A business that is not business driven is not a business that ought to be in business. It seems natural for a profit-orientated business to avoid paying costs it can avoid as this produces short term and local benefits. The difficulty of staying in business in a competitive market and the costs government regulations impose on businesses seems to justify avoiding any costs a business is able to avoid paying. This kind of activity is corrosive of business activity over the long term. Businesses ought to do that which encourages businesses because in the end businesses are totally dependent on the existence of businesses.
To respond to negative impacts by engaging in negative behaviour does not produce a positive outcome. Christians are expected to meet evil with good. This suggests a linkage between Christianity and Dexterism.
The success of a business is measured by how ethical it is. Only if it is ethical will a business truly respond to the needs of the business community. A business that sells what a community does not need may make money, but it cannot be operating ethically. A business that operates ethically creates a positive business environment.
Any business that pollutes water, land or air and leaves costs unpaid creates negative costs. The price it puts on its products and the profits it makes are lies. Businesses that creates costs it cannot or will not pay imposes costs onto other businesses.
Capitalists argue that it is unreasonable to expect a person who has sunk his or her life savings into a business to forgo potential income to benefit other people. This is a way to legitimize unethical activity. However, if this is a legitimate argument then this delegitimizes capitalism itself. In other words, anything that legitimizes criminal activity is itself invalid.
Exchanges are a business model that harnesses the energy of all stakeholders. Freeloading is eliminated and therefore risk is no longer an issue. Exchanges ensure no one creates unpaid value; all costs are accounted for. In this way trust is protected and risk eliminated.
Unwarranted costs are the costs of regulation and other social costs that the left imposes on the business community. Ethical businesses do not require regulations. Honest businesses do not go bankrupt and do not impose the costs of bankruptcy on a community. Ethical businesses pay their workers a living wage and so do not impose welfare and other costs on the community that has to subsidize wages in some way. Ethical businesses produce full employment.
For more on starting and operating ethical businesses see the section on Exchanges.
Free Trade is a liberal policy that produces social costs. Free Trade is not consistent with Scripture. Free Trade is not possible without government oversight and without government oversight the nation has lost control over its borders and destiny. Free trade permits a foreign country to dump substandard product at whatever price it chooses to overwhelm local producers. The nation has no legal recourse because free trade is all about eliminating the power of the people over their political jurisdictions. Even if a global government was set up it would not ensure that the aggrieved nation could be redressed for the harm inflicted.
Many otherwise reasonable people and politicians who ought to know better have been misled by Free Trade rhetoric. If you do not agree with open border immigration do not side with those who advocate free trade. A people must always have the option of shutting down its borders for the sake of national security and national benefit. Some things ought not to enter our property; our lands, our culture for this is our church. We ought always to have the right of choice and the power to say, no!
Ethocracies are not opposed to imports, but the true cost of the import has to be established. If a business sheds 3000 persons and imports what it used to produce the cost of the policy has to be added to the price of the import. The company in fact has to pay the cost of finding the displaced workers new jobs or the savings for the community is illusory.
The Exchange business model enables communities to determine the true cost of imports and include the cost of any harm done in the final price. Free Trade is not a viable option when it leads to the loss of national security and the loss of control over the local economy. Free Trade is not socially neutral. Exchanges ensures all imports benefit the local economy.
Ethocrats must always oppose any policy that in any way lessens the rights of a community to control is own destiny and property.
Globalism is the phenomenon of multinational corporations taking power from the nation state with the assistance of democratic governments to create international markets. Globalism is the new face of fascism. It is pursued through Free Trade, and Inter-governmental agencies that gradually supersede and marginalize the state. The EU and UN are prime examples of the kind of organizations globalists support, (using your tax dollars).
Globalism is the natural outgrowth of democracy and a natural consequence of formulating and prioritizing social agendas by the state. The U.N. is the ultimate expression of the belief the end justifies the means.
Positive organizations systematically strip power from the center to rebuild up the power of local communities. In building up local centers power is returned to those who make the real choices and pay the costs of creating and maintaining our communities.
Globalism is of necessity negative for it must create costs it cannot pay. It is destructive of the social structure. It plays one group off against the other as it consolidates world power in the hands of a global elite.
The nation state is a gift from God to the people that formed the political jurisdiction. Only atheists and those who reject the authority of God promote globalism, it must be opposed by all Christians.
At its worst Globalism destroys a people’s property rights. Once rights over the property of the nation is lost the property rights of the people are in abeyance. Bracebridge Positive will always fight the move towards Globalism and the attempt to create the New World Order to protect property rights according to the Principle of Subsidiarity.
These are vital elements in the positive arsenal. Without property rights human rights are moot. Positivity and positive communities requires subsidiarity, that is the devolution of power down to the local level. The further we are from the center of power the lower the level of our influence, and there is nothing positive about that.
The Principle of Subsidiarity
The Principle of Subsidiarity is an organizing principle applicable to all organizations. The Expanded Principle Of Subsidiarity States:
Because it is owner’s capital that enable businesses to be formed, it is an axiom that the owner has the final authority over the assets of the business. In this view a business is a form of personal ownership. The business owner has the authority and moral right, to hire and fire anyone who works for the company and to dispose of any asset owned by the company.
To challenge this kind of thinking marks one as a communist and pretty much an enemy of liberal democracy.
The justification for private ownership is based on a rejection of the only other known alternative, meaning state or public ownership. The disagreement about the moral validity of capitalism is turned into a debate between personal property rights and a tyrannical state. Indeed, the issue of the rights of owners, is turned into a human rights issue.
If business owners believe workers sign away their rights once they step onto private property, how much different are they from rulers who claimed the Divine Right of Kings? If a citizen can own a forest as an absolute right, why can’t a king own all the forests and all the land and water in his kingdom? Is the debate about the rights of private owners really about the powers of private property owners or about who has the power, the private landowner or the ruler of the state?
The arguments against the Divine Right Of Kings was not based on the unjustness of ownership. This line of questioning could just as easily be applied to the ownership exercised by the barons and the lords of industry.
The issue was one of entitlements. The lords felt they had a right to have a say in where their resources went. Why ought they be called upon to pay costs they had not acceded to? This was the same argument brought up by the Americans in the War of Independence. No taxation without representation.
If the king had spent the noble’s wealth wisely and the nobles had seen their estates grow the complaints might never have been made. But the state needs money to enrich its supporters and without successful wars against outsiders it has to extract wealth from its subjects. To do this it has to have sufficient power to force its powers of taxation onto the country. This kind of power costs money. Because of its dependency on tax revenues the state is dependent on the productive sector. It is inherently impossible for the state to reward its supporters without further alienating those from whom it extracts revenue. It must always take more than it gives from a majority to help a minority just because of its own dependency on taxation.
The state cannot afford to respect ownership. It must always claim a vested interest in the title to all fixed property because it is this that serves as its tax base. However, capitalism is in the uncomfortable situation of explaining why, if the state is wrong to take a share of wealth created by the capitalist, why is it fair for the capitalist to take a share of the wealth created by the employee?
This is not about the capital invested by the capitalist it is about who were we created for? Do we exist to fulfill God’s Purpose or man’s? Our mission is not about enriching a few individuals it is about building the church. Investors are entitled to a return on his or her investment, but this return ought not to be unilaterally determined and it ought not to have the state backing the claim of one side of the equation. That is the state has no right to use its resources to support the claim made by the private property owner. The market is the place where questions of value ought to be decided.
Until business owners see business is created to fulfill the Will of God they will remain outside of the church.
The problem is this. The world is not ours for we did not create it, we are stewards. Our job is to increase the value of what we were given, this is our political jurisdiction, that is we have responsibility over the jurisdiction in which we are located, and we are accountable for its profits or losses. We cannot abrogate this responsibility or blame losses on someone else. If we live in an area, we are responsible for that area.
If we are tolerant of those who create costs they do not pay we are culpable.
We own our political jurisdictions in the sense we are accountable for its operation. The state did not create these lands and therefore the state has no claim on its wealth. Nor did the state create you and therefore has no authority over you or claim on you or claim on anything you produce.
All we have and all we can lay legitimate claim to is what we ourselves create and an equal share of the resources in the location in which we live for personal use and that is it. All other claims are fictitious.
Ethical Ownership is a form of ownership that does not create costs for others as happens in capitalism and communism. This model is part of the Exchange model of doing business. Positive Ownership or positivism is ownership by stakeholders. Those who are engaged in the market own the operation. This is akin to owning the market in which the economic exchanges take place. More on this model of operation can be found in Exchanges.
The important point to remember is that a positive business does not produce social costs. Positive people will work to systematically reduce and eliminate any social costs found.