Category: Commentary

Not often do notable events impacting the royal family of the United Kingdom and the president of the United States happen nearly simultaneously.  But both the police questioning of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and the U.S. Supreme Court’s invalidating national and international policies of President Trump vindicate the moral integrity of the Caux Round Table’s Principles for Moral Government.

My reassurance on this validation of our principles is as follows:

First, the Caux Round Table ethical principle that public office is a public trust was just vindicated in the United Kingdom, when the police took in for questioning Andrew Windsor-Mountbatten, former Prince of the Realm.  He was questioned on his conduct as a government official for possible misconduct in public office.

The Caux Round Table Principles for Moral Government demand that a public office is a public trust.  Therefore, every public official is a trustee held to fiduciary duties of service and selflessness:

Fundamental Principle: Public power is held in trust for the community

Power brings responsibility.  Power is a necessary moral circumstance in that it binds the actions of one to the welfare of others.

Therefore, the power given by public office is held in trust for the benefit of the community and its citizens.  Officials are custodians only of the powers they hold.  They have no personal entitlement to office or the prerogatives thereof.

Holders of public office are accountable for their conduct while in office.  They are subject to removal for malfeasance, misfeasance or abuse of office.  The burden of proof that no malfeasance, misfeasance or abuse of office has occurred lies with the officeholder.

The state is the servant and agent of higher ends.  It is subordinate to society.  Public power is to be exercised within a framework of moral responsibility for the welfare of others.  Governments that abuse their trust shall lose their authority and may be removed from office.

And:

Public servants shall refrain from abuse of office, corruption and shall demonstrate high levels of personal integrity.

Public office is not to be used for personal advantage, financial gain or as a prerogative manipulated by arbitrary personal desire.  Corruption – financial, political and moral – is inconsistent with stewardship of public interests.  Only the rule of law is consistent with a principled approach to use of public power.

This standard of conduct for public officials we get from Cicero in his De Officiis (On Duties).  He wrote:

For the administration of the government, like the office of a trustee, must be conducted for the benefit of those entrusted to one’s care, not of those to whom it is entrusted.  Now, those who care for the interests of a part of the citizens and neglect another part, introduce into the civil service a dangerous element – dissension and party strife. (Book I, XXV, 85)

Secondly, last Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the rule of law governing the Presidency, not the arbitrary and capricious whim of a president.

According to the Caux Round Table Principles of Moral Government:

Only the rule of law is consistent with a principled approach to use of public power.

Chief Justice John Roberts for the Court wrote that President was not authorized by the Congress to declare national emergencies and pursuant to such declarations impose and then willfully modify tariffs on goods purchased by Americans.  The court declared the law to be that the Constitution gave the power to impose taxes only to the Congress and that tariffs were taxation of the American people.

Robert’s opinion said:

“Based on two words separated by 16 others in Section 1702(a)(1)(B) of IEEPA – “regulate” and “importation” – the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time.  Those words cannot bear such weight.”

Thus, the Court’s opinion for a majority of justices turned on “wording,” on the rightful understanding of “words,” not just any “my truth” interpretation of words to suit an official’s pleasure, ambition, corrupt purpose or stupidity.

Roberts, thereby, refuted the Nietzschean arrogance of Humpty Dumpty when instructing Alice on the meaning of words:

“And only one for birthday presents, you know.  There’s glory for you!”

“I don’t know what you mean by “glory,” Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously.  “Of course you don’t – till I tell you.  I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”

“But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument,” Alice objected.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”

To use Humpty Dumpty’s logic, we can reframe what the Supreme Court did, using its authority given by Article III of the Constitution, when it decided what was to be the meaning of certain words in a statute passed by Congress, was to assume the right to be “master.”

As far as his tariffs were concerned, President Trump was not “master” of defining legislative language.

The Supreme Court held that, in a case about taxation of the people, President Trump was ruled by law, not his individual arbitrary and capricious will.  He has no authority to impose taxes:

“,,, the Framers gave Congress “alone . . . access to the pockets of the people.”  The Federalist No. 48, at 310 (J. Madison); see also Declaration of Independence ¶19.  They required “All Bills for raising Revenue [to] originate in the House of Representatives.”  U. S. Const., Art. I, §7, cl. 1.  And in doing so, they ensured that only the House could “propose the supplies requisite for the support of government,” thereby reducing “all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches.”  The Federalist No. 58, at 359 (J. Madison).  They did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch.  See Nicol, 173 U. S., at 515 (“[T]he whole power of taxation rests with Congress”).

No quibbling possible here; no lawyering that black can mean white or that white can mean black.

The Court ruled that the President’s authority under Article II of the Constitution to manage the nation’s foreign affairs did not include any authority at all to override a separate constitutional provision on taxation.

Placing executive officials under the rule of law has long been the rule of governance in England.  Writing of English constitutional law around 1250, Henry De Bracton stated that, “The king must not be under man, but under God and under the law because law makes the king. … for there is no king where will rules rather than law.” … The king has a superior, namely God.  Also, the law by which he is made king.  Also, his council, namely the earls and barons because if he is without bridle, that is without law, they ought to put a bridle on him.”

In 1399, Richard II, King of England, was deposed as king.  Article 33 of the articles presented to justify his being deposed said this about his not following the rule of law, of not having the law as a bridle:

The king did not wish to preserve or protect the just laws and customs of this kingdom, but to do what struck his fancy according to his arbitrary will.  When frequently the justices and others of the council explained and declared the laws of the realm to him and when according to those laws he was to grant justice to those seeking it, he said expressly with a hard and a bold countenance that the laws were in his mouth and sometimes he said that they were in his heart and that he alone could change and establish the laws of the realm.  Following that opinion, he did not grant justice to many of his liegemen, but through threats and terrors he compelled many to cease asking for common justice.

In an interview with the New York Times last month, President Trump said that the only constraint to his power as president is “my own morality, my own mind.”

“It’s the only thing that can stop me,” Trump said, adding: “I’m not looking to hurt people.”  He went on to concede “I do” in regards to whether his administration needed to adhere to international law, but said: “It depends on what your definition of international law is.”

Trump, who spoke to the newspaper as his administration looks into “a range of options” in attempts to gain control of Greenland, also emphasized the importance of ownership.

“Ownership is very important,” Trump said, adding: “Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success.  I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do with, you’re talking about a lease or a treaty.  Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document.”

Note that to be an owner makes you a “master.”

Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy of the will to power, which legitimated ungoverned mastery dripping with arrogance and intolerance, would not tolerate any subordination of the individual to the rule of law.

Trump’s response to the Supreme Court’s decision to deny him the power to impose taxes on the American people was Humpty Dumpty-ish, putting labels on the justices who refused to accept his way of thinking:

“I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.”  The justices in the majority are a “disgrace to our nation” and “very unpatriotic and disloyal to the Constitution.”  “They’re just being fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats.”  “It’s an embarrassment to their families, to one another.”

Recently, I suggested that Donald Trump indulges in “cudgel capitalism.”

An example of just this was provided last week by the Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal in “Trump’s Crony Canadian Bridgegate.”

You can read it here.

To mark the birthday of Abraham Lincoln, which was on February 12, Steve Young, our global executive director, wrote this personal statement using his deductive moral reasoning for American Greatness.

He asked me to share it with you.

Steve Young, our global executive director, has an article on American capitalism and collateral damage in our culture war in the current issue of Directors&Boards.

You can read it here.

Back on December 30, 2025, we convened a round table over Zoom to seek thoughts, not resolutions, on the new year we are now in.  The reflections were sober and fundamental, so I wanted to share them with you here.

On a whim, I read the full speech of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney at Davos and found a kindred spirit to so many in the Caux Round Table network, past and present.

I have a copy of his book, Value(s), which I will now pay more attention to.

Here is a lightly edited version of his speech.

Recently, I sent around a thought on the high prices of gold and stocks of companies on the Dow Jones list asking the question of risk – what does a high price of gold tell us about the future – what goes up too fast may come down very fast.

Well, as if on cue, something happened.

Last Friday, the price of gold dropped 11% and the price of silver dropped 31%.

What moved markets, apparently, was President Trump’s pick for the next chair of the Federal Reserve.  The appointee has a reputation for holding firm against inflationary pressures and so giving strength to the value of the dollar.  If this surmise proves prescient, then the value ratio between the dollar and gold will change in favor of the dollar and the price of gold will come down.

That’s decentralized decision-making for you – the strength and sometimes the bane of free markets.

But is not the making of price convey valuable information about what might happen in the future – providing a valuable service to all – kind of a moral force in keeping hubris at a distance?

The price of gold is at $5,306 per ounce for the first time ever.

The spot price for silver reached $109.448 a troy ounce.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average remains over $49,000.

The U.S. dollar lost .6% and so it’s worth in gold is only about 0.000189 of a troy ounce of gold.

So, who is to be trusted in their evaluation of our economic future – those who buy gold or those who invest in equity stock?

And if gold and stocks are up, but the purchasing power of the dollar is down, how does the middle class and the poor benefit?

Who is funding the aggregate demand for goods and services, which in the long run, drives national economic performance?

The Wall Street Journal opined that:

It’s unfashionable in many precincts to admit it, but the market for precious metals still sends useful signals every once in a while.  Gold’s ascent above $5,000 per ounce – or as some might say, the dollar’s drop to less than 1/5,000th of an ounce of gold – is one of those signals and it doesn’t speak well of investor confidence in the world’s political leaders. …

But markets are signaling a case of nerves about recent developments around the world – and perhaps also hedging against the dollar as a safe investment.  Speculators may also be piling into gold, which is reason for non-rich investors to be cautious at such a lofty price.  Gold has fallen before as suddenly as it rose.

We live in uncertain times.  And the regular occurrence of boom/bust cycles in financial markets since the rise of capitalism – the tulip mania – contributes to uncertainty.

President Donald Trump has changed his mind about either invading or buying Greenland and so he has magnanimously changed his mind on imposing new tariffs on some of his NATO “allies.”

A new framework for American access to Greenland was presented to him by NATO’s Secretary General, which apparently meets Trump’s needs.  Trump’s acquiescence in this proposal as a “win” for him fits the personality profile of a “deregulated personality,” as I suggested in another commentary earlier this month.

I received in response to that comment what I think is a better analysis of Trump’s personality orientation from a colleague who has extensively researched the contributions of personality assessment in predicting job performance.  The orientation suggested is that of an egomaniacal narcissist.

Egomaniacal narcissist describes someone who embodies both, taking narcissistic traits to an extreme, out-of-control level, where they manipulate and abuse others relentlessly

“An egomaniacal narcissist is someone with an extreme, pathological self-obsession, combining the grandiosity and lack of empathy of narcissism with the all-consuming self-focus of egomania, leading to inflated self-importance, manipulative behavior, a sense of entitlement and treating others as objects to serve their needs, often beyond what’s seen in typical self-centeredness.  They believe they are superior, exploit people without guilt and are intensely preoccupied with power, success or admiration, often unable to see beyond their own desires.”

Key Characteristics:

• Grandiosity and Entitlement: Exaggerated achievements, fantasies of unlimited success and an unreasonable expectation of special treatment.
• Lack of Empathy: Unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others; seeing people as tools.
• Exploitative Behavior: Uses and abuses others to achieve their own ends, claiming credit for others’ work.
• Need for Admiration: Demands excessive praise and attention, becoming angry when it’s not given.
• Arrogance: Behaves in haughty, conceited ways; looking down on those they deem less important.
• Fragile Self-Esteem (underneath): Despite the outward arrogance, there’s often a fragile self-esteem that reacts poorly to criticism.

Egomaniac vs. Narcissist:

• Egomaniac: Focuses heavily on self-promotion, boasts excessively and dominates conversations to prove superiority.
• Narcissist: Centers on self-admiration, needs constant validation and lacks empathy, often defined by the clinical term narcissistic personality disorder when severe.

Is Donald Trump a cudgel capitalist – greed in his heart, cudgel in his hand – eager for your craven submission to his will?

Yesterday seizing oil tankers to cripple the Venezuelan economy so that he can have his way in “running” that parcel of the Western Hemisphere.  Today imposing tariffs on Denmark and other allies in Europe to beggar their citizens and squeeze them hard until they gasp, “Please, please take Greenland, but let us prosper!”

Trump’s model of capitalism is to take what you can, when you can and damn the consequences. This is what I called in my book “brute” capitalism.  Its moral ideal was artistically prescribed by Nietzsche as emerging from the whirlwind of any self-centeredness thrust on by a will to power, responsible to none and dangerous to all.  As Nietzsche proclaimed:

“But nevertheless I walk with my thoughts above their heads; and even should I walk on mine own errors, still would I be above them and their heads.  For men are not equal: so speaketh justice. And what I will, they may not will!”

President Trump put this sentiment rather well in a note he sent yesterday to the prime minister of Norway, writing:

“Considering your country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped eight wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.”

“I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding and now, NATO should do something for the United States.  The world is not secure unless we have complete and total control of Greenland.”

Trump’s message was in response to a text message the Norwegian prime minister had sent on behalf of himself and President of Finland Alexander Stubb less than half an hour before urging Trump to “de-escalate” on “Greenland, Gaza, Ukraine and your tariff announcement.”

Trump is not taking his country and the world into a better future.  Rather, he is turning us back towards the past, to the power-seeking rivalries of governments and corporations during the late 19^th century, the age of social Darwinism domestically and internationally, of cartels, monopolies and the imposition of colonial fiefdoms, taking others into one-sided receiverships.

This was the era of President William McKinley with tariffs; Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller with cartels; Yale Professor William Graham Sumner on survival of the fittest; a colonial war against Spain; exclusion of Chinese immigrants.

This is the same America which novelist Henry James described as having no items of high civilization:

“No sovereign, no court, no personal loyalty, no aristocracy, no church, no clergy, no army, no diplomatic service, no country gentlemen, no palaces, no castles, nor manors, nor old country-houses, nor parsonages, not thatched cottages, nor ivied ruins; no cathedrals, nor abbeys or little Norman churches,; no great universities nor public schools – no Oxford, no Eton, nor Harrow; no literature, no novels, no museums, no pictures, no political society, no sporting class, no Epson nor Ascot!”

Then, European powers were on a course that would end up in World War I in which 15 to 22 million died and after which four empires collapsed.  Japan was arming itself to take predominance in East Asia, which would bring about World War II in Asia.  Not so lovely times in human history, but, frankly, not off the norm for, as once noted by Thomas Hobbes, the state of nature for humans was usually a war of all against all, where lives were “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”.

In the first year of his second term, Trump has followed a neo-mercantilism or national industry policy, where the national government owns shares in companies and invests money where it thinks best to foster some companies, but not others.  Companies with government as an owner are: Intel Corporation (10%), MP Materials (15%), Lithium Americas Corporation (10%), Trilogy Metals Inc. (10%) and U.S. Steel Corporation, where the federal government holds a “golden share,” giving the U.S. veto rights over certain corporate actions as part of the Nippon Steel acquisition deal.

A week ago, President Trump told American credit card companies that they had until January 20 to comply with his demand that they put a cap of 10% on interest to be charged on credit card balances.  It is estimated that reducing interest on credit card balances would save American users of credit cards some $100 billion.  Credit card companies would lose revenue, but still be profitable.

Trump’s imposition of tariffs depresses markets and conflicts with the Caux Round Table Principles for Business:

Principle 5: Support responsible globalization.

A responsible business, as a participant in the global marketplace, supports open and fair multilateral trade.  A responsible business supports reform of domestic rules and regulations where they unreasonably hinder global commerce.

Cudgel capitalism can easily violate American law and public policy, which favor open access to markets and multiparty, free market competition, but not one-sided extortion of unfair returns.

Under the Sherman Antitrust Act, companies broken up for having too much “cudgel” power over markets were John D. Rockefellers’ Standard Oil, American Tobacco and the Northern Securities company, which owned two railroads and so limited competition in prices between them.  In 1982, the national telephone company, AT&T, was broken up under the Clayton Act.

Secondly, court doctrines that do not enforce contracts obtained through “cudgel” power tactics are:

-Procedural unconscionability, when the party with the cudgel gives the weaker party no meaningful choice, uses hidden or fine-print terms or complex or misleading language and resorts to high pressure or surprise in the negotiations.

-Substantive unconscionability, which happens when the party with the cudgel writes a contract that has overly harsh or one-sided terms, extreme limitation of remedies in case of breach by the more powerful party, excessive fees or penalties to be paid by the weaker party or one-sided arbitration clauses.

-Contracts of adhesion, where a form contract is presented with no chance to bargain over the printed terms may not be enforced by a court if a reasonable consumer would not expect such onerous terms to be included in the deal.  Courts will not enforce contract of adhesion terms that waive statutory rights (e.g., minimum wage, consumer protections), limit liability for intentional misconduct or gross negligence or conflict with consumer-protection statutes.

Thirdly, courts will not enforce contracts agreed to under duress or undue influence.  Duress happens when consent is obtained by wrongful threats.  Undue influence is when the party with the cudgel exploits a position of trust or dominance.  A general rule is: “Every contract, combination… or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states… is illegal.”

Notable cases where courts voided oppressive contracts are:

-Totem Marine Tug & Barge, Inc. v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. Alaska Supreme Court (1978)
Where Alyeska withheld payment it knew Totem desperately needed to avoid bankruptcy, forcing Totem to accept a much smaller settlement.

-Austin Instrument, Inc. v. Loral Corp, New York Court of Appeals (1971)
Where Austin threatened to stop delivering essential parts unless Loral agreed to price increases and awarded additional contracts.  A threat to breach a contract, when no reasonable alternative exists, can constitute duress.

-Odorizzi v. Bloomfield School District, California Court of Appeal (1966)
Where a teacher was pressured into resigning immediately after an arrest, while exhausted and emotionally distressed.  Excessive persuasion exploiting vulnerability invalidates apparent consent.

-Allcard v. Skinner, English Court of Appeal (1887)
Where a woman transferred substantial property to a religious order under spiritual influence.

Even with all his cudgels at the ready, Trump still faces competition.  For example, Canadians can do deals with the Chinese and cut Americans out.