Blog

Recently, I read a new statement on freedom of speech and thought named The Westminster Declaration.

When, years ago, the Caux Round Table considered what kind of governance would be most supportive of moral capitalism, we proposed a set of ethical principles for governments.  The first principle was reliance on discourse, not compulsion, to frame laws, regulations, policies and programs that will be enforced by the police power of the state.  That principle states:

Discourse ethics should guide application of public power.

Public power, however allocated by constitutions, referendums or laws, shall rest its legitimacy in processes of communication and discourse among autonomous moral agents who constitute the community to be served by the government.  Free and open discourse, embracing independent media, shall not be curtailed except to protect legitimate expectations of personal privacy, sustain the confidentiality needed for the proper separation of powers or for the most dire of reasons relating to national security.

The new Westminster Declaration endorses this moral standard and provides reasoned justification for that idealism.

You can read the declaration here.

In a recent antitrust lawsuit brought by sellers of houses in Missouri, a jury found that realtors had colluded to fix prices.  The realtor association adopted and enforced rules which have kept the commissions house sellers pay to realtors for assisting with a sale of their real property intact as the market price of houses rises.

As a result, realtors get more money for the same work performed.  A 6% commission as a fee for realtor service on a $100,000 house gives the realtor less cash than the same fee charged for assisting the sale of a $400,000 house.

The average price of a home in the U.S. as of July 2023 was $416,100.  In 2000, the average price of a home was $119,600.

As housing prices have increased through no effort on the part of realtors, owners end up paying more in cash for retaining a realtor.  What the realtor charges is set by rule, not by competitive market forces.  This is rent extraction.

Adam Smith was very aware of the benefits to businesses of fixing prices in order to extract more money from society.  He wrote, “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

The jury determined that realtors must return some $1.8 billion in commission fees to sellers of houses.

Many of the critiques of “capitalism” point to the system itself, as if it were the only problem preventing us from enjoying wealth and social justice – and happiness.  Or rather, the critics point to the system necessarily exploiting human nature – our lust for power and money at the expense of others.

Now, what if the shortcomings of capitalism – private property, free markets selling what buyers want and can afford, investment in new technologies – were not the fault of the system, but of distortions imposed on the system?

In particular, the injustices that accompany crony capitalism.

I argue that crony capitalism is a corrupting use of private property and markets, where non-market power structures gain the ability to extract rents.  Where rents can be taken, rent-seeking is rewarded and so encouraged.  Rent-seekers then arise to bend and twist capitalist mechanisms into structures of inequality, where those in power get richer and the rest look about for the crumbs that might fall their way.

The Economist, in a recent article, raised yet again, though indirectly, the question of the morality of capitalism.  The magazine was looking at what it called “paranoid nationalism,” the practice of some regimes to ground their legitimacy on ethnicity or “groupiness,” the appeal for each of us to belong to a collective, be it ethnic (national) or religious.  The collective provides us with values, beliefs, best social practices and a sense of personal meaning in a silent cosmos.  We are, therefore, who we think we are.  Our individual place in history derives from the history of our group.

The Economist argued that promoting “groupiness” with explicit fears of others and superiority over others is a malign human search for belonging and prestige.  When people fear that their group is under threat, they rise to defend it, submitting to the claims of group loyalty.  Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

As people become more and more submissive to such xenophobic leaders, the leaders themselves become more and more self-serving.  The Economist argues that bigotry opens the door to misrule and corruption.

Using the following chart, some conclude that more nationalist rhetoric is associated with more corruption and less nationalist discourse aligns more with less corruption.

Simply put, nationalism promotes state capture and rent extraction by an in-group of defenders of the tribe’s psychic well-being.

Adam Smith argued that private enterprise created “the wealth of nations.”

In recent decades, enterprise has created a lot of wealth:

The Economist reports that for the last 20 years, global wealth has grown faster than economic output.

Such growth in wealth raises concerns about inequalities, with more wealth flowing to the rich than to the poor, especially in economies tilted towards rent-seeking by elites.

Last year, India had 849,000 dollar millionaires, nearly 25 times as many as in 2000.  The number of millionaires in Africa has grown 10 times.  Worldwide, the amount of private wealth seeking investment opportunities is expected to reach $230 trillion by 2030, up from $130 trillion today.

I have been in Bangkok and Tokyo for some days, just returning home.  The theme of my meetings has been a focus on, in Bangkok, the Buddha’s teachings and in Tokyo, on meeting with scholars of Shinto to learn more about an ancient practice, very ethnic, of living with the “other” – especially nature.

At Kokugakuin University in Tokyo, I was embarrassed to discover that I had never seen a key signpost for us that is contained in the word “Shinto.”  The “to” in Shinto is the same character as used in Chinese for Tao or the way, the path – the best use of our energies and talents.

The “Shin” refers to deities – “kami,” usually specific spiritual presences honored in shrines, but generally can indicate the realm of unseen spiritual energies, which can materialize their power in our human experiences.

The emphasis on the Buddha’s teachings, especially brought forward by our fellow, Venerable Anil Sakya, brings to awareness the middle path or “way” of seeing reality in all its complexity – tangible and intangible – and so of comprehensively keeping our balance by not falling into extremes of emotion, thought or action.

Once home, a thought occurred that in our American culture, we do have a middle way or way of equilibrium, but have recently much overlooked it.  I am thinking of the cultural, social, political and economic space between libertarianism, on the one hand and collectivism, on the other.

The libertarianism comes to us from the Englishman, Herbert Spencer, and the collectivism from the Frenchman, Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Is this ideological confrontation, taking place before our eyes in our cultural divisions over wokeness or in the ostracism of those stigmatized as “deplorable” and deserving of “deprogramming” and in the factional strife among Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives as to who is most libertarian, another Manichean duel to the death between the forces of the light and the dark, a contemporary struggle between Gog and Magog?

Each side believes it has the light and must subdue the demons operating in the dark.

Is such a confrontation of extremes necessary and unavoidable or might there be a third way, a middle path?

In Israel, along the Gaza Strip, we are seeing just that commentary of a Manichean confrontation, where Hamas fights a war without quarter against Jews, even against their children and women, to vindicate the magisterial glory of its chosen God.

What good do these Manichean confrontations achieve and when will they end?

I have been in Bangkok and Tokyo exploring approaches to balance in the Buddha’s teachings and in Shinto philosophy.  The Hamas attack on Israel took place when I was in Bangkok thinking about Buddhist mindfulness.  Given the news, my thoughts were not happy ones.

And yet…

Before I left, our fellow, Michael Labrosse, shared with me some reflections why despair is not always justified.  Our human community has matured in some important ways over the centuries. Here are Michael’s observations on grounds for continued optimism if we can listen to the “better angels of our natures.”

William James reminded us that the greatest force in the universe is attentiveness.  Einstein reminds us that imagination is more important than knowledge and most philosophers, theologians and social scientists agree that the greatest virtue is courage.

Most of us here are familiar with the work of Jim Collins and his well-researched investigation into what makes a good business a good business.  The genius of his book, Built to Last, and his subsequent work, Good to Great, are founded on one fundamental and counterintuitive principle: let’s not focus on what’s broken and attempt to fix it.  Let’s activate the greatest force at work in the universe and focus our attentiveness on what’s working, thus encouraging all of us to attend to what is working and good in our world. 

The statement and conclusions of the Caux Round Table’s 2023 Global Dialogue eloquently draws our attention to three acute realities:

1. Our human community is at an inflection point: something is past and something different is coming.  We are in a juncture of developments, provoking dysfunctions, exacerbating differences, precipitating separations and bringing on anxiety-inducing uncertainties.

2. Leaders up to our challenges and worthy of our respect are in short supply everywhere.

3. A recovery of commitment to personal responsibility is most needed. 

Perhaps if we seize hold of the wisdom of Einstein, James and Collins, we might consider expanding the Global Dialogue statement with a counter, intuitive mindset based on the law of physics, which states that what we focus on grows.  Where are human actions currently succeeding in our world?  Where are the leaders in abundant supply?  And where can we find commitment to personal responsibility, courage and imagination at work now, building the future we need and deserve?

Here are five examples of how the world is heading in a positive direction from a social scientist’s and the United Nation’s perspective:

1. Global decline in extreme poverty.  Over the past few decades, there has been a significant reduction in extreme poverty worldwide.  Many regions have seen improvements in living conditions, access to education and healthcare, leading to an overall better quality of life for millions of people.

2. Advancements in gender equality.  There has been notable progress in promoting gender equality and women’s rights across various societies.  Women are increasingly participating in leadership roles, education and the workforce, leading to more inclusive and equitable societies.

3. Increased access to education.  Efforts to improve education accessibility have led to increased enrollment rates, especially in developing countries.  This empowers individuals with knowledge and skills to contribute positively to their communities and economies.

4. Environmental awareness and sustainability.  More people and organizations are becoming aware of the importance of environmental sustainability.  Initiatives aimed at reducing carbon emissions, preserving biodiversity and adopting cleaner technologies are gaining momentum.

5. Advancements in healthcare and disease control.  Scientific breakthroughs and global collaborations have led to improved healthcare outcomes and disease control.  Vaccination campaigns, medical research and technology-driven healthcare solutions have contributed to longer and healthier lives for many.

These trends suggest that efforts to address social, economic and environmental challenges are yielding positive results and contributing to a better future for many people around the world.

If we look through a business lens, there are many examples of how the world is heading towards a positive economic future:

1. Technological innovation and digital transformation.  Rapid advancements in technology are driving innovation across industries.  The digital revolution is creating new opportunities for businesses to streamline operations, reach global markets and develop novel products and services.

2. Global trade and market access.  International trade agreements and collaborations are facilitating the movement of goods, services and investments across borders.  This interconnectedness fosters economic growth by opening up new markets and allowing businesses to tap into diverse consumer bases.

3. Sustainable business practices.  Increasing awareness of environmental and social issues is pushing businesses to adopt more sustainable practices.  Companies that prioritize environmental stewardship and social responsibility are not only contributing to a better world, but also building stronger reputations and attracting conscious consumers.

4. Entrepreneurship and start-up ecosystems.  The rise of entrepreneurship and supportive start-up ecosystems is fostering economic dynamism.  New businesses and innovative ideas are being nurtured, creating jobs, driving competition and injecting vitality into economies.

5. Investment in infrastructure and development.  Many countries are investing in critical infrastructure projects, such as transportation networks, energy systems and digital connectivity. These investments not only stimulate economic activity, but also lay the foundation for long-term growth and competitiveness.

These trends collectively indicate a promising economic landscape characterized by technological advancement, increased global collaboration, sustainability, innovation and investment in foundational economic pillars. 

What we focus on grows.

With trench warfare in Europe and religious intolerance driving war in Gaza, one can get pessimistic about the capacity of our human race to live with moral courage and compassion.

As a teenager, I stood in the snow in Washington, D.C. in January 1961 to hear newly elected President John F. Kennedy announce his vision of a New Frontier, not only for America, but for our world community.  You may read his inaugural address here.

The Caux Round Table Principles for Government hold that government is a trust, not an exploitation of the commonweal for personal enjoyment.  The principles further hold that discourse, as used by Kennedy that cold January day, is the ethical way to be political.

Kennedy’s nephew, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has just used discourse to announce that he is running for president of the United States as an independent individual without being nominated by either of the country’s two established political parties.

In RFK Jr.’s announcement, you can hear the cadences of that 1961 inaugural address and you can experience the emotional impact of idealism.

Here is his announcement published in Newsweek Magazine:

Today, I declared myself an independent candidate for president of the United States of America.
And more than that, I joined my voice with all the people who are fed up and all the people who are hopeful, to make a new Declaration of Independence for our entire nation.

Today, I declared my independence from the corporations that have hijacked our government to milk us for profit.

I declared independence from Wall Street, Big Tech, Big Pharma, Big Ag, the military contractors and their lobbyists who now outnumber members of Congress 20 to 1.

I declared independence from the mercenary media that forever urges us to hate our neighbors and fear our friends.

I declared independence from the cynical elites, who betray our hope and amplify our divisions.
And finally, I declared independence from the two political parties and the corrupt interests that dominate them and the entire rigged system of rancor and rage, corruption and lies, that has turned government officials into indentured servants of their corporate bosses.  If left unchecked, they will commoditize our air, water, food, labor and children and turn the American dream into desperation and dust.

I declared my independence from these corrupting powers because they are incompatible with the inalienable rights that our original Declaration of Independence invoked in 1776: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

How can we guard life when for-profit corporations have captured the public agencies that are supposed to protect us?  How can we enjoy liberty when a surveillance state seeks to hide the truth and quash dissent to preserve its power?  And how can we pursue happiness when our nation’s families are imprisoned by debt and hunger and jobs that will never pay the bills?

And so today, I declared my independence from the tyranny of corruption which robs us of affordable lives, belief in our future and respect for one another.  And to do that, I had to declare my independence from the Democratic Party and independence from all parties.

I haven’t made this decision lightly.  It is painful for me to let go of the party of my uncles, my father, of my grandfather and of both of my great-grandfathers – John “Honey Fitz” Fitzgerald, Boston’s first Irish Catholic mayor and Patrick Kennedy, a Boston ward boss, who together, launched my family’s political dynasty.

But my sacrifice is nothing compared to the risk our founding fathers took when they signed the Declaration of Independence 247 years ago right over there.  They knew that if their revolution failed, every last one of them would be hanged.  They chose to place everything on the line.

When John Adams put his pen down after adding his signature to the Declaration, he turned to those present and said, “Sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish, from this day on, I’m with my country.”  I make that same pledge today, so that I may stand before you as every leader should, free of partisan allegiance and backroom wheeling and dealing, a servant only to my conscience, to my Creator and to you.

Today, we are turning a new page in American politics.  There have been independent candidates before, but this time is different.  This time, the Independent is going to win.

The two major parties are fielding candidates that most Americans do not want even to run.  A shocking three-fourths of Americans believe President Biden is too old to govern effectively. President Trump faces multiple civil and criminal trials.  Both have favorability ratings deep in negative territory.

That is what two-party politics has come to and that is why we need to break the stranglehold of the two parties.  And that’s why we need to pry loose the hammerlock of corrupt power over Washington, D.C.  We are going to make this nation ours again.