Is it really just greed? Part 2

Remember, the Apostle Paul told Timothy, and us, "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, and by craving it, some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pains." 1 Timothy 6:10. This was a warning about greed. It affects and distorts everything it touches. The minimum wage issue, which I discussed last January, is also impacted by the affects by greed. It distorts the perception of the very proponents of an increased minimum wage so much that they sincerely believe raising the minimum wage will help everyone. Am I calling proponents of raising the minimum wage greedy? Well....yes, but let me explain.

Real unemployment is about 12.1% according to the "U-6" rate that measures total unemployment, more reliable and accurate than the main "adjusted" figure of 6.1%. Both come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If one considers the unemployment rate, and viewing labor as a commodity, why would raising the cost of a commodity against what the law of supply and demand dictate be a good thing? When there is an excess of something, you don't get rid of it by raising the price, you lower the price. For example, if I have 1000 1963 Split Window Corvettes for sale, and I am having trouble selling them at their current value of $55,000.00, I am not going to raise the price and think I can sell them for $100,000 each. That would not make sense. Similarly, if I have 12.1% unemployment, why would I think increasing the cost of labor would reduce the number of unemployed? In all probability, raising the price of labor will increase the number of unemployed. 

Further, consider how greed affects the perceptions of some groups on others. Most people want more money, but they don't always want to do more for it. Some work longer hours, but most would rather not. Some people want raises, but as Robert Kiyosaki pointed out in his Rich Dad, Poor Dad books, employers usually want to know what they get for the pay raise, and employees usually say "why nothing, I've just been here a long time." Other assets depreciate over time, so why should an employee asset be the opposite? Or perhaps this is just the employer being greedy and not wanting to spend more money. Except, the employee is exactly like the employer; the employee doesn't want to spend more money on things either, so why is the employer greedy and the employee not? This the the distortion effect of greed in action. The employee wants more, and calls the employer greedy out of envy, not because the employer is actually greedy at all. Envy is closely related to greed, and has a distorting effect on perception as well.

This is not to say there are not some employers out there who are just as motivated by greed and are in fact greedy. They usually run their businesses poorly, and do not often survive in the economy, especially today's economy with all the social media and information available. Even in the past, however, businesses that didn't treat their assets well, including their employees, often failed. Sometimes it took a while, particularly if there was limited competition. Competition, however, and the desire to do better, would help balance the scales. Understanding this is the key to getting past the effects of greed and correcting perceptions. The reason for business, at its heart, is not really about making money; it is about helping each other, and serving needs. It is the "how" and "why" one goes into business that truly matters, not seeking the "what" of money. Money is simply the measure by which we can judge how well we are helping and serving. Businesses seeking simply the "what" that is money, as I explained, do not last long because they have the wrong motivations and as a result mistreat their assets.

Is it really just greed? Part 1

Last June 24th, 2014, while flipping through the channels, I came across a large press conference featuring Governor Inslee, Chief Batiste of the Washington State Patrol, Sharon Foster of the Liquor Control Board, and several others. The conference was set to discuss the impending implementation of the new Washington recreational marijuana laws. Aside from the general announcement that everyone thought implementation was going well and that it was largely expected to be smooth, what really stood out for me was the grand display of greed.

Like most everything, you can tell whether something is generally good or bad by the fruit that is produced. This can be actual fruit, such as cherries and apples, or this could be a mass produced product. Good things tend to produce good fruits, and bad things tend to produce bad fruits. Simple, right? Except that some bad things produce such bad fruits that it affects everything that surrounds it. There is a rule in the law that helps illustrate this called "fruit of the poisonous tree." This rule is primarily a criminal law rule that is derived from the evidentiary exclusionary rule.

The exclusionary rule holds that the government cannot use evidence gathered in violation of the Constitution. For example, if the police search your home without a warrant, any evidence obtained cannot be used against you in a criminal prosecution because of the 4th Amendment violation. The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree rules says that any evidence obtained using any evidence gathered from the Constitutional violation also cannot be used against you because it is essentially tainted and unfair. The initial violation affects everything around it. The same can be said of many vices, such as greed.

Greed produces a distorting effect on ones perception. In a culture such as ours where morality is taken as relative to the individual, it is interesting to see that greed is still otherwise outright condemned. Yet the distorting affect of greed and its power twists perception so much that, despite this general condemnation, causes many to continue to be affected by it, and in turn to endorse other immoral practices like fruit from the poisonous tree. Greed causes us to lose our focus on what is really important, our relationship with God, and our relationship with each other. This is what the Apostle Paul meant when he said "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, and by craving it, some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pains." 1 Timothy 6:10.

Notice it is not money that is the root of evil, it is the love of money that is the root of all kinds of evil. Money itself it neither good or evil but a necessary tool related to our interactions with each other. The love of it, and blindly seeking it above all else is what is evil, and what produces a distorting effect on people. Getting back to the press conference, it was amazing to see that many legitimate concerns were blatantly ignored and down played while emphasis was added to the idea that revenues for schools would soon be increasing. I suspect that the "for schools" part was merely ancillary to the expected increase in revenue itself. Lest we forget, increasing tax revenues was the primary argument for legalizing such a harmful substance. It seems otherwise lost on those who supported legalization that though most of them also spend years working to ban cigarettes because they were harmful are now fully supportive of legalizing something far more dangerous all for the sake of increasing tax revenues. The love of money.

There were questions asked at the press conference about marijuana infused products, such as gummy bears that one could eat to get high, being sold, and how to keep such products away from children, or to prevent Joe Camel style advertisements in check. Unfortunately the focus would always return to how smooth implementation seemed to be going, and that revenues were expected to be positive, all in typical "politician-ese" answering without really answering at all. The only response to how children were being kept from the drug was that the issue was regularly being monitored and looked at, but no definitive or satisfactory answer was provided. Greed distorted perception, focusing on revenue over safety. Chief Batiste mentioned that DUI's had increased only 4.9%, as if that were a good thing since it was only a small increase as opposed to a larger one. I would have expected any increase in DUI's, since DUI's were a point of contention during the dope legalization campaign, would have been more of a concern, but alas, the distorting effects of greed struck again. DUI's up? Not to worry, tax revenues are expected to be up too.

Even as we see what is happening in Colorado, where pot is getting into the hands of children, revenues far less than advertised, and the black market growing and spreading to other states, Washington seemed completely unconcerned. After all, this is going to be a new revenue stream. Except that only two growers have been given the okay to sell to retailers so far, and as a result, they are having to sell pot at $4,000.00 a pound. Simple economics would dictate that the black market, still around and probably stronger now that enforcement is practically non-existent, is not likely to disappear anytime soon. In all likelihood, the black marketeers will be the ones reaping all the benefits of legalization, not the state. Lets also remember that Washington was known for its economy and technological innovation. Now global companies are wondering, do they want to come here and deal with the problems that come with a stoned workforce? Again, the distorting effects of greed strike again. While we should be focused on safety and virtue, we instead have higher regard for increasing tax revenues and encouraging harmful vices to the detriment of our children, our community, our economy, and our relationships with each other.

Why Increasing the Minimum Wage Hurts Employers and Employees Alike.

Recently there has been a push by many unions and some politicians, including the use of ballot initiatives at the local level, to raise the minimum wage. In the City of Seatac, Washington, a suburb of Seattle, such an initiative passed raising the minimum wage to $15/hour within the City Limits, though the Airport has been exempted judicially. Other proposals range from raising the minimum wage a couple of dollars to raising the national minimum wage to $15/hour or more. Some of the more radical proposals have even suggested imposing a "living wage" and forcing employers to pay no less than $50/hour. Such extreme proposals obviously have no chance of being implemented, but the fact that certain elements in society are shifting the economic debate to focus on wages demonstrates a fundamental change in how our culture now views economics and people in general.

Economics used to be viewed in terms of businesses being collaborative and cohesive, benefiting employers and employees alike. This is somewhat idealized, but bear in mind, people are imperfect and they sin. The more successful companies in history, however, strive, and have sought after this ideal, and usually come pretty close. Think Hobby Lobby, Starbucks, and Microsoft, among many others.

For many years in this country, the economy had been looked upon as an arena of competing interests, full of opportunity to achieve. The arena was composed of various markets, where goods and services were sold. Each participant sought to “make a living” in order to provide for a family. Creativity and inventiveness were rewarded, often by creating new markets and industries filled with even more opportunity. We have seen throughout our nation’s history that as we shifted from a primarily agricultural society to an industrial and now and information driven one, opportunity to achieve has also increased. This often required parties to work together, and the vast majority of successful enterprises begin by a simple act of cooperation toward a common goal.

Starting with agriculture, the farmer grew what he needed for his family, and either saved or sold any surplus. Then the farmer sought to improve his lot in life by growing more of a surplus, and diversifying crops, growing not just food, but things that could be used for making other useful goods, seizing opportunity and hiring more farm hands. Gradually, as the textbooks point out, Eli Whitney and his cotton gin were just the beginning of new and growing markets and changes to the economy. Farmers began improving how they farmed, rotating crops, using and improving fertilizers and pesticides. People like Whitney began a new mechanized market by developing farm equipment. This led to the increase in wealth, which led to the need for banks, land, lawyers, etc. As operations grew, more people had to be hired as contractors or employees to do more jobs. People thought up great ideas to improve life for everyone, such as the train, the car, the ability to make ice to keep food from spoiling without having to cure or pickle it. All of these developments took cooperative ventures.

This is not to say there were exploitative situations, cheating, or other injustices; there were, and there will continue to be so long as people remain imperfect. The driving force was to improve one’s position, though; to work hard, and to serve your fellow man. People sought out opportunity. Henry Ford once noted that he could make more money if he made his cars more affordable. If he could build and sell cars for $500 to a million people, instead of $5,000 to only 10,000 people, he would sell more cars to more people and make more money as a result. The same concept has been applied to virtually every major product that is mass produced for public consumption, just look at computers and TV's. The point was that if you did a good job and the public loved your product, you could be rich too.

But this concept also applies on the small scale too. Work is not bad, or evil. It is something that is good for you in many ways. Laziness is not good, and overworking is equally not good. However, work in and of itself is not bad at all. For Christians, we recognize that even before the fall of man, God had created work for us in the Garden of Eden. God himself worked when He created everything. God showed us that it is not good to be lazy, but He also showed us to stop and enjoy the fruits of our labors and not overwork when he rested on the seventh day. Similarly, Man worked in the garden for God, and was rewarded with his every need provided for.

After the fall, however, work became more difficult. It required more of a focus on working together, helping others, and serving others. Throughout human history, we can see the benefits of teamwork in our survival, and in doing business. The key is working to serve others. In economic terms, this means that labor, skilled and unskilled alike, have the potential to become commodities like any other raw material. Labor, however, is a unique raw material in that is it derived directly from people. This means that such a “commodity” must be valued differently, and on more than one basis. It also means that labor should be considered more than just a raw material, but a special asset as well.

First the employee as asset. Labor is valuable for what the person providing it can do for you, but also for the relationships that form, and the sense of community that develops. For instance, it is not uncommon for friendships at work, and even romances, to develop. The employees at large factories would think of themselves, and indeed often refer to each other as part of the family (Welcome to the XYZ, Corp. family!) As many who study social interactions will tell you, businesses with a strong sense of community tend to be more productive, and the employees tend to be more productive. However, when that sense of community is broken down, moral suffers, and sometimes the business closes down.

Examples of this include the recent demise of Hostess prior to its resurrection, (possibly a topic for another day) the labor dispute between Boeing and the Machinist Union, Chevy and the United Auto Workers, and now the possible unionization of fast food workers. The breakdown in these situations involved wages and benefits. While it is important for businesses to care for their materials and assets, and employees are certainly an asset since we know they are more than mere commodities, it is equally important for employees to recognize their role too.

Businesses provide goods or services to the public, but they also provide jobs and the ability for a person to earn a living. The goods and services cannot be provided, however, if the employees do not perform their duties well. Again, teamwork and mutual respect are the key. When an employer views their employees solely as a commodity and not also as an asset, the employee becomes indistinguishable from an object, inhuman. That hurts moral and productivity. When the employee sees the business as something exploitative and monolithic, the employee also no longer sees the business owners as human. This breaks the necessary connection and collaboration needed for the business to run effectively and efficiently. The result is a constant battle between employer and employee. 

The employee as commodity. We see how an employee is an asset, but as we know, labor is also like a commodity. This means that labor is subject to the law of supply and demand. It would be great if we could hire as many people as we could put to work. Unfortunately, we cannot realistically do this. Not everyone is sufficiently skilled, and the skilled positions are more scarce than non-skilled positions. Also, an overabundance of labor drives wages down. We cannot hire a million people for 1000 jobs without driving the pay down to levels no one who accept, and we couldn't pay what everyone wanted without exhausting available resources and forcing the business to close.

There are also artificial forces affecting wages too, such as employment taxes and benefits. Providing benefits means resources must be used that might otherwise go to profits, or to higher wages. If I pay someone $10 per hour plus a retirement benefit and medical and dental coverage, I can only afford to hire so many people before I have to raise prices. If I raise prices and sales decline, I take in less in profits and may have to either cut wages, cut employees, or keep things the way they are and eventually close the business down. This also forces the employer to think of the employee solely in terms of being a commodity, and less human. Employees also lose the drive to achieve and improve their position, to fulfill their ambition. Whether this is climbing the corporate ladder, starting a new business, or earning prestigious awards in their profession, employers and employees alike have ambition and a drive to improve one's lot in life. If this ambition and drive are removed, it contributes to a view of employees being objects instead of people.

If the government forces the minimum wage up equally artificially, the employer is coerced to think of the employee as inhuman and purely as a commodity only. The tension between the employer and employee also increases, destroying the collaborative cohesion that could, or might have once, existed. The employee wants more money but doesn't want to do more for it, to which the employer believes is unjust, and the employee believes he or she is being exploited, feeling used and unappreciated, and also believes this is unjust. Thus the push for increasing the minimum wage hurts employees and employers alike by distorting the purposes behind work in the first place, and the necessary cohesion and collaboration needed for a business to properly function.

If the drive to seek opportunity is removed from the economy, ambition to improve one's lot in life, and the drive to serve others and to work cooperatively, the economy and indeed whole communities break down leading to disastrous consequences. People begin to see others not as valuable lives but as burdens, as incapable for caring for themselves, and focused only on satisfying base and immediate desires. Such communities are as short lived as the attention spans they foster. Will a $15/hour minimum wage cause such a disaster on it's own? Of course not, but such an artificial imposition on human relationships in the economy certainly contributes to it. People are more than mere commodities. They are inherently valuable, having been creating in the image and likeness of God. Ambition and the drive to improve ourselves promotes dignity and respect. Taking this drive away robs people of their dignity and sense of self worth.

Christianity and the Common Law

Many people are unaware, or else it is fading fast from memory, that our American system of government, laws, and jurisprudence, are rooted in Christianity. Our concepts of justice, equality, liberty, honesty, sanctity of life, protection of property, etc., are based upon foundational Christian principles. In fact our system of laws and government are derived from the old English common law, which developed out of principles of natural law and the application of Christian beliefs. Without understanding these foundations and this history, the law can become distorted and used to promote vices instead of virtues.

The common law has its origins dating back to the Norman Conquest of England and William the Conqueror. Prior to this, some variation of Roman Civil Law was applied in much of Europe. As the Roman Empire collapsed, so did reliance on its laws, spurring new thoughts and developments on what exactly was the nature of law. At the same time, Christian beliefs were also spreading throughout Europe out of what remained of Roman Civilization, and in England, a new system of laws began to develop that incorporated natural law principles originating from Christian theology.

Natural laws are those standards derived from nature and reason. They are objective moral truths revealed through rational thought and observation of the natural world and of human nature. Natural law includes such principles as the Ten Commandments, and the inalienable rights to life, liberty and property, as well as the right to defend oneself and one's property from harm by others. Indeed the origins of the idea of natural law are based upon early Christian theology. For example, Romans 1:20 states: "From the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse." The Apostle Paul goes on to explain in Romans 2:13-15 that one is righteous not by hearing the law, but by obeying it, and that people who do not know the law, but by nature do what the law requires, show that the law is written on their hearts and consciences.

As Thomas Aquinas explained, God alone knows the eternal law by which he created and governs the universe, and as he created human beings in His image, as moral and rational beings, we are capable of recognizing self-evident natural law, the reflection of God's eternal law. Aquinas believed that because all people are creations of God, and have the law written on our hearts, as the Apostle Paul noted, we are able to observe nature and employ reason to deduce laws and principles that apply universally to all.
Even Martin Luther King, Jr. affirmed that there are just and unjust laws, and that we are all subject to natural law.

It was through this process of observation and reasoning and the development of natural law that early tyranny was placed in check, establishing a key principle that no one is above the law except God, including the king. This occurred after King John was made to recognize the rights of the people and the nobles under the Magna Carta in 1215. The significance of the Magna Carta's influence on our legal system today is seldom thought of, yet its concepts are incorporated into the very core of our jurisprudence - no man is above the law, that all citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law. These ideas are an integral part of our Constitution, and originated with the Magna Carta and the belief that only God and the law are supreme over all human beings. In demonstrating the far reaching effects of this idea, Lord Mansfield noted in the famous Sommersett's Case in 1772, that anyone who came to England would be entitled to the protection of English law regardless of skin color. This showed that the ideas exemplified by the Magna Carta were still viewed as true, and that all were equal under the law, and no person, at east in England at the time, was above any other in relation to the law.

After the Magna Carta, Henry de Bracton published his treatise, De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae ("The Laws and Customs of England") in 1235 that would begin an ingenious organization of the laws that would later earn him the title of Father of the Common Law. Bracton studied Roman Civil Law as well as Canon Law to organize and synthesize the various rules and decrees into legal "statements" or categories. He introduced the use of cases in presenting the law which eventually developed into the doctrine we still use today known as stare decisis, the idea that the law should apply by analogy so that cases with similar facts should lead to similar decisions.

After this, during the late 1500's - early 1600's, Lord Coke followed what Lord Bracton began and established that the law of nature is part of the law of England and is immutable, no doubt drawing from Romans 1:20. He reasoned that nature's law was was just as applicable to England as any judicial or municipal law because it existed before even Moses wrote it down, Moses being the first reporter of the law. This set the stage for the development of the idea of judicial review. Lord Coke determined that if Parliament, or any municipality, enacted any law contrary to Nature's law, the judiciary has an obligation to declare such law void. This concept of judicial review took root strongly in America through Chief Justice John Marshall in the famous Marbury v. Madison case.

Even Justice Joseph Story reaffirmed that these concepts of equality under the law, stare decisis, and judicial review, arising from Natural law and incorporated into the common law, were rooted in Christianity, and served as the basis for our American jurisprudence. Revolutionaries, such as Thomas Paine, made passionate arguments based upon the Bible and its principles as authority for seeking independence, carefully pointing out through Scripture, and quoting it heavily, that God did not  create kings, but that all people were created equal at the beginning of creation. Biblical principles were also reflected in the very words of the Declaration of Independence.

Understanding this long and rich history of Christianity's influence on our laws is important for numerous reasons. Our concept of justice ultimately arises from these Biblical principles. We should recognize that God ordained government to preserve order and to do justice. This means that our government, made up of our laws, should conform to natural immutable law so that justice may be done. We are called to be good citizens, "rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's," praying for those in authority, and engaging in service and the political process so that we can call those in authority into account. Our engagement and understanding of our Biblical foundations allow us to ensure that justice continues to be done. When we cease to apply Biblical principles, or to even acknowledge their influence on our legal foundations, we lose the ability to apply objective truth to our society and justice ceases to be done. That is the importance of understanding our history and roots.

The Changing Practice of Law

Recently the New Republic published an article titled "The Last Days of Big Law" by Noam Scheiber. In the article, Mr. Scheiber illustrates first the characteristics of the so-called golden age of the big law firm, followed by explaining what law associates went through upon joining the firm seeking to climb the ladder to become the next partner and land on easy street for the rest of their careers, and how current partners engaged in office politics to take credit for an associate's work, or to beat out other partners for increased rewards in a points based system of profit sharing. There were generous salaries, prestige, stability, and a benevolent paternalism. Above all, there was security. These big firms had cases flooding in, and the partners had the ability to accept cases they wanted and that would be lucrative for the firm. All others - well you may have had a case but not one worth taking. Associates did much of the actual work, striving to bring money into the firm in the hopes of landing a new partner position, rising up the chain to more money and less work.
Mr. Scheiber then proceeds to note a very sharp change brought on by the changing economy - he states that "Part of the reason the law-firm ecosystem has changed so dramatically in a single generation is greed." The change? The recession, changes in technology, increased competition; all of these had an impact on the legal profession. Clients no longer have the ability to pay whatever expenses are charged, they now have to watch costs and seek the best value. There is a sort of institutional disdain for cold calling and having to work to get clients. There is increased cutthroat office politics to get greater recognition, fighting to bring in more fees, and cutting anyone not meeting a quota. As a result, many new associates are being let go, and like many new law graduates, are having a hard time finding a job. This is all changing, and should change. Solo and small firms are growing, associations among attorneys and contract work are becoming more popular alternatives to the big firms, not to mention the rise of businesses like legal zoom and the limited practice officers and legal technicians.

In full disclosure, I have only been part of a big firm once in my life. Not a private law firm but a public one - a county prosecutor's office for a year as an intern. I have to admit I enjoyed the experience very much, and made some great friends. Had certain circumstances been a little different, I would have loved to have stayed on. Other than this experience, I have either been a solo practitioner, or had one other partner. Part of the reason I decided against joining a big firm, which I define as having at least 4 partners and around 6 associates minimum, is for the very reasons that Mr. Scheiber pointed out as characteristics of the golden age. I saw many instances where my father needed legal help and was turned away because his case would not bring in at least $1 million for the firm. Not that there wasn't some office politics at the prosecutor's office - indeed there was, but it was minor and of a completely different nature -  but at big firms where there is more competition to reach that partner position, or to gain the most credit for bringing in the most fees, the office politics can be brutal and nasty. I have always felt this was unnecessary, and counter-productive to the real purpose of a law firm and in fact a business. Perhaps the most significant reason why I decided to go into solo practice was something that happened to me while in law school

During my first year in law school, several local attorneys volunteered to judge a client counseling competition. I thought this would be a great opportunity to test out how well I could help someone who came into my office. I remember a hypothetical client came into the classroom with me and a friend asking for help with an issue she had and perhaps for representation if she had a case. Our two assigned judges sat quietly in the back of the room. Her issue involved being cheated by a local business but the total damages and expenses involved made the case questionable at best. After we completed counseling her, she left and we awaited the judges critiques. My friend and I were shocked when the judges told us that they would have chased the potential client out of the office in about 5 minutes and that we wasted our 20 minutes with her. They told us that she had no case, and that we should have referred her to the Attorney General's office to let the consumer protection division handle the matter. In hindsight, they were probably right about this point, but what made the most impact was when they told us that we weren't getting into the legal profession to help people - this was a business and we needed to learn to think that way. This floored me since this was precisely the reason why I went to law school. I had aspirations of running for public office or otherwise using my legal education to help people. I certainly understood the need to make a living, but I wanted to do so in a way that helped people. 

This mindset, this type of greed, if you will, is certainly not what the legal profession is about, and it is not what business should be about. In fact, God calls for us to not only engage in business, but to also do so in an ethical manner, and this includes the legal business. We are called to work in order to support ourselves and our families (2 Thessalonians 3:6-12; 1 Timothy 5:8), to take care of the poor (Ephesians 4:28), to support the church and its outreaches (1 Corinthians 16:1-3) and to provide a platform for sharing our faith. Because of this, our business should be run with integrity. The Bible provides numerous examples of this ranging from ensuring weights and measures are accurate to tax collectors collecting only what is prescribed by law. Generosity towards the poor is also not only virtuous, but mandatory. Finally, the Bible condemns greed, but encourages ambition. Paul made it clear, and it will be quoted properly here: "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, and by craving it, some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pains." (1 Timothy 6:10). Money in itself is not evil, the love of money is, and loving money more than our fellow man is how we define greed.

Greed has brought down "Big Law," and has been a driving force behind the financial crisis. The solution is by no means the abandonment of capitalism and to embrace socialism. The solution is to return integrity to business and the legal profession. We are here to make money, but we are also here to help others. Indeed, as Rabbi Daniel Lapin has pointed out on many occasions, profits are rewards for our helping our fellow man. Greed and the love of money result in harming our fellow man, and to that end they should be condemned. Profits earned for helping others and improving their lives should be encouraged. As I often tell people, if I don't do a good job and help my clients, they go out of business, and if they go out of business, then I have no clients and go out of business too. I want to help my clients succeed and to give them the most value, and that should be the way of the future for the practice of law - the Biblical principal-based way of business.

...and to the Republic, for which is stands...

     It seems appropriate, in light of this 4th of July and our celebration of our Nation's independence, to discuss the question of whether our government is a Republic as stated in our Pledge of Allegiance, or a democracy, as we hear pundits and politicians declare so often. The Constitution does not mention anywhere within it the word, or any phrases implying, democracy. The answer to the question then, is that our Nation was, and arguably still is, a Republic, though a good case for democracy today might be argued. At any rate, it is important to know what the differences are and why it matters.

     A democracy, as most kids learn in school, is from the Greek for demos, meaning people, and kratos, meaning government. The literal translation is government by the people, and this certainly has great appeal. Under a democracy, the majority rules without restraint of a given body of law. Indeed the law is whatever the majority say it is. It is rule by whim and emotion rather than by law and reason. Characteristics of a democracy include having voting blocs and group and class interest groups. There are no individual rights, there are only rights for what the majority at a given moment deem exist.

     "Laws" are man-made, and do not reflect truth or justice, but power alone. Examples of this, even today, include laws such as gun-control, food bans, or certain environmental regulations (this would not include what I believe are required Biblical stewardship responsibilities); such laws are based on pure emotional reaction to a given perceived societal problem instead of law and reason. Often the result of these laws is to impose a punishment on otherwise honest and law abiding citizenry without regard for justice in the slightest.

   Political factions constantly battle for control of the government, often marked by deep seated polarization and constant skepticism, not unlike the battles we see today between Republicans and Democrats. Power is the ultimate goal, and every more is either calculated with power in mind, or questioned as being a play for more power. A modern example is the recent decision by the President to delay implementation of a certain provision of Obamacare on employers. This act is being questioned as an act to gain more power by removing the harmful effects of Obamacare until after the mid-term elections. While this may be true, such skepticism is unhealthy for a Republic and public confidence in the law.

     Once power is obtained, the laws begin to reflect what the dominant power wants instead of what is right or just. As pointed out above, individuals rights do not exist, but the dominant faction in power can and will bestow privileges to some. Think of this as punishing those out of power for making mistakes on their tax returns, but promoting others in power even though they were caught cheating on their taxes. Another example would be deciding that the needs of society as a whole outweigh the rights of the individual, so taking a persons DNA, whether they are charged with a crime or not is deemed to be permissible.These are but a few examples that one could use to argue that our Republic has degenerated into a democracy.

     What is a Republic then? Republic comes from the Latin res, meaning this, or interest, and publica, which means everyone. The literal translation is everyone's thing or interest. The primary characteristic of a Republic is the rule of law. Just as the Declaration of independence spells out, all men are created equal, with unalienable rights granted by our Creator, and that governments are formed by men to secure these unalienable rights. Government power is derived from the consent of the governed, meaning all people under it, not just the majority in power. So long as the government protects these unalienable rights, consent of the governed will continue. The majority is kept in check by the rule of law from injuring the rights of the individual.

     Under a republic, the law is more than just politics, and is not dependent upon which group has the most power. The law is consistent, predictable, reasonable, and seeks truth and justice. Government is intended to punish those who would abuse another person's rights. For example, hurting someone with a gun should result in the government punishing the perpetrator for abusing the victim's right to be free from injury or right to life. It would be unjust to punish everyone else by taking away their property rights to own a gun because of the wrong done by another. This is reasoned and truth seeking, not emotionally reacting to a social ill. Government should have just enough power to carry out its proper functions of protecting individual rights and freedoms. To allow the government more power is to invite tyranny.
 
     Why does it matter if we are a Republic or a democracy? A simple comparison between the two demonstrates why. Democracies are inherently unjust and unstable and have always ended in tyranny. Democracy was described by Thomas Paine to be the most vile form of government ever known, and at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Edmund Randolph made the observation, paraphrased here, that the purpose for the Convention was to provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored, those evils being the turbulence and follies of democracy. John Adams even warned: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide." Even Chief Justice John Marshall noted that the difference between a democracy and a republic was like chaos and order. There are clearly identifiable and understandable differences between the two forms of government, and our Nation's founders definitely had a preference.

     With the increasing polarization and viciousness in politics, and the overt campaigns for more power illustrated by the constant concern over which party will gain or keep control over the House and Senate, it would appear that though our Founders and our Constitution established a Republic, we may have already degenerated into exactly what the pols and pundits already say - a democracy. If this is so, it certainly explains the polarization and incivility between ever increasing interest groups. If we have fallen to democracy, or are at least heading in that direction, how did we get here? By failing to adhere to the fundamental truth that there is a right and wrong. Failing to study history and learn from earlier mistakes. Failing to do the right thing in exchange for being liked. Choosing security over liberty. Failing to stand up for, and to seek to do, justice. Failing to abide by the Biblical principles upon which our Nation was founded. Allowing God to be purged from our legal jurisprudence and replacing Him with the concept of evolutionary operations and moral relativism (as I pointed out in the previous post).

     The result, as noted in God, Man, and Law: The Biblical Principles, by Herbert W. Titus, from where this Blog borrows its name, the result is a "massive loss of confidence in the law - not only on the part of law consumers, but also on the part of law makers and law distributors." Without confidence in the law, power becomes the only reliable source for stability, and democracy soon follows that. However, we know from history that unless confidence in the law is restored, democracy will continue to overtake the republic and soon collapse it into tyranny. Tyranny is already showing signs as individual rights are beginning to be infringed upon, starting with religious liberties. Confidence can be restored, however, but it must start with a return to values and principles that created confidence and stability in the law in the first place. This means a return to reason and truth. This means reversing the purge of God from our legal system.

     Enjoy the fireworks and celebrations, family, friends and good food, and remember that confidence and the Republic can be restored. As echoed by Abraham Lincoln, "If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land" (2 Chronicles 7:14). Healing restores confidence.

Welcome to God, Man, and Law.

     Welcome to God, Man, and Law. The intent of this, and future posts, is to attempt to restore public confidence in the legal system by explaining and discussing the Biblical and moral principles that serve as the foundation of our legal system. I will discuss past and present decisions and topics and address their implications in an effort to help promote justice for all. It is also my intent to point out where cases or topics have strayed from Biblical and moral principles and the resulting implications on justice and society.
Unfortunately modern legal education has been largely purged of its Biblical foundations and this has had a detrimental impact on the practice of law ever since. Since our Nation's founding until sometime past 1850, most lawyers were not trained in law schools but in law offices. That is not to say that there were no law schools - from 1829 to 1945, Harvard Law School earned great respect under the leadership of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story. In 1869, however, Charles William Elliot became President of the school and it was then that legal education changed. Elliot hired Christopher Columbus Langdell, who began the "purge" and replaced teaching the law as based on Biblical and moral principles with the emerging trend of the day, the scientific method. Within 10 months of Langdell's hiring, he became Dean of the law school, a position he held for the next 25 years.

     During this time, he developed what became known as the Langdellian method of teaching law that spread across the Nation and is in current use today. Prior to the Langdellian method, students would receive a copy of Blackstone's Commentaries and a Bible, and legal instructors would lecture on general rules and then provide examples of their application in particular cases. The basis of the Langdellian method, on the other hand, was not only science and the scientific method, but that the law was governed by an evolutionary principle of growth. The method may sound familiar to many lawyers and law students today - take a collection of case opinions, present them in a text book for students to read and study. Thereafter, the reasoning of the judges, and the students, would be questioned until generalized rules of law could become refined and extracted from the daily deliberations.

     Langdell's philosophy, as stated in his own preface to his book, Cases on Contracts, 1879, was that "Law, considered as a science, consists of certain principles or doctrines...Each of these doctrines has arrived at its present state by slow degrees; in other words, it is a growth, extending in many cases through centuries. This growth is to be traced in the main through a series of cases; and much the shortest and best, if not the only way of mastering the doctrine effectually, is by studying the case in which is it embodied." In other words, the law was ever evolving.
    
     Nothing, however, tends to make lawyers more frustrated than having shifting standards. We love bright line tests and certainty. Our clients like the same. It is very cliche now that the average attorney's answer to a client's every question is "it depends." This is also the primary reason why most people have little faith and confidence in the law and justice. The idea that the law evolves, or "grows," necessarily implies that the rules of the game will change over time and have little certainty. This erosion of public confidence is further damaged when our legislatures engage in similar conduct by enacting new changes to existing laws, or passing laws that are redundant or otherwise unnecessary. Recent examples that come to mind are yearly changes to the nonjudicial foreclosure statutes, paralyzing banks and borrowers alike as well as investors and ordinary home buyers. Another example would include creating the new traffic infraction of driving while texting or using a cell phone. This infraction was intended to stop people from texting and driving, or talking on a cell phone and driving. Such conduct would already be considered negligent driving, a serious moving violation affecting one's insurance rates. The new cell phone violation is only treated as a non-moving violation and never affects your insurance rates. Not only is this law redundant, but it hardly serves its intended purpose and has become a useful option to generate revenue for county and local municipalities as an amendment to a more serious violation. The Counties or Cities get the fine money without a fight from the defendant who only wants t protect his or her insurance rates. This is hardly justice, and definitely not confidence inspiring.

     These and other subjects will be presented and discussed frequently and it is my hope that everyone reading this will enjoy, learn, teach, and benefit from all the posts. Ideally if the legal system overall could be transformed as a result, generating greater confidence in the law, my goal will have been accomplished.
Thanks.
Soli Deo Gloria!