Charlotte Cushman, AMI certified

Ayn Rand said that “the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and, in its original founding principles, the only moral country in the history of the world.” Why did she say “moral”? Because the original system of the United States was capitalism, “a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.” One of those individual rights is the right to pursue one’s own happiness. But many people think acting in one’s self-interest conflicts with acting morally.

Evonomics.com, a progressive website biased against capitalism, has a discussion in an article about the role of morality in a capitalist economy.  Peter Turchin states, “The main question is whether economic agents, most importantly businessmen (including both corporation officers and business owners), should be motivated solely by self-interest, or should they also be motivated by personal ethics.”

There is no dichotomy between being motivated by personal ethics or a rational self-interest. It is always in one’s best self-interest to be ethical. It may seem to some as though being deceptive in order to get something is in one’s self-interest, but one always has to consider the long-range consequences of one’s actions. If someone cheats at a game in order to win, he knows that he didn’t really win. If someone lies in order to gain sales for his product, he knows that he doesn’t deserve the sales. Gaining, or trying to gain, what is not deserved is self-destructive. It harms one’s self-worth because deep down one knows the truth — that one is not worthy of the win. This does not bode well for inner self-confidence and happiness. How is being unethical in one’s best self-interest?

What about the people who do not act in their rational self-interest and are unethical? It is the system of capitalism that corrects corruption due to actions of a free market that offers other choices. Once it is discovered that a businessman is dishonest, he loses business because the customers go elsewhere. Anyone who harms the individual rights of others through the use of force or fraud can be taken to a court of law for restitution or some form of justice. But with socialism, the government controls all economic activity, so citizens are stuck with the corruption. Actually, corruption grows and becomes the standard within socialism, as well as in a mixed economy, because decisions are taken out of the marketplace and reside solely within the political realm.

It may seem as if it is in one’s self-interest to buy off politicians in order to get laws passed that give one an edge over one’s competition, but this is not moral, nor is it rational. People who do this are not really businessmen, they are swindlers. Swindlers know that they cheated and that they have attained what they don’t deserve. They have essentially committed a form of theft against their competitors and customers, and they have the constant stress that someone else could do the same thing to them. Another negative result is that swindlers become dependent on politicians to keep the game going — they become dependent on politicians to grant them additional favors so they can stay in business. A solution for this problem is to get rid of the mixed economy. In a truly laissez-faire capitalistic society, a full separation between economics and state would predominantly prevent swindlers from using money to seek power by manipulating politics.

But aren’t businessmen greedy and isn’t greed immoral? Money is a medium of exchange, provides security, and there is nothing wrong with a desire to honestly earn more of it. Who is it that determines if someone has excessive greed? Why is the person who works honestly for his money and wants more considered greedy, but the politician who demands money from him not considered greedy?

Whether greed is good or bad depends on the context. If someone is greedy for something negative like drinking alcohol to excess, the result will most likely be negative. He could become an alcoholic or abusive. If someone is greedy for something positive such as the spouse of his dreams, the result will most likely be positive. He could have a happy marriage. Any successful entrepreneur is consumed with greed, but his greed is for his work. He is primarily motivated by doing a good job; the money is secondary.

Morality and a rational self-interest are not incompatible. In order to survive, human beings need the freedom to work and keep the fruits of their labor. True capitalism (i.e. without government interference such as bailouts, regulations, favors, and backroom deals) provides the freedom for businessmen to produce, but they have to do it honestly, otherwise they will not be successful. If successful, the capitalist earns material wealth. Production leads to prosperity and everyone benefits from prosperity — a hallmark of capitalism.

(Originally published in American Thinker and Capitalism Magazine).

There are many reasons why children misbehave, but it is a commonly held belief that children misbehave because they don’t feel loved or accepted. However, feeling unloved is not the primary cause. There is a deeper, more fundamental reason. What is it?

Nanny 911 was a reality television show in the United States that originally aired from 2004 to 2007. The show featured families who needed help with their unruly children. Nanny 911 was called, and a nanny was assigned to visit the home for one week to assist the parents in implementing better parenting techniques. In many cases, the nanny taught the parents how to discipline their children, such as establishing rules, maintaining consistency in enforcing those rules, and executing consequences such as time-outs. She also established a routine (if there wasn’t one already in place) and set up a system for the children to earn privileges, with privileges removed for misbehavior. She was aware of the stages of child development and encouraged appropriate independence, such as promoting self-care skills and giving the children responsibilities. The nanny paid close attention to respect, emphasized the importance of listening to other members of the family, and taught parents how to communicate effectively with their children. I don’t agree with everything they did, but overall, I thought it was a great show and offered good ideas for solving behavior problems.

There is one episode that I found particularly interesting. It involved a family of three young children—two boys and one girl—ranging in age from 4 to 10 (approximately). The oldest boy was violent, insolent, and brazenly disrespectful, and his younger brother was following in his footsteps. The parents lacked consistency when disciplining the boys and spent most of their time fighting with them while yelling and screaming. The mother spent the majority of her time trying to handle their misbehavior, and the girl was largely ignored because she didn’t cause any trouble.

Shortly after the nanny arrived, she instituted a system for the children to earn privileges. It didn’t take long before the oldest boy had one of his earned privileges taken away for disobeying a rule, and as a result, he had a major temper tantrum. As he was screaming, violently thrashing, and physically attacking his parent, his sister, who sat nearby quietly observing, very calmly told him he could earn it back later if he obeyed the rules. At some point, the nanny encouraged the mother to talk to him, and he said he didn’t feel loved by his parent because his younger brother got all the attention. The mother hugged him and told him that she was sorry he had that impression and that she did love him. This conversation opened up communication, and things began to improve.

The focus was on the boys, but the person who caught my attention was their sister. Like the oldest brother, she did not get much attention because her mother’s time was taken up with her brothers’ misbehavior, yet she was the best behaved. Why wouldn’t she also have poor behavior? She was ignored too. Did she also feel unloved? And if she did, why wasn’t she misbehaving?

Notice what she did when her brother had his temper tantrum over his lost privilege. She had figured out cause and effect and attempted to get him to understand that he could get it back if he obeyed the rules. She tried to communicate this instead of yelling or fighting with him. She had figured out that certain things were wrong to do.

The boys’ sister was able to do something they couldn’t do and needed to learn—she could reason.

Children can lash out if they don’t have the words or the ability to express why they are upset. (Children who are late talkers are often hitters.) Children can also misbehave in order to get attention or act out if they feel inadequate in school. They may be bored and think it is funny to do wrong things. They may feel out of control, so they try to gain control by controlling or manipulating the adult. They can misbehave when they conclude an injustice has occurred, become angry, and then retaliate. They may conclude from that injustice that they are unloved, but feeling unloved is not the primary reason why they misbehave. The deeper explanation for misbehavior is the inability to reason.

The deterrent to acquiring reasoning ability is confusion. When adults are inconsistent, especially in the area of discipline, it creates turmoil in the minds of children. The child attempts to figure out reality, but reality is unpredictable, so he is filled with bewilderment and uncertainty. This ambiguity undermines his ability to reason, which can make him feel insecure.

The boys in this episode had not figured out how to reason like their sister. The confusion that had been festering in the oldest boy’s mind inhibited his ability to understand that when his mother tried to change the behavior of his younger brother, that didn’t mean that he, himself, was unloved. Misunderstandings are common when logical thinking has not been attained. Consequently, he felt angry and lashed out at her and the rest of the family. Fortunately, the nanny helped the mother begin the healing process through effective communication with her son.

However, teaching a child how to reason is an integrated process. It takes more than just words—it takes action, too. If the mother continues to be inconsistent when she disciplines him, he will continue to feel angry and unloved no matter what she says, and his behavior will not improve. But if she implements all the parenting principles of Nanny 911—consistency, independence, stability through routines, communication, respect, discipline, and consequences—he will have a much better chance of learning how to think for himself, figure out the difference between right and wrong, and develop into a happy person.

For more information about discipline: https://www.amazon.com/Effective-Discipline-Montessori-Charlotte-Cushman/dp/0578678543/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1591649698&sr=8-4