Irony has a sort of disadvantage. As many know, one effect capitalism has had on the process of growing freedom is that it has made the individual more alone and isolated and imbued him with a feeling of insignificance and powerlessness. One of the general characteristics of the capitalistic economy is the principle of individualistic activity. In contrast to the feudal system of the Middle Ages under which everybody had a fixed place in an ordered and transparent social system, capitalistic economy put the individual entirely on his own feet. What he did, how he did it, whether he succeeded or whether he failed, was entirely his own affair. That this principle furthered the process of individualization is obvious and is always mentioned as an important item on the credit side of modern culture. However, in furthering “freedom from,” this principle heled to sever all ties between on individual and the other and thereby isolated and separated the individual from his fellow men. This development had been prepared by the teachings of the Reformation. In the Catholic Church the relationship of the individual to God had been based on membership in the Church. The Church was the link between him and God, thus on the one hand restricting his individuality, but on the other hand letting him face God as an integral part of a group. Protestantism made the individual face God alone. Faith in Mr. Luther’s sense was an entirely subjective experience and with Mr. Calvin the conviction of salvation also had this same subjective quality. The individual facing God’s might alone could not help feeling crushed and seeking salvation in complete submission. #RandolphHarris 1 of 19

Psychologically this spiritual individualism is not too different from the economic individualism. In both instance the individual is completely alone and in his isolation faces the superior power, be it of God, of competitors, or of impersonal economic forces. The individualistic relationship to God was the psychological preparation for the individualistic character of man’s secular activities. While the individualistic character of the economic system is an undisputed fact and only the effect this economic individualism has in increasing the individual’s aloneness may appear doubtful. However, these are some points that contradict some of the most widespread conventional concepts about capitalism. These concepts assume that in modern society man has become the center and purpose of all activity, that what he does he does for himself, that the principle of self-interest and egotism are the all-powerful motivations of human activity. In a sense, we believe this to be true to some extent. Man had done much for himself, for his own purposes, in these last four hundred and seventy-five years. Yet much of what seemed to him to be his purpose was not his, if we mean by “him,” not “the worker,” “the manufacturer,” but the concrete human being with all his emotional, intellectual, and sensuous potentialities. Besides the affirmation of the individual which capitalism asceticism which is the direct continuation of the Protestant spirit. In medieval system capital was the servant of man, but in the modern system it became his master. In the medieval word economic activities were a means to an end; the end was life itself, or-as the Catholic Church understood it—the spiritual salvation of man. #RandolphHarris 2 of 19

Economic activities are necessary, even riches can serve as God’s purposes, but all external activity has only significance and dignity as far as it furthers the aims of life. Economic activity and the wish for gain for its own sake appeared as irrational to the medieval thinker as their absence appears to modern thought. In capitalism economic activity, success, material gains, become ends in themselves. It becomes man’s fate to contribute to the growth of the economic system, to amass capital, not for purposes of his own happiness or salvation, but as an end in itself. Man became a cog in the vast economic machine—an important one if he had much capital, an insignificant one if he had none—but always a cog to serve a purpose outside of himself. This readiness for submission of one’s self to extrahuman ends was actually prepared by Protestantism, although nothing was further from Mr. Luther’s or Mr. Calvin’ mind than the approval of such supremacy of economic activities. However, in their theological teaching they had laid the ground for this development by breaking man’s spiritual backbone, his feeling of dignity and price, by teaching him that activity had no further aims outside of himself. One of Mr. Luther’s teachings was his emphasis on the evilness of human nature, the uselessness of his will and of his efforts. Mr. Calvin placed the same emphasis on the wickedness of man and put in the center of his whole system the idea that man must humiliate his self-pride to the utmost; and furthermore, that the purpose of man’s life is exclusively God’s glory and nothing of hi own. #RandolphHarris 3 of 19

Thus Mr. Luther and Mr. Calvin psychologically prepared man for the role which he had to assume in modern society: of feeling his own self to be insignificant and of being ready to subordinate his life exclusively for purposes which were not his own. Once man was ready to become nothing but the means for the glory of God a God who represented neither justice nor love, he was sufficiently prepared to accept the role of a servant to the economic machine—and eventually a “Fuhrer.” The subordination of the individual as a means to economic ends is based on the peculiarities of the capitalistic mode of production, which makes the accumulation of capital the purpose and aim of economic activity. One works for profit’s sake, but the profit one makes is not made to be spent but to be invested as new capital; this increased capital brings new profits which again are invested, and so on in a circle. There were of course always capitalists who spent money for luxuries or as “conspicuous waste”; but the classic representatives of capitalism enjoyed working—not spending. This principle of accumulating capital instead of using it for consumption is the premise of the grandiose achievements of our modern industrial system. If man had not had the ascetic attitude to work and the desire to invest the fruits of his work for the purpose of developing the productive capacities of the economic system, our progress in mastering nature never could have been made; it is this growth of the productive forces of society which for the first time in history permits us to visualize a future in which the continual struggle for the satisfaction of material needs will cease. #RandolphHarris 4 of 19

Yet, while the principle of work for the sake for the accumulation of capital objectively is of enormous value for the progress of mankind, subjectively it has made man work for extrapersonal ends, made him a servant to the very machine he built, and thereby has given him a feeling of personal insignificance and powerlessness. Therefore, those individuals in modern society who had capital were able to turn their profits into new capital investment. Regardless of whether they were big or small capitalists, their life was devoted to the fulfillment of their economic function, the amassing of capital. However, what about those who had no capital and who had to earn a living by selling their labour? The psychological effect of their economic position was not much different from that of the capitalist. In the first place, being employed meant that they were dependent on the laws of the market, on prosperity and depression, on the effect of technical improvements in the hands of their employer. They were manipulated directly by him, and to them he became the representative of a superior power to which they had to submit. This was especially true for the position of workers up to and during the nineteenth century. Since then the trade-union movement has given the worker some power of his own and thereby is changing the situation in which he is nothing but an object of manipulation. However, aside from this direct and personal dependence of the worker on the employer, he, like the whole of society, has been imbued by the spirit of asceticism and submission to extrapersonal ends which we have described as characteristic for the owner of capital. This is not surprising. #RandolphHarris 5 of 19

In any society the spirit of the whole culture is determined by the spirit of those groups that are most powerful in society. This is partly because these groups have the power to control the educational system, schools, church, press, theater, and thereby to immune the whole population with their own ideas; furthermore, these powerful groups carry so much prestige that the lower classes are more than ready to accept and imitate their values and to identify themselves psychologically. The mode of capitalistic production has made man an instrument for suprapersonal economic purposes, and increased the spirit of asceticism and individual insignificance for which Protestantism had been the psychological preparation. However, this thesis conflicts with the fact that modern man seems to be motivated not by an attitude of sacrifice and asceticism but, on the contrary, by an extreme degree of egotism and by the pursuit of self-interest. How can we reconcile the fact that objectively he became a servant to ends which were not his, and yet that subjectively he believed himself to be motivated by his self-interest? How can we reconcile the spirit of Protestantism and its emphasis on unselfishness with the modern doctrine of egotism which claims, to use Machiavelli’s formulation, that egotism is the strongest motive power of human behaviour, that the desire for person advantage is stronger than all moral considerations, that a man would rather see his own father die than lose his fortune? Can this contradiction be explained by the assumption that the emphasis on unselfishness was only an ideology to cover up the underlying egotism? #RandolphHarris 6 of 19

Although this may be true to some extent, we do not believe that this is the full answer. To indicate in what direction the answer seems to lie, we have to concern ourselves with the psychological intricacies of the problem of selfishness. The assumption underling the thinking of Mr. Luther and Mr. Calvin and also that of Mr. Kant and Dr. Freud, is: Selfishness is identical with self-love. To love others is a virtue, to love oneself is a sin. Furthermore, love for others and love for oneself are mutually exclusive. Theoretically we meet here with a fallacy concerning the nature of love. Love is not primarily “caused” by a specific object, but a lingering quality in a person which is only actualized by a certain “object.” Hatred is a passionate wish for destruction; love is a passionate affirmation of an “object”; it is not an “affect” but an active striving and inner relatedness, the aim of which is the happiness, growth, and freedom of its object. The era of preadolescence is characterized by the appearance of impulses in interpersonal relations which make for a new type of satisfaction in place of the other person (the chum). Love, according to him, is a situation in which the satisfaction of the loved one is exactly as significant and desirable as the lover. It is a readiness which, in principle, can turn to any person and object including ourselves. Exclusive love is a contradiction in itself. To be sure, it is not accidental that certain person becomes the “object” of manifest love. #RandolphHarris 7 of 19

The factors conditioning such a specific choice are too numerous and too complex to be discussed here. However, love for a particular “object” is only the actualization and concentration of lingering love with regard to one person; it is not, as the idea of romantic love would have it, that there is only the one person in the World whom one can love, that it is the great chance of one’s life to find that person, and that love for him results in withdrawal from all others. The kind of love which can only be experienced with regard to one person demonstrates by this very fact that it is not love but a sado-masochistic attachment. The basic affirmation contained in love is directed toward the beloved person as an incarnation of essentially human qualities. Love for one person implies love for man as such. Love for man as such is not, as it is frequently supposed to be, an abstraction coming “after” the love for a specific person, or an enlargement of the experience with a specific “object”; it is premise, although, genetically, it is acquired in the contact with concrete individuals. From this it follows that my own self, in principle, is as much an object of my love as another person. The affirmation of my own life, happiness, growth, freedom, is rooted in the presence of the basic readiness of and ability for such an affirmation. If an individual has this readiness, he has it also toward himself; if he can only “love” others, he cannot love at all. When proposal-making bodies are constituted ad hoc, they usually report their findings and recommendations, and then are disbanded. There is thus little opportunity for them or their professional staffs to accumulate experience as a group. #RandolphHarris 8 of 19

Since proposal-making bodies almost universally try to settle upon a single proposal or integrated body of recommendations, with at most a single minority report rather than several alternatives, their work may be rejected or tabled by the policy-making body. Later, another study committee may therefore have to be set up; or a third or a fourth. In some instances of very complex problem situations, exempli gratia, devising private expenditures of public funds, as in government-sponsored research, a succession of studies may have to be made before a workable scheme can be evolved. In this way, there is some accretion of experience even among ad hoc recommending bodies. On the other hand, expect at the beginning of their existence, most planning agencies utilize permanently constituted advisory committees, which in turn often utilize permanently constituted professional staffs. Under such conditions, the accretion of experience is expedited, with many kinds of desirable consequences in the way of expert proficiency, exempli gratia, the narrowing of estimates or the correct anticipation of opinion. Moreover, as needs to be stressed, the proposal-making or planning group can thus co-operate very closely with the group in charge of the actual execution of programs. The Tennessee Valley Authority, for example, takes pride in the fact that in its administrative structure planning and operation are merged. Such a setup is probably an extreme which is rarely feasible. #RandolphHarris 9 of 19

 On the other hand, severe and unnecessary complications develop when an advisory commission plus its staff get so far detached from operating agencies that neither feels responsible toward the other, and communication between them breaks down. There are certain guiding trends of expectation regarding such bodies which are becoming more explicitly defined as time goes on. These trends can be summarized under the general term of “professionalization.” This term not only refers to formal membership of staff members in professional societies and their adherence to professional standards of ethics and competence, but to a subtle though substantial development of respect and support for professionals among the public at large. The development of professional standards has always depended to a large degree upon insistence by the community that the trust which it places in professionals be merited, and not solely dependent on the spontaneous enforcement of professional standards by the professional societies themselves. Formerly, however, the professions were a quite distinct and even segregated group of occupations. In recent times the professional outlook has permeated extensively into many occupations and institutions where it once was absent, and their clientele has come to demand professional standards of conduct where much less used to be expected. #RandolphHarris 10 of 19

This demand for professional conduct plainly applies to the status and role ascribed to the proposal-making bodies we have been discussing. They are expected to observe a steady not-self-interested, expert, responsible concern for the welfare of the public they serve. While their diagnoses and recommendations are not accepted as formally binding, they influence the course of the community’s action to the extent that the community trusts them. Having such influence, there is no reason for the body of recommending experts to possess direct authority over the administrator of an action program or his agency, and certainly never over the clientele the agency serves. Having made their proposals, the members of the recommending body should have no more voice or vote in their adoption or rejection than any other citizens. Often hearings are held in which the knowledge, views, and suggestions of all interested parties are sought. The scope of the problem must be defined and measured; all plausible ways of solving the problem must be canvased or even invented; the resources available and required for each alternative solution must be estimated as closely as possible; reasonable rates of accomplishment for various quantitative goals must be proposed; the barriers set by the vital interests of affected groups must be assessed; and the proposal as a whole must be formulated in such a way as to conciliate, skirt, or dissolve all obstacles. It is not surprising that the intensive fact-finding and deliberation which goes into making a well-formulated proposal far exceeds anything of this sort that the public at large can do, so that the public comes to depend heavily on the integrity and competence of its expert recommending bodies. #RandolphHarris 11 of 19

Also, it is perhaps not surprising that recommending bodies and reports often appear to the inexperienced public as luxuries which cannot be afforded, rather than as necessities for ultimate economy in planning. Relation-based and rule-based systems are conceptual pure categories that mix in different ways in practice. In some situations, the diminishing returns of a relation-based system can be countered without going to a fully centralized rule-based alternative. One such system has a hierarchical structure, with small relation-based self-governing communities, and one or more tiers of more formalized channels of information linking them together. This may be especially helpful to middle-sized communities which would otherwise fare poorly in comparison with smaller self-governing communities or larger ones that have successfully made the transition to full rule-based governance. In a model of such a two-tier system, we found that it can mitigate the diminishing returns of self-governance. It retains the local information advantages of a small community, merely adding a formal network of information transmission among the much smaller number, namely a group of supervisors, one from each local network. Another system that can bridge the gap between relation-based governance in small-scale communities and rule-based governance in large ones is the community responsibility system. This system prevailed in Europe in the pre-modern period. It exploited the fact that in those says the communal identities of people were relatively easily identifiable to outsiders because of differences in language, dress, food, and so on, whereas individuals could be tracked well within a community. #RandolphHarris 12 of 19

Then the system worked by holding a community jointly liable for default by any member of it, leaving the community to track down the individual miscreant and recover the sums from him. This is a different kind of two-tier system, each community being the lower tier and the collectivity of communities the upper tier. Less-developed countries (LDCs) and transition economies confront the most important policy questions related to the themes in this report, namely what kind of institutions they should adopt. The correct answer is likely to be a mixture in most cases, and the details of the mixture will depend on the specifics of the country, its history, and its economic prospects. Theoretical understanding of the country, its history, and its economic prospects. Theoretical understanding of the merits and the drawbacks of conceptually pure systems is essential for good design of the right mixture, as is evidence on the performance of similar systems in other countries at other times. However, these must be supplemented by a lot of local knowledge and experimentation. The transition economies should develop their legal systems in this way, starting with private arrangements, especially arbitration, and building on the knowledge gained in their operation. Opening the system to more minority power and allowing citizens to play a more direct role in their own governance are both necessary, but carry us only part of the way. The third vital principle for the politics of tomorrow is aimed at breaking up the decisional logjam and putting decisions where they belong. This, not simply reshufflings leaders, is the antidote to political paralysis. We call it “decision division.” #RandolphHarris 13 of 19

Some problems cannot be solved on a local level. Others cannot be solved on a national level. Some require action at many levels simultaneously. Moreover, the appropriate place to solve a problem does not stay put. It changes over time. To cure today’s decision logjam, resulting from institutional overload, we need to divide up the decisions and reallocate them—sharing them more widely and switching the site of decision-making as the problems themselves require. Today’s political arrangements violate this principle wildly. The problems have shifted, but the decisional power has not. Thus, too many decisions are still concentrated, and the institutional architecture is most elaborate at the national level. By contrast, not enough decisions are being made at the transnational level, and the structures needed there are radically underdeveloped. In addition, too few decisions are left for the subnational level—regions, states, provinces and localities, or non-geographical social groupings. At the transnational level, we are as politically primitive and underdeveloped today as we were at the national level when the industrial revolution began three hundred and twenty years ago. By transferring some decisions “up” from the nation-state, we not only make it possible to act effectively at the level where many of our most explosive problems lie, but simultaneously reduce the decision burden at the overloaded center—the nation-state. Decision division is essential. However, moving decisions up the scale is only half the task. It is also clearly necessary to move a vast amount of decision-making downward from the center. #RandolphHarris 14 of 19

Again the issues is not “either/or” in character. It is not decentralization versus centralization in some absolute sense. The issue is rational reallocation of decision-making in a system that has overstressed centralization to the point at which new information flows are swamping the central decision-makers. Political decentralization is no guarantee of democracy—quite vicious localist tyrannies are possible. Local politics are frequently even more corrupt than national politics. Moreover, much that passes for decentralization is a kind of pseudo-decentralization for the benefit of the centralizers. Nevertheless, with all these caveats, there is no possibility of restoring sense, order and management “efficiency” to many governments without a substantial devolution of central power. We need to divide the decision load and shift a significant part of it downward. This is not because romantic anarchists want us to restore “village democracy” or because angry affluent taxpayers want to cut back on welfare services to the poor. However, any political structure—even with banks of computers—can handle only so much information and no more, can produce only a certain quantity and quality of decisions, and that the decisional implosion has now pushed governments beyond this breakpoint. Moreover, the institutions of government must correlate with the structure of the economy, the information system and other features of the civilization. Today we are witnessing a fundamental decentralization and regionalism of production and economic activity. Indeed it may well be that the basic unit is no longer the national economy. #RandolphHarris 15 of 19

What we are seeing, as we have already stressed is the emergence of a very large, more and more cohesive regional sub-economies within each national economy. At the corporate level, we not only see efforts at internal decentralization but an actual geographical decentralization as well. All this reflects, in part, a gigantic shift of information flows in society. We are undergoing a fundamental demassification of communications as the power of the central networks wanes. We are seeing a stunning proliferation of cable, cassette, wireless, and private electronic mail systems, all ushing in the same decentralist direction. It is not possible for a society to de-massify economic activity, communications and many other crucial processes without also, sooner or later, being compelled to decentralize government decision-making as well. All this demands more than cosmetic changes in existing political institutions. It implies massive battles over control of budgets, taxes, land, energy, and other resources. Decision division will not come easily, but it is absolutely unavoidable in country after overcentralized country. In fighting back to freedom, the believer must wield Scripture as the divinely provided weapon for victory over evil spirit. The versus used with immediate effect, and giving evidence of relief, indicate the specific nature of any attack. They show by the efficacy of the weapon used the immediate cause of the conflict—as the believer reasons back from the effectiveness of the weapon to the cause of the warfare. For instance, if the text wielded is that the ultimate negative is the “source of lies,” and the believer declares that he refused all his lies, and this brings liberty from the oppression of the enemy, it indicates that the enemy is attacking with some of his or her deceptive workings. Then the believer should not only refuse all his or her lies, but pray, “Lord, destroy all the ultimate negative’s lies to me.” #RandolphHarris 16 of 19

All this simply means is that in the path to freedom the deceived believer must act intelligently. He must know the truth, and when the truth is received and acted upon he is set free. In going down into deception the intelligence is unused, but in recovering freedom he must act with deliberate knowledge; id est, he goes down “passively,” but he must emerge to liberty actively, by the action of his whole being. Force must be used against force. The deceiving spirits may suggest that this is “self-effort,” and attempt to again deceive the man into taking a passive attitude—so beware! A few suggestions for attitude and action may be added here in condensed form, for guidance of any who are seeking freedom from the enemy’s powers: Keep claiming the power of the blood. Pray for light, and face the past. Resist the ultimate negative’s persistently in your spirit Never give up hope. Avoid all introspection. Live and pray for others, and thus keep your spirit in full aggressive and resisting power. Again it may be said: Stand daily on Romans 6.11 at the attitude to sin. Resist the enemy (James 4.7) daily on the ground of the blood of Christ (Rev. 12.11). Live daily for others; live outward, and not inward. The Cross is the symbol of the Christ’s total immersion in the existential situation, and the Resurrection is symbolic of His total victory over it. We do not deny that these meanings are contained in the Cross and Resurrection. Salvation is assured by the manifestation of the New Being within existence, and the Cross is the guarantee that Jesus as the Christ experiences existence to its most terrifying degree. #RandolphHarris 17 of 19

The works of Jesus, including His sacrificial death, do not bring release from sin, but the New Being in Him is the source of salvation. No Christology or soteriology can impugn the Christian’s prerogative to say, “Jesus died for me”—and this statement contains an inescapable sacrificial element. The Resurrection symbolizes the conquest of existence by the manifestation of essential manhood in Jesus as the Christ. The Christ cannot be the Christ unless He is received as such in an act of faith. Before the crucifixion the disciples had faith in the Christhood of Jesus, but the catastrophe of the Cross shattered their faith. After the death and burial of Jesus, in an ecstatic experience of the New Being, they realized that the power of the Christ was still operative, and so their faith was restored. Jesus does nothing in the Resurrection event, for He is dead and buried, and it is the power of the New Being which grasps the disciples in an ecstasy of faith. Apparently the New Being can be separated from Jesus and the Resurrection is an act of the New Bing, but not an act of Jesus. Secondly, the biblical material insists that it is the Resurrection of Jesus which vivifies our faith, that we have risen because He has risen. It is the resuscitation of the disciples’ faith which accounts for the Resurrection event; it is their faith which restores Christhood to Jesus. Resurrection is both event and symbol. The event is the restoration of the disciples’ faith, and the symbolic element is the triumph of essential manhood over the estranged conditions of existence. The rub is that the New Testament presents the reverse of this scheme: the event is the triumphal Resurrection of Jesus which, in turn, symbolizes the rebirth of our life. #RandolphHarris 18 of 19

Christianity and Mormonism teaches unity of the human race. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all. We all have one Father; one God has created us. God therefore forbids every sort of animosity, envy, or unkindness towards any one of whatsoever race, nationality, or religion. God demands consideration for the life, health, powers, and possessions of one’s neighbour. He therefore forbids injuring a fellowman by force, or cunning, or in any other manner depriving him of his property. God commands holding a fellow’s honour as sacred as one’s own. It therefore forbids degrading him by evil reports, vexing him with ridicule or mortifying him. God commands respect for the religious convictions of others. He therefore forbids aspersion or disrespectful treatment of the customs and symbols of other religions. God commands the practice of charity towards all, clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, nursing the sick, confronting those that mourn. He therefore forbids limiting our care to ourselves and our families, and withholding sympathy when our neighbours suffer. God commands respect for labour; each in his own sphere shall strive for the blessings of life by worthwhile creative activity. God therefore demands the cultivation and development of all our power and capabilities. God commands absolute truthfulness; our yea shall be yea, or nay, nay. God therefore forbids the distortion of truth and deceit, and condemns hypocrisy. God commands walking humbly by His side and in modesty among men. God therefore forbids self-conceit, arrogance, and disparagement of the merits of others. God commands chastity and the sanctity of marriage. God forbids infidelity, license and lust. God commands the promotion of welfare of one’s fellowmen. God therefore forbids indifference to the needs of the community. God commands that its adherents shall promote the welfare of the state. God calls upon us to sacrifice property and even life for the highest principles of justice and liberty. God commands sanctification through righteous living. God bids us exert ourselves to hasten the time in which men shall be reunited in love. #RandolphHarris 19 of 19

MAGNOLIA STATION AT CRESLEIGH RANCH

Rancho Cordova, CA | low $600s

Now Selling!

Residence Four is a two-story, 3,489 square foot home features four bedrooms, including one suite on the first floor, three and one half bathroom, and a true three-car garage. The covered porch provided a warm entry and the dining room is located right off the entry way.

The Kitchen is connected through the Butler’s Pantry providing ample storage. The great room and loft upstairs allow for various uses that will suit your family and lifestyle.

Best of all, each Cresleigh home comes fully equipped with an All Ready connected home! This smart home package comes included with your home and features great tools including: video door bell and digital deadbolt for the front door, connect home hub so you can set scenes and routines to make life just a little easier. Two smart switches and USB outlets are also included, plus we’ll gift you a Google Home Hub and Google Home Mini! https://cresleigh.com/magnolia-station/residence-4/

#CresleighHomes