “man made” term and therefore—according to your position—our understanding of God’s truths or laws is always limited by our man made articulations or choice of terms.

Certainly, you would agree (and its consistent with the position you take) that someone using the term consecration is not necessarily doing so in a way that accurately conforms with or communicates God’s law.  Right?  Since any such communication is going to be limited by man’s inherent fallibility (the core of your position).

The consequence, therefore, of your position is that in order to be rationally consistent you have to abandon either the tautology or your claim that you know and have properly labeled God’s system as consecration.

I suspect you would choose giving up the tautology. If its possible for you to argue that you have an accurate conceptualization of God’s law, then certainly you are forced to admit the possibility that I might also have made an accurate conceptualization of God’s law, regardless of the term I use (which would therefore include my use of the term Capitalism).

Your only argument could be that since the “word” consecration is used in the scripture and the word capitalism is not, your word (and the conceptualization attached to it) is not man made, while mine is.  This, of course, would make any conversation between us on the subject meaningless, because I could just point out every word used in defense of your position, that is not scriptural, and that effort would become infinitely regressive.

On the chance that I’m right, and that you’d be willing to give up the tautology and actually engage in the discussion over WHY I contend that God is Capitalist, then let me advance the next stage of our intellectual exchange.

I would begin by suggesting that Consecration is NOT POSSIBLE without the foundation of CAPITALISM being established in place first. Or, in other words, a society must first accept and obey God’s law that to initiate FORCE (of either the body or the mind) against any man or group is unjust and immoral. (Notice, my not so subtle argument by articulation).

This would therefore fence out any participation in CONSECRATION by tyrants. Or more simply, CONSECRATION is only possible absent tyranny. Because, CONSECRATION is the surrender of all RIGHT to waste, to horde, to control for unproductive use and to gratify at the expense of value. YET, any attempt at CONSECRATION by any group of Christians is ultimately undermine without a fundamental respect for the tenants of CAPITALISM.

This is the premise for Apostle Stephen L. Richards (who was an attorney, grandson of Apostle Willard Richards and mentor to the late President Gordon B. Hinckley), teaching that CAPITALISM IS THE FOUNDATION OF GOD’S CELESTIAL LAW. He taught:

“Many people misunderstand and misinterpret capitalism. They think that because the word “capital” is used to designate the system that its chief purpose is to make wealthy men who are usually called capitalists and whose wealth, it is feared, is too often accumulated at the expense of poorer classes.

I admit that there are instances, altogether too many, where this comes about. But this is not the true concept of capitalism. The capitalistic system in its inner essence, is little, if anything, more than a man’s free right to work, to choose his work, and enjoy the rewards of his efforts. In my estimation, it is a most precious thing and it is indispensable to the liberty and freedom of which America boasts.

It is the only tried and tested system of free enterprise in this world and every other opposing system is built on an abridgment of personal liberty. For one I do not want to lose it.  But we will lose it if we do not understand it and recognize its virtues.  It is not the capitalistic system itself that makes some men rich and some men poor. The men themselves do that, again with some exceptions. The system merely offers the opportunities. “

Ruble then responded.  I’ll address his response, in line by line fashion, for clarity.

Ruble writes 1: Rick, honestly, I am really trying to follow your logic, but I am unable to do so. Capitalism was not inspired by God, nor was it made by you.

I agree I did not “create” capitalism, but I have argued that it is in fact God’s doctrine.  You don’t address my argument you just ignore it.  You see, I’ve defined Capitalism as, “the concept that the initiation of FORCE by one man (or group) against another (man or group) is immoral and unjust.” The basic premise of capitalism, justifying this moral position, is that man is free by right, and that all men have an equal claim to liberty.

Again, I suggest that this plan/system of men being “free” (Which I, and many others call Capitalism) is indeed authored by God.

• “…under [Christ's] head ye are made free, and there is no other head whereby ye can be made free.”  (Mosiah 5:8)
• “Wherefore men are free according o the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.” (2 NE 2:27)
• “I stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”  (Gal:5:1)
• “Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” (2 Cor. 3:17)
• “…according to the Spirit of God, which is also the spirit of freedom which is in them.” (Alma 61:15)
• “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.”  (Rom. 8:2)
• “That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him…” (Moses 4:3)

Finally, on this I would also point out that you have completely ignored that excellent quotation I provided from an Apostle of the Lord who uses the SAME articulation of CAPITALISM that I have used and that is at issue here.

Let me remind you that he clearly pointed out, “The capitalistic system in its inner essence, is little, if anything, more than a man’s free right to work, to choose his work, and enjoy the rewards of his efforts. In my estimation, it is a most precious thing and it is indispensable to the liberty and freedom of which America boasts.”

The reason this quotation is important is that it directly counters your claim that Capitalism was not inspired by God.  It does so in two ways.

1. Elder Richards clearly articulates that Capitalism is “a man’s free right to work, to choose his work, and…. is indispensable to the liberty and freedom of which America boasts.”
2. The Doctrine and Coventants makes clear that the Constitutional law of the United States which supports “that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges” was indeed inspired by him.

Ruble Writes 2: Capitalism is simply another economic system like Socialism and Communism that is helping the inhabitants of this Earth to know the difference between good and evil. Each of these systems are evil, and God has nothing to do with them.

I have already addressed the core of your argument above, namely that God did not create capitalism.  However, you now take the matter even further, so I’ll provide some additional insight regarding your claims that “Capitalism is simply another economic system like Socialism and Communism”, your claim that “each of these systems are evil” and you last claim that “God has nothing to do with them.”

RE: “Capitalism is simply another economic system like Socialism and Communism.”

1. Why?  You have ignored my arguments to the contrary.
2. You offer no analysis as to how these are similar, except to repeat, implicitly, your contention that they are all “man made.”  But certainly I’ve addressed that.  But, to be clear, TRUTH is not man made, and ideas either conform to the TRUTH or they do not.  I have argued that CAPITALISM conforms the the essential Gospel truth related to the agency of man.  I have argued that God has authored this system and provided an explanation and scriptural support.  But, you simply keep repeating your assumption.  My question to you is, what if it’s not true Ruble… what if God did indeed establish the “Capitalistic system.”  I’m presenting that case, and you are ignoring it completely, and ignoring the statement by a Latter-day Apostle on the subject without any explanation.
3. How are these systems alike, besides your claim that they are man made?
4. I suggest they are extremely different.  First, Socialism and Communism are Godless.  Second, Capitalism acknowledges the supremacy of individual rights (which are central to the American System established by God) and Socialism and Communism seek to eradicate these fundamental rights.Lest you think this is just my assertion, let me quote Engles to you from his “Principles on Communism” 1847,“Moreover, since the management of industry by individuals necessarily implies private property, and since competition is in reality merely the manner and form in which the control of industry by private property owners expresses itself, it follows that private property cannot be separated from competition and the individual management of industry. Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must come the common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement – in a word, what is called the communal ownership of goods.  In fact, the abolition of private property is, doubtless, the shortest and most significant way to characterize the revolution in the whole social order which has been made necessary by the development of industry – and for this reason it is rightly advanced by communists as their main demand.”
   
5. Finally, I suggest that the Church has made clear distinction between these systems. Consider for example the following statement from Elder Albert E. Bowen who said,“The Lord must want and intend that His people shall be free of constraint whether enforceable or only arising out of the bindings of conscience. … That is why the Church is not satisfied with any system which leaves able people permanently dependent, and insists, on the contrary, that the true function and office of giving, is to help people [get] into a position where they can help themselves and thus be free.” (The Church Welfare Plan, Gospel Doctrine manual, 1946, p. 77.)

RE: “Each of these systems are evil.”

1. Why?  Same argument right?  They are all man made?  I’ve addressed that.
2. What would you say is actually evil about Capitalism?  We need not delve into the others because I’ll readily concede they are evil.
3. You’re still ignoring Elder Richards who directly contradicts your point when he says that the capitalistic system is “precious” and “indispensable to liberty.”  Is it your argument then, that he is simply mistaken?

RE: “God has nothing to do with them.”

1. I’ve already addressed this point above.
2. God is the author of man’s agency, certainly you would agree to that.  Capitalism is the name given to the philosophy of holding man’s agency sacred, as I’ve explained, so how can it be argued that God has nothing to do with it?
3. Do you really mean NOTHING?  Do you agree with the scripture that says not even a sparrow falls to the earth without his notice and sanction?
4. If I have not been convincing previously, perhaps you’ll consider President McKay’s suggestion in the Church News of 11/27/1954 that:The “Individaulistic, capitalistic, free enterprise system” has been the God inspired means of enabling men to raise to a level of prosperity unprecedented in “all historic time.”
   
5. Perhaps you’ll also consider Apostle Mark E. Peterson’s explanation and warning in the Church News of  April 16, 1950.“How many Latter-day Saints truly believe in the Constitution of the United States?  That Constitution stands for free initiative.  That is free agency.  In a business sense we have spoken of it as free private enterprise.  Are the Latter-day Saints as a people willing to accept the principle of free enterprise?  There are some among us who are teaching that free enterprise is wrong.  These same individuals would do away with the capitalist system, setting forth its many abuses.” He goes on to suggest that “Free Enterprise” generally and “Capitalism” specifically are both in a general sense “free agency—the principle to which Latter-day Saints are committed.”

Ruble Writes 3:  God’s economic system is Consecration.

1. Yes, but you do not define Consecration and at the same time have ignored my statement that, “Someone using the term consecration is not necessarily doing so in a way that accurately conforms with or communicates God’s law.”
2. Also, I argue that Consecration requires a group of men first committed to the fundamental principles of Capitalism, i.e, eschewing the initiation of force.  You ignore my argument and simply say you “disagree.”  But, why?
3. How could you ever consecrate something if a) you did not have it in your possession and b) it was not yours (by private property right) to give in the first place.  “How can we give if there is nothing there? Food for the hungry cannot come from empty shelves. Money to assist the needy cannot come from an empty purse. Support and understanding cannot come from the emotionally starved. Teaching cannot come from the unlearned. And most important of all, spiritual guidance cannot come from the spiritually weak.”(Marion G. Romney, First Presidency Message October 1984)
4. Any group of people who get together, as you later suggest, to live the law of consecration will suffer the same fate as that suffered by the early pilgrims who had to learn first hand how to overcome the evil of collectivism and institute the Godly inspired virtues of individuals rights, individual stewardship, and the protection of men’s individual liberty. Or in other words, how can this group ever consecrate effectively without capitalism?  You seem to believe their is some other way but you don’t elaborate.
5. You also ignore Elder Richard’s statement that the system of Capitalism, “Is the only tried and tested system of free enterprise in this world and every other opposing system is built on an abridgment of personal liberty.” Is it your suggestion that Elder Richards simply forgot about Consecration in his assessment that Capitalism (since he does not mention consecration) is the ONLY system that has been proven to protect our freedoms.
6. Perhaps you might say, “all these things are incorporated in consecration” but this would mean we agree because this is what I have said in essence, that consecration is not possible without Capitalism.  Whether you say it my way or say it like, “Consecration contains all the principles of capitalism” then you are agreeing with me that God is a Capitalist because for him to be a consecrationist he would have to “be” that by first “assuming all of the qualities of a true capitalist.”

Ruble Writes 4:  However, there are some good principles found within the Capitalistic system, one of which is private property rights.

1. You are contradicting yourself.  You have already said that you did not believe that God “had anything to do” with Capitalism.  Yet now you say it has some “good principles.”

• The scripture is clear that we should, “lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not..” and that the followers of Christ will “cleave unto every good thing…” (Moro. 7:19,28)
• The scriptures also clearly state that, “…every good gift cometh of Christ.” (Moro. 10:18) and that “Every good gift”, “cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” (James 1:17)

Ruble Writes 5: Your “claim” that the concept that “God is a Capitalist” is not man made is something which I agree with. The “God of this World” is the author of Capitalism, and the God of this world is the enemy of all righteousness.

1. Ruble, its hard to take you seriously when you get to this point.  Are you kidding?  Do you believe that the God of this world is Satan? The God of this World is JESUS CHRIST.  And, on this point, you and I will have to agree, that HE is the author of Capitalism, which was my argument in the first place.
2. Ruble, in all sincerity, Satan is a liar, and he is NOT the God of this world.  If you have been misled or deceived on this fundamental, core doctrine of the Gospel, perhaps we ought not be having this conversation yet.  Please consider,

• “My heart tonight is filled with thanksgiving unto the Almighty God. Through the gift of His Son, who is the God of this world, we have been so magnificently blessed.” — Gordon B. Hinckley, Feb. 2001
• “Jesus Christ is the God of this world. He has made it very plain in his many self-introductions.” — Spencer W. Kimball, Nov. 1977
• “His identity and his relationship to God, the Eternal Father, and as “the God of this earth,” was clearly explained when he as the risen Lord, following his crucifixion and resurrection, appeared to his people in the land Bountiful on this continent.” — Harold B. Lee, November 1973.

Ruble Writes 6: God is a consecrationist, not a Capitalist. That is simple and understandable.

It’s only simple and understandable if a) you do not define “consecrationist”, b) ignore my challenges to your definition and my counter definition—remember I originally argued that to be a consecrationist meant one who, “surrenders all RIGHT to waste, to horde, to control for unproductive use and to gratify at the expense of value.”  I would agree with you that God is a consecrationist, but I would argue that it first presupposes that he is first and foremost a capitalist, as I’ve been arguing.

Why do you think the two are mutually exclusive?  What about Capitalism or Consecration creates this dichotomy?

Ruble Writes 7: Your logic is not so simple or understandable.

Okay?  What exactly don’t you understand?  Where am I being unclear?

Ruble Writes 8: To be consistent Rick, I uniformly abandon the tautology, and I stand solidly with my claim that I know and properly label God’s system “Consecration”.

Great.  I thought we would agree on abandoning the tautology.

Ruble Writes 9: [Beginning by quoting my earlier statement] “Consecration is NOT POSSIBLE without the foundation of CAPITALISM being in place first. Or, in other words, a society must first accept obey God’s law that to initiate FORCE against any man or group is unjust and immoral.” Your connection here is faulty and illogical.

Okay?  What is faulty about it?  Or Illgoical?

Can you consecrate without first having the private right of ownership?

Can you consecrate while resisting the idea that the initiation of FORCE is unjust and immoral?

Can any society live by consecration while tyrants abound who would mooch, or loot the wealth of the “order?”  I posit, that this is exactly why previous experiments failed, because men needed more time in our generation perfecting their ideas with regards to freedom, liberty, individual rights, and therefore CAPITALISM.

What logic allows you to counter my statement?

Ruble Writes 10: The connection between force initiation and Capitalism is strange to me. I read your explanation, but it simple does not logically hold up.

Hmmm, what do you mean?

I simply defined capitalism?  What about that definition is strange?

Stephen L. Richards also defined the system of Capitalism in consistent terms with my statements?  Did you misunderstand his statement as well?

Consider, “There are only two fundamental questions (or two aspects of the same question) that determine the nature of any social system: Does a social system recognize individual rights?  — and: Does a social system ban physical force from human relationships?

The answer to the second question is the practical implementation of the answer to the first…

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned…In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary.  Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate.” (Ayn Rand: “What Is Capitalism?” Nov. 1965)

Ruble Writes 11: [Again beginning by quoting my argument first] “CONSECRATION is only possible absent tyranny.” I don’t agree! There can be tyrrany everywhere. We only need a group of people who truly understand the power of the Priesthood, and they will overthrow the powers of darkness through their faith.

1. Okay, finally you’ve addressed my argument.  Kind of.  What do you mean that there can be tyranny everywhere.  Certainly that statement is true by itself, but my argument was that the presence of tyranny (i.e. one or more tyrants who do not respect the basic premise of capitalism, or for the sake of further clarity, any person who does not respect the agency of man) threatens any chance of consecration.  You don’t address this.  You simply make a counter assertion.How could any number of Priesthood holders live God’s law without first casting out the tyrants?  I think Rev. Ch. 12 sets the precedent.* Note, a capitalist does not believe that ALL force is tyrannical.  It is the initiation of force that is tyrannical, but it is morally just to respond to tyranny with force in self-defense (separate argument if you want to have it.)
2. When you say that this “group of people” would have to first understand “the power of the priesthood” what you are essentially saying is that they would have to understand the fundamental tenant of a capitalist.  Right?  D&C 121:41
3. I would go a step further and say they would have to voluntarily agree to be bound by the priesthood, and would have to enter into such an agreement through covenant (private agreement based upon individual rights, including property rights).  Or in other words, we are agreeing on this point, because you have no argument against what I’ve clearly defined as Capitalism.
4. It is dangerous and naive to think that because “a group of people who truly understand the Priesthood” will ever “overthrow the powers of darkness through their faith” if that is what you are advancing as the only requirement.The implication is that somehow faith alone will “do the trick.”  It will not.  Faith is essential, no doubt.  But, the fundamental agreement mentioned in #2 and #3 above is essential.  To suggest otherwise is to suggest that the current members of the Quorum of the Twelve and the Quorums of Seventy don’t “truly understand the Priesthood.”  I don’t think that is what you’re wanting to to do here. Is it?The Saints have been working at this for a long time, but the stumbling block has been the PRIDE of our members who accept the deceptions of the adversary, for example, rejecting capitalism through misunderstanding and mis-attribution.  Additionally, the brethren teach that in addition to UNDERSTANDING the Priesthood this same group would have to:a) commit to live by the principles
   b) have a legal right to do so and the ability to defend that legal right
   c) become temporally self-reliant and surplus generating and
   d) united through love and service to and with one another.

   These are just a few things.  I suggest that before ANY of this is affected the PRINCIPLES of CAPITALISM have to be established first, because once again TYRANNY through FORCE (of either the body or the mind) is the way Satan seeks to destroy the AGENCY of man and with that goes the chance of living in a united order.

   In modern history, neither Capitalism nor its higher, supplemental manifestation of CONSECRATION has yet been possible among any sizable group of people because no sizable group has yet established legitimate civil authority over the tyranny brought about by the members of that same society having their hearts so set upon the things of the world and gaining the the honors of other men.  It will take a moral revolution, lead indeed by those who understand the Celestial law and have covenanted to live by it, before the day of Capitalism and Consecration fully comes.  Thank goodness, God is a Capitalist—and that the revolution has begun.

Ruble Writes 12: In conclusion, Capitalism is not necessary in order to have consecration. Enoch had no knowledge of Capitalism and he created God’s consecrated society on Earth.

1. Ruble,  with respect, I suggest your biggest stumbling block is that you do not define terms.  Your argument is not against Capitalism but against some idea of what capitalism means “to you” that you have not been clearly defining.  You have yet to advance an argument against Capitalism as I have represented it—yet it is to my original argument that you’ve been intended to respond.
2. Your statement about Enoch not having any knowledge of Capitalism is to suggest that he did not have any knowledge of THE CONCEPT we’re calling capitalism and that suggestion, on your part, is without foundation.  My argument is that CAPITALISM is at its core based upon timeless truths and governed by eternal principles.  No one, Enoch included, can prosper without being mindful of these truths, and the degree to which we are mindful determines the degree to which we prosper.
3. Also, your statement about Enoch is also revealing because using the same logic I could argue that “the ‘Mormon’ Church isn’t God’s true Church because Enoch was a member of God’s true Churcha nd he never heard of it, or of the Book of Mormon for that matter.”The “NAMES” we use to define concepts do not bind the truth—in fact it is the other way around.  To the extent that we are not deliberate and diligent in educating ourselves, including taking responsibility for having a consistent rational framework for organizing our conceptual understanding of the world, we are blinded to greater truths.

My own conclusion is that, God is a Capitalist, Enoch is a Capitalist, I am a Capitalist, Jefferson is a Capitalist, Joseph Smith is a Capitalist, etc., …. you get the picture.  The men upon whom the light of truth has shined and from which social revolution has taken place to advance the eternal cause of liberty—these men are true Capitalists.

Now, with all due respect I’ve invested quite a bit of time and energy taking your casual “stabs” at an argument very seriously.  Before you answer would you please consider the following invitation of mine….

1. Read my whole argument before responding.
2. Read the references contained in my argument.
3. When responding make arguments, not just claims.  An argument consists of three essential ingredients.  First a claim (which you are good at already), second is data or an appeal to the factual basis that substantiates your claim (logic is suitable but so is reference to external realities) and finally a warrant or the “reasoning” behind why your data supports your claim.
4. Finally, will you spend some time refining your point?  I mean no disrespect when I say, you haven’t really begun to come to terms with what I’m saying when I say that “God is a Capitalist.”  You are simply launching random thoughts at a concept that seems offensive to you and it makes it a rather lengthy and cumbersome task to address all of your statements when we’re not diving very deeply into a very rich and rewarding subject.

I appreciate you taking the time to a) consider my statement, b) respond to it in a way that is both challenging and passionate and c) doing it without using techniques that are uncivil.  I look forward to further discussion… but again, I hope you’ll consider my 4-fold invitation.

Thanks for reading.

Are You a Capitalist, by 1886 Standards?

For many years now I’ve been using the title “FreeCapitalist” and have enjoyed watching the odd expression in the faces of others as they attempt to contemplate my meaning. I have my own reason’s for calling myself a capitalist, and a few of them are not what most would suspect. In this same line of thinking, I am always learning something new. Recently I stumbled across something that related directly to my own personal reasons for using the title. Surprisingly, it was while I was reading an essay first published in 1886 by Rev. James W. Cole entitled, “Earning the Capital.” I thought it might be valuable to re-publish a portion of his essay to illustrate a point about capitalism that is seldom noticed in our world today, one hundred and twenty two years later.

Selection from “Earning the Capital” By Rev. James W. Cole

What is capital? Most writers on economics answer, “Capital is surplus; the storage of the labor of the brain and muscle; the overplus from the daily needs and uses of men.” If this general definition be a true one, it can apply only to the outer, material forms of wealth. For one’s wealth does not consist solely in the possession of money, however vast that sum may be. A simple definition of the word will show this. Strength is strongness. Length is longness. Breadth is broadness. Wealth is ” wealness ” or wellness; things that make for one’s well-being.

Is the miser a wealthy man? Do the millions of gold some men get tend to their well-being? Is it not true that the getting of money develops in some the baser elements of their nature, so that occasionally you may see persons whose riches have but served to make them meaner than the meanest poverty could ever make them? Can such persons be truthfully said to be wealthy or well-being persons?

The word, you see, has broken away from its original foundation, and is by many persons regarded as simply synonymous in meaning with money. But money is not an end; it is a means to an end, and that end is nobly to live the life that is given you. If money or any other product of the earth will help you do that, then get it, get all you can of it; but if it would hinder you in your development of true manhood, then avoid it. Earn something else by your brain and muscle, if you would be wealthy.

When that noble man, the late Prof. Louis Agassiz, was asked why he did not use his great talents to gain money, when he was offered three hundred dollars each for a course of six lectures, he replied with lofty scorn, ” I cannot afford to lecture for money.” To him there were far more valuable and wonderful things in this world than money. Alas! that there are but few like him.

The citizens of ancient Rome were wont to place the statues and images of their great ancestors on pedestals, and in the vestibules of their houses, in order to remind themselves and their children of those ancestors’ virtues and glorious deeds, and to inspire them to emulate them; and for one hundred and seventy years they allowed no painted or graven image of a deity among them, with the result, as Plutarch tells us, that for two hundred and thirty years after the founding of Rome no husband deserted his wife, nor any wife her husband, and for six hundred years there was no parricide known, and for forty-three years, during the reign of Numa Pompilius, the temple of Janus, the god of war, continued closed, there being no war, nor sedition, nor conspiracy.

Would that Americans could be diverted long enough from their worship of Mammon to cultivate some of the virtues of those old heathen! Perchance, then, they might, for the peace of their families and the good of the republic, imitate the example of that famous Themistocles of Athens, who, when two suitors, one a poor man and the other rich, sought for the hand of his daughter in marriage, chose the poor man, saying he desired as a son-in-law a man without riches, rather than riches without a man.

But now you are a man, and a man of business desires and wishes to succeed in some particular business. You have virtues and some talents, but, it may be, very little money, perhaps none. Can you succeed without money? Certainly. Some of the richest men in this country began their business life without a dollar. Nature is just as ready to help you to get riches as she was to help them. She will give as good returns today and tomorrow as yesterday.

Money is but one of the numerous and valuable things to be found in her vast storehouses on land, and in the seas, and in the air, and in the sun, and you can get it out if you wish and will. Perhaps you have heard it said that, ” it takes money to get money.” No, it doesn’t. Money is not a loadstone, drawing its kind only. Money is only lumps of matter dug out of the ground, and shaped in certain forms and stamped with a design, and you can get an abundance of it without digging in the earth for it, and trying to catch it with another piece of the same kind.

What! Get money without capital? No, with capital. Why, man, you are a capitalist! Wages are only a form of income. An everyday laborer is a capitalist. Every person to whom God has given brains and a good body is a large capitalist.

Your mind, your muscle, is your capital, and with them you may earn what you will. All the riches of the world are the product of the labor of brain or muscle. Your brain may be a veritable gold mine if you will but develop it.

In 1882, at Christie’s rooms, London, a little daub of matter, only twelve by nine inches, that a brain had put on canvas, sold for thirty thousand dollars. It was Meissonier’s “Napoleon the First in the Campaign of Paris.” The same artist’s “1814″ was sold for one hundred and seventy thousand dollars; eight years later, Millet’s “Angelus” brought one hundred and ten thousand dollars, and Murillo’s “Conception of the Virgin” one hundred and seventeen thousand dollars. Great fortunes, you see, that the brain produced.

The musician Paderewski spent a few weeks in this country a year ago, and then carried home with him one hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars, as the proceeds of his brain.

Sir Walter Scott was a silent partner in the firm of the publishers of his books. The firm failed, and he was involved in debt six hundred thousand dollars in consequence. He was then fifty-six years of age. Summoning all the energy of his mighty brain to the task, he labored incessantly, by night and day, sending out volume after volume, until in five years he had paid it all by the product of his brain. Yes, brains are great money-getters, if you use them for that purpose.

The son of a farmer in the state of New York, a sickly lad, Samuel J. Tilden, so used his brains as to bring him a fortune, by the practice of law, of five millions of dollars. A Swedish young woman, Jenny Lind, twenty-eight years of age, came to the United States with nothing but her voice, that her brain had cultured, and in ninety-eight nights she had sung out of the pockets of the American people seven hundred and twelve thousand dollars. Another Swede, Ole Bornemann Bull, so manipulated a violin as to draw out of the same American people in a single season more than a hundred thousand dollars; while an American-born lad of English ancestors, Edwin Booth, so used his brains while an actor, that in less than two months’ time he had taken in from the people of San Francisco alone, over ninety-six thousand dollars.

But why multiply instances in literature, art, oratory, music, the drama, all going to prove that your brain is your capital, and that all you need to do if you wish for money is to use it.