Principles of the Economic Sphere

There are principles we use in the Spherical Model to identify whether something qualifies as leading toward freedom, prosperity, and civilization, or in the other direction toward tyranny, poverty, and savagery.

Because of the prevalence of socialism in our time, I thought it might be a good exercise about now, two months ahead of the mid-term elections, to look at the principles. Since socialism claims to be just an alternative economic system to capitalism (the word they prefer to free-market), we’ll focus on the economic principles.

I’m taking from the list of principles here, where you can find the list for the political and social spheres as well.  And I’m taking from the list of question to ask candidates from here and here, where you can find those lists for all three spheres.  

We’ll go through the principles, and individually ask whether socialism agrees.

To read the full article, FOLLOW LINK TO SUBSTACK.

A Full Decade

Ten years ago today I pressed click and posted my first blog. I’ve been writing the blog for a full decade now. This is number 1198—so in another week we’ll hit a full 2000. Thank you or reading whatever portion of those you’ve read.

Not every post makes it obvious what this blog’s purpose is. It is to share the concepts of the Spherical Model by discussing things related to the three spheres: political (freedom), economic (prosperity), and social (civilization).

I’m on a personal crusade to change the vocabulary from the right-left model to this more accurate three-dimensional model. It makes moot any discussions about whether some fringe group is right-wing or left-wing extremist; if they go against the northern hemisphere principles that lead to freedom, prosperity, and civilization, then they are southern hemisphere, leading to tyranny, poverty, and savagery. Degrees (distance south) may differ. Lateral direction toward chaotic tyranny or statist tyranny may differ. But if they’re southern hemisphere, that’s bad.

The Spherical Model is a way to move from “What party is proposing this?” toward “Does this idea/policy follow the principles that lead north?”

We’re not talking earth-north and south; we’re talking about the directions on the Spherical Model. (For a full description of the model, see the resources below.)

The Political, Economic, and Social Spheres of the Spherical Model

The three spheres each have some questions or principles you can consider, to determine whether a policy will lead north or south.

Political Sphere: Questions to Ask

1.     Is the policy being debated something that an individual has the right to do, and therefore has the right to delegate to his/her government? 

2.     Does the policy infringe in any way on our God-given rights, including but not limited to those enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

3.     Is the idea being debated a proper role of government, some aspect of protection (including defense, protection from interstate crime, enabling international and interstate commerce, standardized weights and measures and currency, the judiciary that guarantees the protective laws), as enumerated in the Constitution?

Economic Sphere: Question to Ask

·       Who decides what will be done with the fruits of your labors? Someone always makes these basic economic decisions. Should it be the person who did the work to make the profit (north), or should it be some far distant wielder of power (south)? If you go north, you find prosperity; if you go south, you reach poverty.

Social Sphere: Principles of Civilization

1.     Not all religious societies are civilized (according to my definition, which differs from the archaeological definition), but every civilized society is a religious society. This absolutely does not mean state-sponsored religion or lack of religious freedom; in fact, the opposite is true. Freedom of religion is essential, and the flourishing of religion in general must be encouraged.

2.     The family is the basic unit of civilized society. Whatever threatens the family threatens civilization. So preserving and protecting the family is paramount in laws and social expectations in a civilized society.

 

Example

The three spheres interrelate. But it's probably easiest to see things in the political sphere, so let’s take a look at those three political sphere questions and apply them, for example, to the national $15 minimum wage, being proposed right now. 

With question one, do you have the right to force your neighbor to pay a particular wage to his employees? You can suggest. You can use peer pressure. But you don’t have that right. Nor does he have the right to impose that on you. So we, the people, do not have that power to grant to the government.

And the second question, do you have a God-given right to make an exchange with your neighbor for goods and services? Yes, assuming the exchange does not break a duly legal law (written by the legislature, signed into law, and not breaking the overriding law of the Constitution, which supports our natural rights). Do you have the right to prevent such a free exchange between your neighbor and someone else? No. Even when you think your interference is for someone’s own good? No. Nor does he have the right to prevent you from making an exchange of your choice. The exchange is a representation of the work you have done—the wealth you have created. Money is just an easy way of exchanging that representation of your spent life. To interfere with a free exchange is to interfere with your life, your liberty, and your property. 

And the third question, does the government protect your life, liberty, and/or property by either limiting or forcing an exchange against the will of the participants? No, it interferes or limits those things. Government's job is to protect those things, not infringe on them.

Here’s something we say here often:

Whenever government attempts something beyond the proper role of government (protection of life, liberty, and property), it causes unintended consequences—usually exactly opposite to the stated goals of the interference.

So, if the goal of a minimum wage is to prevent people from being taken advantage of and give them a minimum living amount in exchange for their work, let’s see if it does that.

A business exists to create wealth. It does this by providing goods and services that others are willing to pay for. The price is set by the market—by the customers’ willingness to pay. If the cost is too high, the customer won’t pay it. If the cost is too low, there may be too much buying and the supply won’t keep up. So the business owner isn't setting the price; the market is.

If the market sets a particular price for, say, a sandwich at a fast-food restaurant, and the revenue brings in enough for the business to pay a worker $8.50 an hour, but not $15.00 and hour, what happens when the minimum wage is imposed? The business cannot afford to pay the workers that. The alternative is to let go any workers who cannot bring in the needed revenue to meet their $15.00/hour pay and hope the remaining employees can work even harder than they've been doing. In other words, entry-level workers, who are building up their skills, are not legal to hire. They can’t gain the experience needed to get a $15.00/hour job. Instead, they get no pay. They are worse off.

The law has not only made it illegal for a business to pay less than $15.00 and hour; it has made it illegal for a worker to work for less than $15.00 an hour even when it’s to his advantage to do so.

If you’re looking at fairness as the goal, do you think it’s fair to enforce a $15.00/hour minimum on a small town in the Midwest—where that’s about the median income and can get you a decent home—and also in Los Angeles where it might buy your groceries but wouldn’t begin to make a dent in the rent on a one-bedroom apartment? Such a law actually imposes unfairness.

You can see how the political and economic spheres are interconnected here. We know what the northern prosperity zone would look like: healthy, prosperous economy, with each worker benefiting from his own labors, and having the opportunities to meet his financial needs and build up wealth. There would be no guarantees of the success of every single person, but there would be better opportunities than in any other system in any country at any time in history.

Maybe you can also picture how the economic sphere ties into the social sphere: wherever there are needs that a person cannot meet with their own efforts, caring people step in to fill the need. If it’s an economic need, they do that by charitable giving, or philanthropy.

However, when government takes from one person to give to another, the government isn’t charitable or generous. It is simply thieving. That’s a southern hemisphere policy, and it makes for tyranny, poverty, and savagery. An honest look at data bears that out.

While the Spherical Model is new—and still obscure a decade later—the principles are what our founders tried to design our US Constitution to adhere to. What I believe we’d find, if we had an honest look at the historical data, is that every time the principles are met, we get the desired outcomes of freedom, prosperity, and civilization. But mostly we have experienced people in power insisting they’re “helping” us by limiting our freedom, limiting our use of the fruits of our labors, and leading us away from a thriving civilization—and then saying they’re there to solve those problems for us if we just turn over power to them.

I’m hoping the Spherical Model gives us a better way to think about ideas, and a better way to talk about them.

 

Resources

If you’d like a better look at the Spherical Model concept, here are some resources:

The long version is at the website SphericalModel.com. This contains an introduction and four longish articles:

 

·         The Political World Is Round

·         The Economic World: Free Enterprise vs. Controlled Economy

·         Civilized vs. Savage

o   The Family Is the Basic Unit of Civilization

 

The short version is available in print form in this blog:

 

·         The Political Sphere Is Round. December 29, 2014

·         Spherical Model Review, December 31, 2015 

·         What the Spherical Model Is All About, December 31, 2020. 

 

Since the concept is three dimensional, maybe you’ll understand it better visually, with this very low-tech video of me explaining it in under ten minutes:

 

 

Economics on the Sphere

The Spherical Model gives us a way to look at government economic policies and know whether they’ll work or not—or even whether they should be tried.

The Economic Zone

There’s this basic principle:

Whenever government attempts something beyond the proper role of government (protection of life, liberty, and property), it causes unintended consequences—usually exactly opposite to the stated goals of the interference.

While this is a statement related to the Political Sphere, the principle is probably easiest to see on the economic sphere. For that, we’re going to review a couple of segments of the Spherical Model website on the Economic Sphere. If you’re not yet familiar with the Spherical Model concepts, you can get a quick refresher by reading “The Political World Is Round” or by watching the (very low-budget) video, here. Below, the indented parts are quoted from the website, interspersed with my comments today.

Just as with the political Freedom Zone, there’s a 45th parallel to stay above for optimum economic prosperity. In this zone, government is limited to its proper economic role: protect property rights, safeguard society from attack, and, if called upon, mint the monetary units while safeguarding the wealth. The US Constitution does limit the federal government. When government attempts to interfere, for whatever well-intentioned purpose, to stimulate the economy, manage unemployment, control interest rates, redistribute wealth, or tax for any purpose outside the proper role of government—it will always cause damage to the economy.

All that government needs to do is follow the Constitution, and we would have the most prosperous economy in world history in perpetuity. But following the Constitution has always been the challenge.

Davy Crockett
by William Henry Huddle, 1989
image from Wikipedia

There’s a Davy Crockett story[i] I’ve used at this point. You can re-read it on the website. It tells how Davy Crockett learned from a constituent that government had no business using tax money on charity. He was able to persuade Congress, but only on that one piece of legislation.

Let’s add to that a story of James Madison—the principal writer of the Constitution, who ought to know, who was against a 1792 Congressional appropriation of $15,000 for French refugees. Madison said, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”[ii]

Here’s what happens:

It is a pattern of people in power to exert more power than they have been granted, ostensibly to do good, thus usurping power they had not been granted but setting precedence for future exertion of that power. The founders knew this, had seen it and experienced it, and read and studied so that they would word the Constitution in a way that would purposely restrict government from usurping this power. But it takes constant vigilance in order to prevent the usurpation. And after decades, even centuries now, of lawmakers overstepping “for the general welfare,” we are far distant from the Freedom Zone.

We know what the Free-Enterprise [Prosperity] Zone would look like: healthy, prosperous economy, with each worker benefiting from his own labors, and having the opportunities to meet his financial needs and build up wealth. There would be no guarantees of the success of every single person, but there would be better opportunities than in any other system in any country at any time in history.

We haven’t spent nearly enough time actually following the Constitution, and thereby staying in the Freedom Zone of the Political Sphere or the Prosperity Zone of the Economic Sphere.

We seriously lowered ourselves on the sphere shortly after the turn of the last century. Income taxes were instituted, and the Federal Reserve Bank was formed. Woodrow Wilson set the standard for Italian and German fascism in his efforts at government control. He interfered in the economy and encouraged his followers to do so. It was the interfering policies put in place early in the century that led to the Great Depression; these policies followed by Hoover and then Roosevelt lengthened and deepened the Depression.

Remember, any government act meant to do other than to protect the people’s wealth is economically unsound—it will cause harm, either in the short term or eventually.

We ought to know better. Out country has had enough experiences with extra-constitutional experimentation: Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Obama—for example. This piece, from the website, was written in 2010, when we’d suffered just about a year and a half of Obama interference, which malaise continued through his entire presidency:

Friedrich Hayek, in The Road to Serfdom and others of his writings, details why central planning (another term for government interference) in decision making wreaks havoc. He wrote in the 1940s, with the clarity of having been there and observing as things happened, how and why Wilson, Hoover, and Roosevelt policies failed—and continued to fail and will always fail.

There is such a stark difference between the failure of the controlled economy and free enterprise that even a relatively mild step from control toward freedom leads to remarkable increases in prosperity. The Ronald Reagan era is such an example. The years from Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter showed a continual rise in the misery index (unemployment rate added to the rate of inflation), until an average high of 20.27 during Carter’s administration. In relatively short time, Reagan was able to drop the rate down to 11.19—not low enough, but a huge improvement. He lowered taxes and deregulated previously controlled business sectors. Even without the liberal Congress lowering spending as much as Reagan had intended, there was marked improvement. The index continued to go down through George W. Bush’s presidency, and only headed back up when the liberal Congress (during Bush’s last two years) started imposing economic controls. Obama, during his first year, imposed more controls than any president since FDR, socializing industries, controlling banks, redistributing wealth, attempting to socialize the health care system—and the misery index responded, rising from an average 8.1% under Bush to 12.33% after a single year.

And note that the misery could be higher if unemployment were more accurately calculated; those unemployed more than six months, or those no longer seeking employment or who have taken low-pay temporary jobs, are not included. This means that, if unemployment is really closer to 17%, then Obama in a single year has “controlled” the economy into depression-feeling Carteresque misery. Right now the inflation rate is being held artificially low with far below market interest rates, which will at some point need correction. So by some objective measures, Obama’s economic errors have already exceeded Carter’s.

Reagan didn’t get us all the way up to the Free-Enterprise Zone; he got us generally above the equator with an upward direction—more remarkable because it was reached without the assistance of a like-minded legislature. And the result was huge. Unemployment and interest rates dropped, and GDP started a growth spurt lasting two decades.

We look now, a couple of years into the Trump presidency, and there’s been an effect on the economy very similar to Reagan’s improvement over Carter’s malaise. That ought to tell us something:

If we could make that much progress by going upward just above the equator on the Spherical Model, how much more prosperous would we be as a country if we followed the Constitution and moved up to the Free-Enterprise Zone [Prosperity Zone] and stayed there?

Here’s another really radical idea: If America could make that much upward, perpetual progress by abiding by the Constitution, wouldn’t that work for any other country that tried it? Yes. Yes, it would. They would have to adopt a constitution essentially like ours—one that protects life, liberty, and property while limiting government to just its essential role—like the list in the Preamble of our Constitution:

 in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

And then, of course, people doing well would need to voluntarily fill the philanthropic role that is needed to help those who cannot help themselves. These countries could keep their culture: their language, their history, their clothing, their music, their art and architecture.

Would we worry if competing countries started doing as phenomenally well as we were doing? No need. Because we’d be plenty prosperous. It isn’t a zero-sum game. When more wealth is created, there’s more wealth to go around.

If only we could make use of our founders’ ideas, and then export those ideas.

But they can’t be imposed on an unwilling people; people have to choose freedom, prosperity, and civilization. Lack of choosing them is the trouble we mainly have here in America. We need people to come to appreciate what actually leads to the blessed outcomes that are our potential, and then choose those ultimate good outcomes.

I’m willing to give it a try. Who’s with me?

---

[i] I first heard this Davy Crockett story from Nina Hendee, who told Texas history stories to school groups at the family restaurant Taste of Texas. I later found the full story: “Not Yours to Give,” originally published in The Life of Colonel David Crockett, by Edward Sylvester Ellis, republished at http://juntosociety.com, © 2002 The Junto Society.

[ii] This incident and quote came to my attention in “Healthcare—If Government Doesn’t Do It, Who Will?” by Larry Elder, online column August 27, 2009, on Townhall.com.

Interrelated Spheres

I started the Spherical Model blog in March 2011, to support and expand on the ideas on the website, which remain there pretty much unchanged since fall 2010. While I still stand by the original ideas, I continue to practice better ways of saying things.

The Spherical Model
Political Sphere

The Spherical Model itself is still pretty obscure. So, I occasionally explain the model. The start of a new year seems like a good time. I’ve been doing this the last several years.

I usually start with links to the model:

Condensed version here: The Political Sphere Is Round 

Video here: https://youtu.be/IGoh5X-CPGA

The whole website here: www.sphericalmodel.com

In that condensed version—which is the last post of 2014—I give this reason:

Next time someone suggests you are (or an idea is) far-right extreme, check to see whether their position is more accurately some level of southern statist tyranny. Missing the possibility of the entire northern hemisphere of freedom is common. Most of world history shows an oscillation between statist tyranny and anarchic tyranny, or from one statist tyranny to another. Change the discussion by changing the terms and then dealing with principles. Then move north to freedom.

In January 2018 I talked more about why the Spherical Model is needed, what misunderstandings it resolves. And then I linked to some of the collections and “best of” posts of the previous year of 2017. I recently did a “best of” list for 2018.

Back in January 2017 I covered the principles that will lead to north on the sphere for political freedom, economic prosperity, and civilization. As I concluded then,

If we can agree that we want freedom, prosperity, and civilization—as opposed to tyranny, poverty, and savagery—that’s a lot of agreement. And then we can move the conversation on to how we get those outcomes.

In January 2016, we defined freedom and some other terms basic to understanding the model. 

In March of that year I did a “Review of the Proper Role of Government,” one of the model’s basic principles.

In other words, I’m not trying to keep this a secret. I really believe people would be better off thinking in terms of the Spherical Model, rather than the more common error-ridden left/right model.

The Political, Economic, and Social Spheres
of the Spherical Model

As I say in the subheading of the blog, the political, economic, and social spheres are interrelated. Evidence for that comes up frequently. Several evenings ago we had dinner with a friend from Uganda, who was visiting Texas during the holidays. (Unfortunately, it was cold while she was here.) She had lived in Venezuela for a while—while things were bad but not as horrendous as they are now. She loves her native Africa, but her country and others, she admits, can’t move forward quickly because of rampant corruption. Even when a new leader comes in and tries to make things better, the same people who were corrupt before go on to get similar jobs, based on their previous experience, and continue their corruption. The social sphere affects the economic sphere.

Another example was a radio broadcast I heard earlier this week on the economic talk show that comes on at noon daily here (STA Money Hour)[i]. The financial planners were talking with a lawyer who offers advice on financial planning for families—wills, trusts, etc. One thing he said was that it was rare to get the various experts hired to help the same family business in a room at the same time: the accountant, the investment banker, the financial planner, the lawyer. Their tasks interrelate, and they could do a better job if they communicated.

But one other point he made was that successful family businesses differ widely in their ability to sustain their wealth. And the difference has more to do with family strength and cohesion than any business/economic ability. Two hypothetical families could grow identical-sized businesses, creating wealth they hope will help the family for generations. This could be true whether or not the next generation actually wants to work in the business. One could go on generation after generation, while the other could lose everything by the second or third generation.

The qualities required for long-term success are working together, recognizing one another’s strengths, being honest, and having integrity. Those that don’t have these qualities tend to lose the wealth. It gets squandered with profligate spending or unwise attempts for growth, losing sight of the company’s mission and how that affects the family. Sometimes it gets squandered by spoiled rich kids, who were lavished with the wealth without being taught how to earn it and value it. But, any way you look at it, the main cause of loss of wealth to a successful family-owned or closely held company is weakness in the family.

Family is the basic unit of civilization. And economic prosperity is closely tied with civilization.

Graphic found here

That is also true in the larger world. A nation that ignores the requirements of honoring God, life, family, property, and truth engender corruption rather than wealth. A nation where a critical mass of people do honor those things—which happen to be the basics of the Ten Commandments—are likely to prosper in personal freedom, economic prosperity, and thriving civilization.

I’m not just saying you have to be a social conservative as well as an economic conservative; I’m saying you can’t get north, to freedom, prosperity, and civilization, unless you abide by the principles of all three of those spheres—because they all interrelate.

---

[i] This was New Year’s Day. I’m guessing it was a “best of” rebroadcast, because that date wasn’t available as a podcast.

Happy 7th Anniversary, Spherical Model

Today (or, specifically yesterday) is the 7^th anniversary of the Spherical Model blog. We’re approaching 900 posts. Usually on an anniversary day, I do some reminding about what the Spherical Model is. I’ll do that today. But I also want to talk a bit about what it’s for, what is the purpose or mission.

Those who control the language control the thoughts, because language is what we use to represent our thoughts.

We as a people are divided—more divided than ever in many ways. But I believe, on the level of human beings, we’re not so different. We’re divided because we use language that divides. Framed a different way, we might be nearly on the same page.

This past Friday, Mr. Spherical Model and I spent some time campaigning for congressional candidate Dan Crenshaw. I’d never held up campaign posters and done actual campaign work like that before. But I thought this candidate was worth it.

We only had a couple of hours. The usual early voting location near us is closed due to flooding, so we asked where we were needed, and we were directed to an early voting location up in Spring (a further northwest suburb of Houston). There were plenty of other campaigners there, just beyond the campaign limit line, holding up signs, handing out materials, for various candidates and races. 

At early voting sites, both parties enter the same place, and then you’re given the ballot for your precinct and chosen party. So there were Democrat campaigners there too. We all got along fine.

Many campaigners were there for the whole day, so they had chairs, and water, and whatever they needed with them. One of Sheila Jackson Lee’s campaigners kindly offered me a chair and water. I was fine, but I let her know I appreciated her thoughtfulness. A little later a voter came out to talk with her and a small group. The voter was disappointed not to find Sheila Jackson Lee on her ballot. I stepped in to help. If you look at the top of the voter registration card, it tells you which district you’re in. She was in CD 2, my district. Lee’s district is 18. So she voted for one of the five Democrat candidates in that congressional race (there are nine on the Republican side). 

The voter was new to Texas; this was her first time voting here. But she was disappointed not to get the chance to vote for Sheila Jackson Lee, about whom she said, “She’s a real spitfire.” There are other thoughts we Republicans have about Rep. Lee, who has quite the list of ridiculous things she has said (like assuming the Mars Rover would see the flag the astronauts had planted, forgetting they’d been to the moon, not Mars, or like believing the US Constitution is 400 years old already, or like denouncing Wikipedia rather than Wikileaks for leaking government documents).

Lee’s district is highly partisan. Occasionally a Republican runs against her, but it’s a windmill-tilting affair. She regularly gets well beyond 80% of the vote. Still, we could be friendly and helpful to one another. That’s hopeful.

A little later, a Democrat state representative candidate came by. His people were down just a bit from where I was. He stopped and talked to a lady near me, who was campaigning for a different CD 2 candidate from mine. The man very briefly, and naturally as part of the conversation, told us about his background. What he’d studied. What he does. I believe he’s a pastor. The things he said, about people, about responsibility and hard work—those were all things that resonate with us Republicans. He was an inspiring and charismatic sort of person. I could see why he’d have a following.

I could imagine, talking with him, that if we could steer away from partisan politics and talk about what we really believe and want in the way of freedom, prosperity, and civilization, we would have a lot we agree on.

But I knew, because I know what is on the Democrat party platform for Texas, that there is almost nothing policy-wise that we agree on. They believe in abortion rights as an ultimate right that trumps life; they believe in taking money from earners to give to those they deem more worthy of it; they believe in limiting speech of those who disagree with them; they believe in full socialized education and medicine.

Some of what they want—as an actual outcome—is what I want. I want everyone to have opportunities, and freedom to choose what to do with their lives. And when you get the partisan conversation out of the way, many of them recognize that hard work and perseverance are necessary for success, and if they had true data and information in front of them, they would stop assuming their “opposition” is full of haters putting roadblocks in their paths.

Getting to that conversation on common ground is a good goal. Using language differently might help. 

Instead of talking about left or right, or even conservative or liberal/progressive/socialist, we might be able to agree that living in freedom is better than living under tyranny. And we might agree that prosperity is better than poverty—and from there we can see what economic principles interrelate with the principles of freedom. And we might agree that civilization is better than savagery—and from there we can see how the principles of civilization interrelate with the principles of freedom and prosperity.

There’s a lot to agree on. The Spherical Model is an alternative way to arrange the ideas, so we can get to that conversation, so we can find where we agree and stop working against each other and actually reach the outcomes we all really want.

So, here are some links, from previous anniversary posts, to help bring you up to speed on what the Spherical Model is:

·         The Long and Short Versions, including the video: 2016  

·         My Bio: 2017  

·         More “Best of” posts: 2015

o   Part I: Overview 

o   Part II: Political Sphere 

o   Part III: Economic Sphere 

o   Part IV: Civilization  

Start with the End in Mind, Part II

Mondays post was mainly about education (specifically, educating for accomplished citizenship). But the process of figuring out what and how to teach is something that can be applied in a larger context. So I thought I’d apply it to the Spherical Model today. I’m doing this as an exercise; I can’t say I’m expert at this process. So we’ll find out together whether the exercise is fruitful.

So that we’re on the same page, I’ll start with reminders of what the Spherical Model is, and what human performance expert Joe Harless says is the process for coming up with what to teach.

The Spherical Model is about the interrelationships of the political, economic, and social spheres. In each of these interrelating spheres, the goal is north: freedom, prosperity, and civilization respectively. We want to stay away from—or move up from—the south: tyranny, poverty, and savagery respectively. East/west is neutral, relating to the appropriate interest, from most local ( furthest west longitude) to global (furthest east longitude)—with one proviso: issues should be handled at the most local level possible. When a higher level tries to control a lower level’s issues, the result is movement southward on the sphere.

To review the process outlined by Joe Harless in the book on education, here’s the order:

1.       Identify the results you want.

2.       Identify the measurable outputs/accomplishments that indicate accomplishment of the result.

3.       Identify behaviors/skills that must be used in order to get the outputs.

4.       Teach those behaviors/skills in the context of their purpose.

There’s probably more to it than that, if you’re going to use the process in developing a school system or a training program in the business world. But this will do for our purposes today. I don’t think we can even cover all four steps in a blog post (not sure I’ve covered them fully in the 800+ posts on this blog). But maybe we can identify what we want, plus a few measurable outputs that would show we are getting there.

The Results We Want

We want freedom, prosperity, and civilization. What do each of those look like?

Freedom: I used this definition in “What Is Freedom” a year and a half ago:

The Political Sphere

Absence of hindrance, restraint, confinement, repression. In the political sense, it is ownership of one’s own life and the production of wealth and property that results from one’s use of life and effort. A government should protect the freedoms of life, liberty, and property; it does not grant these things, but protects them from infringement. A government that takes life, liberty, or property unjustly—when the person has not unlawfully infringed on those rights of another person—that is a tyrannical government, which is the opposite of freedom.

Political freedom means living in a society in which our God-given rights are protected rather than infringed. These would include freedoms of belief and expression, such as freedom of religion and freedom of the press, as well as freedoms of property and security, such as freedom from illegal searches and seizures and the right to bear arms.

So, in the language of results, we have freedom when our rights are protected, and government is limited to that protective role of securing life, liberty, and property. The Preamble to the Constitution delineates the limits of government’s role, and the rest of the Constitution enumerates the powers the government is granted to accomplish its role.

Specific measurable outputs might include these:

·         Secure borders.

·         Sovereignty respected; peace with other civilized nations.

·         Effective and disciplined law enforcement and judicial system.

·         Representative government strictly limited to government’s proper role.

·         Adequate infrastructure.

·         No slavery or indentured servitude.

Prosperity: We’re born naked, impoverished, and inexperienced. It is by growth, hard work, and gaining in expertise that we try to overcome this condition throughout our life. Prosperity, then, means having a standard of living in which basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter are met, and opportunities for improved living standard abound. This comes from a free economy, in which we choose how we work, and more particularly how we spend what we have earned. This encourages the incentive to work harder and innovate, so that we can enjoy the fruits of labor.

The Economic Sphere

But one reason “the poor are always with us” is that some are unable, for reasons that are no fault of their own, to take care of themselves, either temporarily or permanently. Some might lack physical or mental capacity to earn enough to care for themselves. Some might be in the position of taking care of a loved one, which prevents them from earning income. Prosperity means that even those incapable of caring for themselves will have their basic needs met.

So let’s try re-wording prosperity goals as somewhat measurable outputs:

·         No death from lack of access to food or shelter.

·         Property ownership is protected.

·         Choices on how to spend earnings in hands of earners.

·         Limited taxes—that pay only for government’s proper role.

·         Fair taxes—same percentage for all income beyond subsistence earnings.

·         Low or non-existent unemployment.

·         Entry-level work opportunities.

·         Skill improvement opportunities.

·         Skilled workers well-match to business needs.

·         Entrepreneurship.

·         Parental responsibilities met (children cared for until adulthood).

·         Philanthropy—source providing basic needs to those who cannot care for themselves.

·         Upward mobility in standard of living.

Civilization: Civilization thrives when we have a critical mass of people who are moral by choice, meaning they honor God the Creator and grantor of life and liberty and definer of ultimate Good. It means they also honor family, which is the basic unit of civilization and the means of perpetuating it. Moral people also honor life, property ownership, and truth.

The Social Sphere

What does it look like? Here’s the description from the Spherical Model:

Civilized people live peaceably among their neighbors, helping rather than taking advantage of one another, abiding by laws enacted to protect property and safety—with honesty and honor. Civilized people live in peace with other civilized people; countries and cultures coexist in appreciation, without fear.

There is a thriving free-enterprise economy. Poverty is meaningless; even though there will always be a lowest earning 10% defined as poor, in a civilized society these lowest earners have comfortable shelter and adequate food and clothing—and there’s the possibility of rising, or at least for future generations to rise.

Creativity abounds; enlightening arts and literature exceed expectations. Architecture and infrastructure improve; innovation and invention are the rule.

People feel free to choose their work, their home, their family practices, their friendships and associations. And they generally self-restrain before they infringe on the rights and freedoms of others. Where there are questions about those limits, laws are in place to help clarify boundaries of civilized behavior. When someone willingly infringes on the rights or safety of another, the law functions to protect that victim as well as society from further uncivilized behavior from the offender.

So, now, for the attempt to re-word into measurable outputs:

·         Law-breaking rates low and easily handled by police.

·         Contracted commitments kept.

·         Businesses with integrity—errors toward consumers or employees corrected voluntarily and quickly.

·         Volunteer offerings of time and money to alleviate suffering of the less fortunate.

·         Thriving churches, charities, and philanthropies—shown by needs of less fortunate being met.

·         Citizen engagement high: voters educate themselves before voting; elected officials legislate no laws beyond the proper role of government.

·         Very low divorce rates.

·         Reproductive rates well above replacement—children are valued

·         Unwed parents rare; adoption is the expected result of the rare unintended pregnancy.

·         Sex outside of marriage unaccepted—not portrayed as normal and accepted in media.

·         Free expression of respectful opinions intended to preserve/repair civilization.

·         Justice that is clear, quick, and fair; creative sentences for law-breaking, including efforts toward repayment and rehabilitation.

·         Abortion and euthanasia near nonexistent.

·         Art, music, and other creative works.

One of the points of Harless’s book is that separating curriculum into discrete subjects doesn’t work. Similarly, separating the political, economic, and social spheres into discrete segments doesn’t work. They interrelate.

As I wrote in “Choosing to Solve Poverty” a year ago,

Prosperity requires a free people engaged in a free market—all of which requires a law-abiding, righteous people. Things are interrelated. There’s something that comes up in all three spheres—political, economic, and social—and that is choice. 

So this exercise at least lets us examine what we would see in a free, prosperous civilization.

Inculcating the behaviors to get there? That’s the lifelong job of every civilized person. And it’s done most effectively by example in the home. If we started with strengthening families, much of the rest would follow.