Patriotism Sometimes Boils Down to Honoring a BLM Official

   The year is but days old before my New Year's resolution is tried. I resolved to stand up for America -- current version, the America of here and now --  when people tear it down. And, by that, I mean I resolved to defend our government
   Now, no sooner than the new year arrives than -- as if on cue -- along comes the siege of a wildlife refuge in Oregon by a militia. So, what are my thoughts?
   One thought is the same as what was offered by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in its statement. We are fortunate to live in a land where we can solve such differences through peaceful means.
   Bless our land. In many nations, through the course of world history, it has been standard procedure to try to rectify things through armed conflict. With democracy, that need not be.
   Nor do I feel the Bundy effort justified. Two people were convicted for lighting fire to federal land. It was a mistake on their part. They should not have done that on federal land. Perhaps they were correct in seeing what was best for the land, that it needed the burn. But, it was not theirs to make that decision. If you honor your leaders, you yield to their decisions. You can work with them, reason with them, and try to persuade them. And, even when they make a decision that goes against your wishes, you can continue imploring them to  change their mind.
   But, you honor their decision. To me, there is an edge of patriotism in this. Honoring government includes abiding by its decisions. Some will argue that BLM and other federal government officials are not worthy of being honored. I see it differently. I tend to believe the officials tend to be honorable people. And, I do not suppose that they must do everything my way.
   Patriotism isn't just honoring the founding fathers and the Constitution. It is honoring our leaders and government edicts today. Patriotism sometimes boils down to honoring a BLM official.

The Oregon Take-Over of Federal Land is to be Condemned

   It is wonderful to see the response of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the militia take-over of a wildlife refuge in Oregon. To me, it is wonderful to have such voices condemning an action such as this.
   Says the statement:
   "While the disagreement occurring in Oregon about the use of federal lands is not a Church matter, Church leaders strongly condemn the armed seizure of the facility and are deeply troubled by the reports that those who have seized the facility suggest that they are doing so based on scriptural principles. This armed occupation can in no way be justified on a scriptural basis. We are privileged to live in a nation where conflicts with government or private groups can — and should — be settled using peaceful means, according to the laws of the land."
   I appreciate this also: A Deseret News article quotes Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, in a talk to students at BYU in 1992, as saying:
   "Love of country is surely a strength, but carried to excess it can become the cause of spiritual downfall. There are some citizens whose patriotism is so intense and so all-consuming that it seems to override every other responsibility, including family and church. I caution those patriots who are participating in or provisioning private armies and making private preparations for armed conflict. Their excessive zeal for one aspect of patriotism is causing them to risk spiritual downfall as they withdraw from the society of the church and from the governance of those civil authorities to whom our twelfth article of faith makes all of us subject."

I Mostly Agree with Justice Scalia

   I beg to differ only slightly on what Chief Justice Antonin Scalia said. He said God has been good to America exactly because we honor him. He said there is nothing wrong with invoking God in giving speeches. He said he was in Rome for a conference at the time of 9-11, and others at the conference complemented Pres. George W. Bush for invoking God's name and asking for his blessings. They told Scalia, they wished their countries were more the same.
   I agree. There is no wrong in invoking God's name, in offering public prayers, and in putting trust in God.
  Scalia also suggested the tradition that the state be neutral on religion is not found in the Constitution. I'm not sure what he meant by "neutral," that I should say whether I agree or disagree on that.
   But, he said this, "To be sure, you can't favor one denomination over another. -- But, can't favor religion over non-religion?" That implies religion can be put over non-religion.
   And, I disagree. We should not favor placing religion over non-religion any more than we should favor placing one denomination over another.
   Any leader should be able to invoke God, to pray to him. He should even be free to say his thoughts come from his Lutheran background, or Catholic background, or Muslim background, or Jewish background. And, if the leader knows no God? He should be free to say he knows no God, but wishes the best upon our nation.
   In their utterances, leaders should not be expected to cleanse out reference to God. That is not so much a matter of freedom of religion, as it is freedom of speech.
   In creating policies and laws, however, no one religion denomination should be favored above another or above those who believe in atheism. No law should be created that favors one religion above another. If there were a law that spelled out that there would be public prayers (not a law saying they will be disallowed, but one specifying that they shall take place), that would be wrong, for it would be placing those who believe in God ahead of those who don't. It would violate what the Constitution says, that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Dissect the Economy into 10 Elements

   Dissect an economy to its basic elements, and you will find at its heart, the provider of a product or service. Other elements of the economy lean on the provider. If you have a car, someone comes along to sell components for it. Someone comes along to market it, either by advertising or by distributing it. Someone comes along to tax it. Someone comes along to regulate it. Someone comes along to buy it. Someone comes along to fix it or service it when it breaks down. And, finally, someone comes along to either re-market it or dispose of it when the initial buyer no longer wants it.
   The inventor, of course, is a special provider of the product. If the producer of the product is the basic element, the inventor is the basic part of that basic part.
   Studied this way, then, we have at least ten components of an economy, each worthy of being studied as to how it fits into and impacts the economy.

1. The inventor.
2. The producer. The person who provides the product.
3. The producer of a product that becomes a component of a more major  product. It should be noted, this occurs in the pre-market phase.
4. Those who inject themselves into the flow of money from the product, and draw off a portion of it, such as the taxers. These people usually do not, and perhaps never, contribute to the making or marketing of the product. They profit off the product without adding to its value.
5. Those who impact the product and/or its sales, usually without an exchange of money between them and the product's maker, such as government regulators, industry monitors, and public citizens with their consumer pressures.
6. Those who advertise and promote the product.
7. Those who distribute the product. These can sometimes be the same people who promote it, but can also be separate from them.
8. The buyer.
9. Those who service the product after its sale. These aftermarket people do things like oiling the car, repairing it, giving it a new paint job, etc. 
10. Those who take the product off your hands once it has served its usefulness, whether they be reselling it or disposing of it.

Three Ways to Keep the Producer of a Product in Charge

   Three ways to keep the inventor and producer of a product as the party who benefits financially.

1. Remove licensing requirements. Consider keeping them in some places, but, in general, banish them.
2. Adjust search engines so that products from small providers are not buried, so a small business has as good of odds of being listed at the top as are others.
3. Establish laws requiring product developers working for companies to be included in the ownership of the products they develop. They do not need to be included in the ownership of the company, itself, but share in the profits of the product they develop.

Life Lessons from a Basketball Game

   Life lessons I learn from a basketball game. The Jazz won, 109-96, as Trey Burke scored 27 points on 12 of 19 shooting. I had given up on Trey last year. But, this year, he has been wonderful.
   I learn, Don't give up on others too quickly.
   I learn, We tend to not change our judgments of others. If we once think ill, they often cannot get to thinking good about them, regardless what they do. I think of a friend who derides Stephen Curry, and when Stephen does good, I only hear reminders of his shortcomings.
  I learn, we often overlook the potential of others. Jeff Withey blocked four shots and made 4 of 7 shots, thus continuing to perform well in the time he does get on the court. But, although I am not plugged into the sports talk shows much, I doubt he is getting the credit he deserves. He leads the team in plus-minus.
   The second of these two lesson is especially deserving. The words out of our own mouths mold our opinions more than anything anyone else might say. Once uttered, our opinion is often set, not easily to be changed.  

To Change the Economic Model, Change the Person

   While you cannot direct just those who are altruistic to be the price-setters for products, you can have some influence on the altruism being interjected into your price-setting, though at times it will be minimal.
   Some inventors are service-minded, and some are not. Some product creators are, and some are not. Some marketers are, and some are not. Even so, some people are honest, benevolent and altruistic,
   And some are not.
   What are you going to do, only let the honest, benevolent and altruistic participate in your economic model? That would be oxymoronic, for only letting moral people be involved is not moral. Everyone deserves to participate, and to lock some, out would not be moral.
   But, you can influence price setters to be moral. You can influence them to be good. Teach them. It is perhaps all you can do. You cannot dictate how they will operate -- you cannot force them to be altruistic -- but you can influence them. So, if you want them to be altruistic, teach them to be altruistic. I've often said, Nothing taught, is nothing learned. so, teach them to be honest, upright, and service-oriented, and they will be more inclined to be honest, upright, and service-oriented.
   How many business classes include altruism? How many encourage the person to be honest, and helpful, and to charge no more than necessary? Would there be something wrong with instilling this in the student? Teaching goodness is not a bad thing.
   Doing this can change you whole economic model, if successful.