Assessing Character: The Manhattan Project Scientists

To illustrate the extremes to which the assessment of character can diverge, consider the team that worked on the Manhattan project, individuals ostensibly among the most evolved in the world—certainly the most intellectual. Robert Oppenheimer, Hans Bethe, Richard Feynman, Enrico Fermi ... brilliant researchers who uncovered some of the deepest principles of modern science. In his biography of Richard Feynman, Lawrence Krauss relates how impressed Feynman was with "Oppie", the project leader, how he was "touched by Oppenheimer's concern and consideration," how Oppenheimer showed "uncommon concern about the well-being of each and every person he had recruited." Said Feynman, "Oppenheimer was extremely human,"[2] particularly in helping to find accommodations and care for Feynman's young wife, who had tuberculosis. Hans Bethe, another key player as head of the theoretical division, who became a "role model"[3] for Feynman, is described as having a "calm yet persistent strength of character ... essential in helping to guide [the division scientists], put out fires, and, above all, put up with their idiosyncrasies."[4]

According to Krauss, Feynman wrote thirty-two letters to his wife in the final four months of her life (she was in Albuquerque, he in Los Alamos). She died on June 16, 1945, and a month later, on the 15th of July, the first test of the atomic bomb took place in the New Mexico desert. In three weeks time, the project team savored the fruits of their labor as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed and obliterated. Fatherly, humane Robert Oppenheimer, who cared about everyone, calm, rock-solid role model Hans Bethe and loving, devoted husband Richard Feynman calmly sweetly murdered something on the order of 100,000 people at the press of a button. Give credit, at least, to Oppenheimer who recognized what he was. He recalled a line from the Bhagavad Gita on witnessing the Trinity test, "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

In any rational view, these men are the worst sort of criminals. Not only in their blithe killing of tens of thousands of innocent Japanese, but with their deadly nuclear legacy, which still plagues humanity today. Fermi died at age fifty-three from cancer likely brought about by his work developing nuclear reactors, a karmic consequence if there ever was one as his experiments set the stage for the construction of the Hanford plutonium plant—a facility that poisoned the soil and groundwater with radiation that will persist for centuries.

Men of conscience? Men of humanity?

The deeper question is, were any of these men thinking clearly? That is, did they fathom the intelligent connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .text truncated

In judicial matters, a CCA's assessment should carry equal, if not greater weight than factual evidence. It's possible to imagine a case where the facts suggest misconduct, but the defendant's character overwhelms any contrary evidence. In the event a community member testifies against a person of high character, the witness, rather than the defendant could suffer adverse consequences. As with jurists who vindictively prosecute, witnesses are also subject to damaging blowback. But community law aims to avoid these adversarial scenarios altogether. The idea is to prevent cases from progressing to the stage where subpoenas are issued, warrants executed, formal testimony recorded and so on. If we have to go to that extreme, it indicates a failure of the community and a punishment for all of us.

Although extended contact is required for character assessment to be fully valid, we should note there are patterns of behavior that give evidence of a lack of spiritual maturity. Among the more common is that of the jingoistic patriot, often found among members of the military. Another is the petty legalist, a person who lectures about the "rule of law," and can't communicate unless by Robert's Rules of Order. Judges are typical examples. It's not necessarily poor character these people display—though there are certainly bad actors among them—as it is stalled development. The individual has the potential to become a person of character, but poor upbringing has produced a villain. Unfortunately, such people are often guilty of the most atrocious acts—perhaps not personally, but indirectly, through their office. I count incarceration among these atrocities.

A corollary to the character principle is that jurists will no longer entertain poorly informed claims, declarations or arguments related to mental processes. Legal arguments based on the notion of "intent" should generally be disallowed, as intent is a very subtle quality that few, if any, lawyers understand. For the same reason, courts will not allow briefs that seek to prove "mental anguish" or "emotional distress." Nor will we allow prosecutors to identify "malice aforethought" or "hate crime," as hate and malice are properties of the human psyche most of us do not grasp. We won't permit psychologists to submit opinions about the mental state of defendants unless they can demonstrate a firm comprehension of the cosmic side of human existence. Since most psychologists do not possess such comprehension, jurists should be strongly biased against entertaining litigation that touches on this field. Psychologists do have a role in society, but their role should not encroach on the legal arena. The absurd extravagance of declaring a man mentally unfit for trial and remanding him to an institution where he will supposedly be cured and then brought back to face justice must cease. Any mentally questionable person who is allowed to commit a serious crime calls into question not his own fitness, but that of the community and of society. If anyone deserves punishment in such a case, it is the leaders and administrators who failed to properly supervise that person. If a trained psychologist wants to apply his or her skills to the administration of law, the best course is to become a CCA. This will accelerate his own spiritual development and add a measure of subjectivity to his analytical arsenal.

VII. Free Expression

Principle seven eliminates the concept of perjury. Oaths will no longer be administered—neither oaths of office, oaths of allegiance, testimonial oaths or any other sort of avowal. Not only will we not command people to "swear to tell the truth," we will, in fact, instruct them to speak their minds in whatever fashion they choose, no matter how evasive, imaginative or delusional they appear to be. Indeed, we will encourage them to flat make things up if that's their inclination. Nor will it matter that a person's testimony is consistent over time. Recanting, retracting and on-the-fly fabrication are all acceptable. Reality is different for different observers, and truth is different depending not only on who proclaims it, but on the proclaimer's level of consciousness. One person's version of events may be quite different from another's, yet both might be valid. We're striving for completely free expression, unencumbered by external pressure—no threats, no judgment, no coercion and never any penalty. This is what freedom of speech should mean—to express yourself in the most natural manner. Moreover, you should be allowed to remain fully silent, grand juries notwithstanding.

This principle is a natural follow-on to the character principle. When there exists intimate acquaintance, as they would be in a true community, people already know how an individual will testify before he utters a word. A good CCA can read between the lines; he is sensitive to subtle variations in expression that reveal as much as the actual utterance. He can tell when a person is trying to exonerate himself, incriminate someone else or is simply engaged in obfuscation. The CCA will be acquainted with a person's upbringing and environment and will have already discovered that the individual has a habit of, say, exaggerating circumstances or bending facts. It's not that we condemn the person for such behavior; rather, we're aware of how he or she operates. Knowing the extent of imagination in an individual allows the community to properly accommodate him.

With this principle we once again turn the existing paradigm on its head. Much agonizing takes place in judicial settings over who said what, when they said it, was there a conspiracy to deceive and so on. The procedures involved in taking testimony—the maneuvering, the obsession with detail, the deliberate attempt to trip-up witnesses—are unnatural to the point of insult. It shows that in this age, in this society every vestige of honor has disappeared. The practice of administering oaths and of threatening to punish oath breakers produces the opposite effect of what's intended. Such unblinking scrutiny creates a barrier to free and open communication, undermining the establishment of a truthful environment. In a nurturing environment, oaths aren't necessary because deception is never needed; the truth is always obvious. With our total reliance on oaths and formal examination, we exclude vital knowledge that originates from intuitive sources developed through the natural interactions and relationships among members of a close-knit society.

Now, if you want to talk about absolute truth, there are settings far more appropriate than a courtroom. Absolute truth should, in fact, already be established in good jurists by virtue of their progress on the spiritual path. As for oaths of office, a thousands oaths will not guarantee a person's integrity. If we must administer an oath to ensure a public servant acts rightly, then we have selected the wrong person for the job.

To see how this principle might apply, let's examine the case of our Camp Springs slasher friend, Skip (see MSN, chapter 2). Recall how he warned that if I told anyone about his aggressive assault, he would simply deny everything. With this bold declaration, Skip unwittingly demonstrates just how dysfunctional the system is. Not only does it fail to properly deal with characters of his ilk, it actually protects and encourages them. The complete dependence on sworn testimony ignores, indeed, deliberately excludes, the abundance of information readily available to any alert community member. Regardless of whether Skip carried out the attack he described, his mere stating that he did, his willingness to associate with such violence, his braggadocio about behavior that is repugnant to people of good breeding tell us all we need to know. A responsible administrator would run this guy out of town based solely on his vulgar boast. People who speak in that fashion do not belong in civilized society. For that matter, neither do the cops and enforcers whose own violent machismo rivals that of Skip's. At a basic level, Skip and the cops are blood relatives, and the jurists who indulge such as they are the mothers who give them birth.

Note that freedom of expression applies not only to defendants, but to anyone who participates in the judicial process, including judges, prosecutors, attorneys, jurors and witnesses. Whatever constraints that apply should not arise from intellectual legalisms, but from deeper cultural norms that develop in an authentic spiritual tradition. If, for example, a prosecutor shakes a juror's hand and says "good job," the trial shouldn't be halted for jury tampering. If a defense attorney, or even the defendant himself, has lunch with the judge and picks up the tab, it shouldn't be considered judicial misconduct. If a spectator in the gallery rises to comment on the proceeding, he shouldn't be ejected from the courtroom. This relates back to the intimacy principle. Jurists, counselors, decision makers and community members must all behave as family, as a cohesive, cooperative unit.

VIII. Consensus

The democratic system calls for decisions to be made by a majority of voters. Electoral, legislative and judicial actions all work in this fashion. The eighth principle of community law requires that when an important decision is made, there must be full agreement among the decision makers. As with a jury, they must all speak with one voice, but unlike a jury, they cannot fail to reach a verdict. For decisions that matter, there cannot be any hung-jury mistrials.

Given the current state of politics, it's clear most people in government will balk at this principle. There are several reasons. First, in the top-down system, big G has become so big that it's no longer possible to have confidence in your representatives. They are far too remote. If we adhered to principle II and administered law more intimately, the leadership would command greater respect and confidence from their constituents and from each other. They would, moreover, not be enacting legislation that applies to culturally distinct and geographically diverse populations. Local communities would naturally adopt laws suited to their own social ecology. Second, in violation of principle I, we don't have enlightened people working in government. As decision makers evolve, animosity among them will diminish and full agreement become more common. Note that because of the scarcity of enlightened people, we often witness unanimous decisions that are nevertheless wrong. The jury system illustrates this. As with our judges, people selected for juries are strongly judgmental. They don't recognize the connection between themselves and those whom they judge, but see their roll as meting out punishment.

The third reason the consensus principle will be hard for people to accept is that society as a whole doesn't know what's important and what isn't. Why? Because most of us are not thinking clearly; that is, we don't experience thoughts that spring from the deeper levels of our being. When people don't know what's important, their opinions could be poles apart and no compromise even possible. Finally, we make all of our decisions in a purely objective manner, analyzing facts in a strictly logical fashion. That is, in a manner we think is logical. In reality, if you don't understand what's important, your problem-solving logic is a failure from the outset. It seems counterintuitive, but by incorporating subjectivity into decision making, the clarity improves. When you can see the bigger picture, the correct action becomes more spontaneous, less conflictual.[8]

When objective avenues lead to an impasse, we should fall back on something completely different, such as jyotish (Vedic astrology). It's a radical departure from typical methods, but one with a long pedigree, earned over thousands of years of civilization. Jyotish uses objective data from the observation of celestial bodies, but is subjective in terms of how the data are interpreted. Without understanding how it works (and it's not clear anyone does), one can nevertheless surmise that the best astrologers are those who are well in tune with their inner self, who are highly evolved, in other words. Not that this would guarantee the accuracy of their recommendations, but it makes us feel better about consulting them. Our intuitive sense is reinforced, and this is a key aspect in making decisions—to feel that what you're doing is right.

For those who might view this approach as impractical or unorthodox, one need only examine the way legislators thrash about now—clobbering each other over weeks and months, creating pork and perks to appease this guy or that, attaching amendments completed unrelated to the issue at hand and entrenching themselves in ever more polarized positions. They then turn around and un-write laws they worked so hard to enact simply because a different party has assumed the majority. And it's not just lawmakers, but justices, including the Supreme Court, who can't agree on the most elementary questions, arguing over cases that should not have left the domain of community administration in the first place. The Supreme Court exemplifies the worst aspects of modern administration. The fact that we have split decisions by itself tells us the law is not working. When a case gets all the way to the Supreme Court, one would assume it's a serious issue. To engage the nine wisest men and women in the land must surely mean the question before them carries great import. So how could these nine Solomons not know the right course of action? How could they disagree? Not just disagree, but pass down the wrong decision from a divided court. And there have been many such errors over the years. If there were anyone with spiritual substance on that court, and he was faced with making a critical choice, but his views were discarded in a split decision, he ought to simply resign. He or she should not allow his integrity as a leader, as a decision maker, to be compromised by people of inferior substance. And that's what's actually wrong with these judges: None of them have any principles, any real moral compass. A person of true integrity and character would not only resign when faced with such ignorance, he would start a rebellion. If the issue carries such importance that the highest court in the land must make a choice, and they fail in that duty, the only thing left is to throw these people out. If that's not possible, then you must disengage, decline to participate in a broken system.

We've globalized law and justice, just as we globalized economy, celebrity, agriculture and everything else. The result is an unholy mess. Government is in a fearfully confused state, and the only way out is to concentrate our efforts locally, which means to come together, work together and recognize the most clear thinking and farsighted people in our own communities, including those among us who are proficient in subjective technologies.

IX. Force

The ninth principle concerns an aspect of law we've discussed in some detail: the use of force.[9] It's such a deeply ingrained element that you may question whether suggestions in this regard will be dismissed out of hand. The premise is this: The administration of law must move deliberately away from punitive, coercive measures and in the direction of prevention, education and voluntary compliance. How far we can move depends on how enlightened is the community, including how coherent people are as a self-governing entity. If communities adopted the previous eight principles, in particular the introduction of the community conscience advocate, we would take a big step toward checking and eventually dislodging the enforcers in government. I suggest a town like Fairfield Iowa, with its small size, low crime, remote location and relatively high degree of spiritual evolution, has the potential to realize what conventional thought would view as impossible. Some measures that should be adopted are:

• Disarm police officers. No guns, no tasers, no pepper spray.
• Do away with arrests in all circumstances. If we'd like a person to come into custody, we will request that he do so, and he or she will comply voluntarily. No restraints, handcuffs, ankle bracelets, etc.
• No radar traps, traffic stops or police chases. If we're unhappy with a person's driving, we'll ask a CCA to have a chat with him.
• No local incarcerations. Remove the cages and convert the jailhouse into something more becoming to an enlightened community.
• Begin a moratorium on residential foreclosures and evictions other than for outright destruction of property. Suspend tax sales. Research ways to allow occupants to continue their current living arrangements indefinitely.[10]
• Eliminate the cutting-off of critical utilities (heat and water) for lack of payment
• Eliminate late fees and penalties in all government business. Government should neither pay these fees (e.g., to banks) nor collect them. Make all taxes and fees payable on a voluntary basis. Never impose a fine; rather, request that it be paid.
• Consider a "shared space" street plan for pedestrians and vehicles where traffic controls and street signs are eliminated.[11]
• Consider a "garden zone management" plan, including community patrols as described in MSN (chapter 5).

X. Sovereignty

Local authority is supreme. This is the bottom-up principle. It warrants that outside agents, including state and federal authorities, cannot interfere with local decision making. This again contradicts laws, conventions and court rulings rooted in centralized, top-down philosophy. The extent of local jurisdiction is determined by cultural and geographic factors. We define a sovereign region to be an area where there exist some number of natural communities sharing similar characteristics. A natural community requires by definition that each subgroup possess a strong shared spirit.[12]

Local sovereignty must be upheld even in matters concerning national interests. If the federal government mandates, for example, that undocumented workers in a particular area be rounded up and that local police should carry out this enforcement (e.g., by way of the "Secure Communities" initiative of the DHS), community leaders can override that order. If young men are required to serve in the national militia, but the community feels such service should be voluntary, local policy takes priority. If the feds approve a radio tower, a mining operation, a pipeline, a highway or other infrastructure or resource extraction project within the community's geographic boundaries, or near enough to affect its quality of life, the project cannot go forward unless it receives local approval.

Regional boundaries are not determined by land survey—they are not etched on a cartographer's vellum; rather, they are flexible and reflect the natural features of a supporting ecosystem. Of course, disagreements are still possible between neighboring regions, in which case third-party mediation might be necessary, but if each community is strongly self-sufficient, the potential for conflict will be less, and there will be less need for the kind of infrastructure that currently comes under federal control: pipelines, power lines, interstate commerce and so forth.[13] Moreover, if communities are authentically spiritual, especially with regard to their stewardship of the land, they will all be working with the same priorities and will thus be more respectful of their neighbor's needs. Given that municipalities today have a specific geographic extent, communities wishing to establish sovereignty should begin with their existing legal boundaries and then work toward defining a territory that considers the ecosystem.

Sovereignty also applies to cultural issues. If, for example, tradition calls for women to wear purple tunics and men to sport full beards, outside authorities cannot mandate that white tunics and whiskerless chins be accommodated. The community's tolerance, or lack of such, for non-traditional practices must be respected regardless of considerations of discrimination. Indeed, discrimination will be encouraged when it comes to indigenous customs and traditions; which is to say, those that arise from authentic cognitions of evolved people and that become established over a long period—generations. The sovereignty principle thus derives its validity from the spirituality principle. Without spiritually evolved leaders, the protections of sovereignty are baseless.

That said, even customs that don't appear evolutionary or morally palatable from an outsider's perspective should in general be left alone. We can't go into tribal areas and tell them how raise their kids, cook their food, treat their women and so on. At least, that is, we can't force them into something. The best we can do if we perceive that people are mistreating each other or the environment is to share our spiritual knowledge (such as with the TM technique[14]) so that the evolution of that group might progress. The key here is authenticity. The people of Iowa, for example, have occupied the region for 150 years since driving the native Americans out. One might think Iowans have had a long enough time to develop authentic culture, but clearly this hasn't happened. Much as people in these parts like to think of themselves as natives, they still behave for the most part as plundering invaders. On the other hand, we're forced to admit that the culture of Arab-Muslim tribes in a place like Saudi Arabia is valid and that its integrity must be respected despite our concerns about the use of harsh sharia law practices. What this implies is not all tribes are created equal and not all indigenous cultures are enlightened. This does not, however, mean it's business as usual with such as the Saudis. We should not be buying their oil and selling them fighter jets while they continue to stone women and behead sorcerers. In supplying ignorant people with sophisticated weaponry, we in the cultured West display equal ignorance.[15]

(Western culture is more correctly termed an anti-culture. Our cultural diet is delivered via wide-screen video: movies, television, video games, the Internet. As with remote government, the absence of personal interaction diminishes the spiritual value.)

Destructive practices like wildlife poaching, illegal logging and deforestation by rural villagers present a serious challenge to the sovereignty principle. It's a delicate area given the precarious state of the global environment. Still, such destruction often occurs because true indigenousness is weak or nonexistent. Such weakness can be attributed in large part to us—we who have imposed a top-down, globally dependent, money-centered economy and culture on native populations and in so doing destroyed whatever indigenous knowledge might have remained. In the U.S. we don't have indigenous traditions outside of Indian reservations. With community law, we're pinning our hopes on indigenousness returning once people get back on the spiritual path.

Here we must emphasize that control of the land must be ceded to those who live on the land, where living on the land means more than putting up a house. City dwellers do not live on the land, clearly. Nor do most suburbanites or, for that matter, modern commodity farmers. On the contrary, they destroy the land in order to inhabit it. At some point the juggernaut of urbanization must be brought to a halt. When people realize the value of the resource under their feet, they won't need Washington to tell them what they should do with it. Proper stewardship will evolve naturally, hand-in-hand with the spiritual evolution of the population. The land itself will be the teacher.

Regarding judicial decisions, local sovereignty won't stop people from appealing a case to superior courts, but neither will we feel obligated to abide the orders of jurists outside our region. That is to say, we reserve the right to decline to enforce decisions that conflict with our own. If an outside court decides, for example, that a man's wages be garnished, and he works for an employer in our community, but we disagree with the decision, we may ask the employer not to comply. If they warrant a community member be taken into custody, and we've determined the person should remain free, we will first of all instruct our own deputies to ignore the order and furthermore endeavor to dissuade foreign enforcers—FBI, federal marshals, state police, etc.—from carrying out the arrest. State and federal agents depend on the cooperation of local law enforcement; without it their job is much more difficult. We will deny them that cooperation and, moreover, take steps to prevent their surveillance of our friends and neighbors—no drones can be deployed in local airspace without our approval. It may seem we're outgunned in this regard given big G's capacity for spying, but when the entire community is cooperating, acting as one unified whole, it presents a formidable front against interlopers.

We do, of course, realize that "superior" authorities can ignore the sovereignty principle and force their will on a community. In that case we have no choice but to bend. We'll never win a war with these people by physically fighting them. Armed resistance is folly; it's a suicidal path. Not that people aren't trying it, but we as a spiritually advanced group must take the high road. We must discard any thoughts of armed insurrection. We will instead shame the barbarians into submission. We'll subdue them by attacking not their bodies, but their minds. We'll pierce their psychological armor with arrows of intelligence.[16]

Having said this, one must acknowledge that there are communities and peoples who have been pushed beyond the limits of endurance. Native Americans were so pushed, and they fought back, and lost, tragically, after centuries of disease, deprivation and slaughter. Similar scenarios are still playing out in other parts of the world. Indigenous groups everywhere are being pushed off the land—having their culture gutted, urbanized, modernized, disenfranchised in the name of progress. Who can fault them for resisting? We can't imagine the profound disruption in their lives, living as we do in the relative comfort of small-town America. Thus, for the Tibetans, the Uyghurs, the tribal Adivasi of India, the Kalahari Bushmen, the Kogi of Colombia and other groups threatened with extermination, we withhold judgment respecting any violent acts they commit in defense of sovereign rights because we have not the capacity to appreciate the pressure on them.

A number of strategies for counteracting outside interference are discussed in the action plan of MSN. The simplest way to deal with pressure from the DHS, for example, is to simply dissolve your police force. This would deprive federal authorities of a subservient local entity. As we've discussed, there's no need for a town as small and remote as Fairfield to even have police. Obviously, as a minimum, people must bring their own public servants into the fold, to convince them to respect first the decisions of local leaders. This requires education, which means communicating the sovereignty principle to young people. Civics, community centered, spiritually integrated and environmentally oriented, should be the first course students take.

......

In summary, we're advancing ten principles that correct fundamental deficiencies in government. Our aim is to direct the administration of law and justice onto a new path; or rather, to carry it back on the path it should have followed all along. We want to put the self back into self-government. This requires not a change in the law, but a change in us: how we think, how we live and how we interact.

There are, of course, many unstated implications within these ten principles and many details to unravel. What, for example, can we do about corporations that hurt the community? Would anyone volunteer to take, say, agri-giant Cargill's punishment should we find them guilty of harming Iowa's environment? How about the Iowa farmers who raise Cargill's hogs? Who would volunteer to be a buddy for one of them?

There may be situations where individuals or groups are both harming and helping us. Cambridge Investment Research, for example, employs local people and donates to good causes in town. But what is the nature of their business and whom do they serve? A Wall Street Journal article claimed Cambridge was working not just for the wealthy, but also lower income people.

"We serve the middle class as they're starting out and as they accumulate wealth," the Journal quoted CEO Eric Schwartz.[17]

Yet Cambridge is fully immersed in the credit-and-capital economy. One can make a compelling argument that the system in which limitless growth is the yardstick of economic health, and conscience takes a back seat to greed perpetuates poverty and accelerates environmental destruction.

The complex instruments in which Cambridge specializes are beyond the reach of people without financial sophistication or surplus capital. There are many extraordinary individuals in this town who fit one or both of these categories, and they will likely labor for low wages until they're too old to work, never tasting the luxuries, or even the ordinary comforts that savvy money manipulators enjoy. Moreover, the financial web that binds Cambridge, its clients, corporate associates and vested interests depends for its success on the activities of debt collectors and foreclosure specialists, whose targets are more often than not the working poor. Cambridge does not appear at its core to be a community oriented enterprise; rather, it is concerned with serving an elite group, while ignoring the needs of the community at large.

This brings up the question of what, if anything, a community can do about the wealth gap, which is readily apparent in greater Fairfield. It's a global issue, certainly, but can it be tackled at the grass roots in the same way we're tackling the law?

I suggest the answer is yes, but, as with the legal system, it must be approached as an issue of conscience, not coercion. With Cambridge, for example, we could suggest they deal exclusively in socially conscious investments—no weapons makers, no destructive agribusiness, etc.—and that they furthermore allow participation by investors with tiny portfolios; as little as a few hundred dollars, say. Issues concerning money are so touchy that people don't dare bring them up. It's become a matter of politeness—you never discuss someone else's wealth. It's ironic given how deeply entangled we are in a money-driven existence. I was surprised one time by a lady who stood up at a lecture on home construction and announced how much she was worth. She was not at all shy about revealing that her net assets were, like, $50,000. I think we can be fairly certain that none of the millionaires in town would make a similar announcement. But for most of them a declaration isn't necessary—their property holdings and their lifestyles tell us all we need to know. No one who can travel to Europe, to India or even to Florida every year is poor. No one who can attend a TM fundraiser at Radio City Music Hall is having trouble keeping a roof over his head. For some of us it's a challenge to take a friend to the airport, concerned as we are about the jalopy we're driving. But the $170 taxi fare makes you risk it. It's a deplorable way to live—chasing money, hoarding money, mapping your life's course based on money. We must change this. I suggest the best approach is to look at what specific resources are needed to hold the community together and then think about where those resources might originate. We'll do some of this in the action plan.

I apologize for once again indulging in a monotonous repetition of what must be obvious to the reader. Who doesn't recognize the wealth gap in the world? Who wouldn't want to correct a system that creates such cruel inequality? Yet behold the beast. I suggest many can see the problem, but few understand that the ultimate solution will emerge from a spiritual direction and that by taking action locally we can best accomplish change.