Given at the Sunday Worship of the East Point Family Churches, July 31, 2005 Barrytown, New York

Divine Principle, p 49: "Truth illuminates the innermost desires of the spirit mind. A person must first comprehend his spirit mind’s deepest desire through the truth and then put this knowledge into action to fulfill his responsibility."

According to the Divine Principle, happiness is the absolute value. It is not a means to a greater end, but an absolute end in itself. For example, my vocational choice was to play music, because I loved that in itself, irrespective of whether I made money doing so. It was not a means to an end; it was the end in and of itself.

The Divine Principle twist is that happiness comes from making others happy. I discovered, just playing music in itself did not really make me happy. I wanted to make others happy by my music.

Therefore the absolute value, the absolute goal is to make others happy. Now, the problem is that

1. Others may have a skewed vision of happiness. People may have been happy to get intoxicated and do evil things to the soundtrack of my music.

2. Others’ view of happiness is to make me happy. This eliminates the possibility of my improving my music, if they just cheer in order to make me happy, without regard for quality.

The implication of 1) is that I either do unethical or immoral acts to make others happy according to their standard, or act in a way they don’t like in order to make them truly happy as I understand it (forced conversion).

The implication of 2) is that I fulfill my happiness by happily responding to others’ efforts to make me happy, which ends up offering no incentive for improvement.

I want to pursue this point, because it eventually has implications for the Unification theory of economics. But to get to the subject of economics, we have to first talk about the liberation of God.

Let’s say that my father thought I should become an accountant. Then to make my father happy, I should be a happy accountant. Perhaps I am not an accountant by nature. Still, I can be happy doing it simply because I am making my father happy. This is to sacrifice my own vision and nature, say, to be a musician, for the sake of my father.

Let’s say that I don’t do well as an accountant. I don’t advance in the profession, etc. One development might be that my father recognizes my heart to please him, is comforted and happy, and decides that he should rescind this demand that I be an accountant.

But, it's also possible that the reason I cannot do accounting well is that I am carrying it out with an unwilling heart. It's called passive resistance. You do something out of forced obedience when you really don't want to. It's terrible, because you want to fail, just to show your father, who you feel is oppressing you, how wrong he is. Then both you and your father are stuck.

I’ve had to overcome this many times. Each time I did, it had a positive effect on my life. It happened when I threw my ego away and submitted to my fundraising captain’s counsel. It happened when I threw my ego away and submitted to True Father’s personal request that I become the regional coordinator in New England. It happened when I threw my ego away and agreed to work as a truck driver instead of a white-collar mathematician.

I recommend throwing away the ego. Cut your father some slack. He's saying what he's saying out of deep love, the best he can dig out from within himself. If you just say yes, with your heart of sincere willingness, responding to his love even if it's not the kind of love you want, he will be liberated. By being truly happy to respond to his hope and his ideal for you, you will liberate him. That's the power of the child’s love, filial piety.

This is the same principle through which we liberate God. Abraham didn’t negotiate with God when God told him to offer his son as a burnt offering. He negotiated over the fate of Sodom, but not over his son. He spent his three days in hell, overcame his passive resistance, and united with God. Perhaps when Isaac said, "Father, I will do it," this liberated Abraham. Then Abraham said, "God, I will do it," liberating God. This is the first example of three generations’ liberation. The one who was most liberated on Mt. Moriah was not Isaac; it was not Abraham; it was God. And all three -- God, Abraham and Isaac -- felt absolute happiness. That happiness was the foundation for God to be present in that lineage.

What does this have to do with shopping in Cheon Il Guk? Give me a minute to explain. First, what is the significance of shopping? Shopping has to do with the fundamental economic process, the give and take of goods and services. This is the basis for economic theory. In a socialist system, there is no shopping: you just go and get what is rationed for you. In capitalism, you go shopping. Which fits better with human nature? Thus talk about shopping leads to the topic of human nature. Economic theory actually begins with the theory of human nature, of how human beings make choices about their goals and desires. Thus, Adam Smith, the father of economics, was actually a moral philosopher. So, the discussion of what makes us happy and what fulfills our desires has direct implications for answering the question, "Do we go shopping in Cheon Il Guk?" Whether we go shopping or not relates to the type of economy we will have.

Shopping does not fit with pure socialism. Socialism is "A theory of policy of social organization which advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all" (Oxford Universal Dictionary, 1955). From the viewpoint of Divine Principle, socialism is prima facie wrong, because God is the owner and controller, not "the community." And God doesn’t limit ownership; He distributes ownership and control. To whom? To individuals and families, not to communities, nations or the world. Each individual, as part of a blessed central family, is a true owner or king, parent and teacher. The ideal world doesn’t have one king; it has billions of kings. "King" is an absolute term. You can’t have "sub-kings."

Now with the word, "heavenly" in there, Divine Principle would seem to imply that the goals of socialism are achieved through God. That is, "administration and distribution in the interests of all" are achieved through God’s control and ownership. I can agree with this, on the basis that God’s first step is to distribute control and ownership to all. But is it helpful, or even accurate, to still use the term, "socialism"? Giving each person control and ownership sounds as if we have private property, a free market (the ability to buy and sell property) and free labor (ownership of one’s mind and body, energy and time). This is capitalism.

I have to admit that we Unificationists tend to believe there is something wrong with capitalism. Well, capitalism is wrong if there’s no God involved, and socialism without God is also wrong. But here’s an important point: socialism is defined traditionally without God, and capitalism is defined traditionally with God. In fact, capitalist theory is profoundly God-centered. For example, it is based on the conviction that God gives each person a vocation, their personal role in the economic order (c.f., Divine Principle, p. 49). Second, to fulfill that role, each individual has to exercise godly virtues. Third, God works as an "invisible hand" through the market beyond anyone’s individual decisions to effect the greatest good for the greatest number. Capitalism, in fact, presupposes God as the invisible actor, as a dynamic principle by the action of which economic relationships entered into freely, even for selfish purposes, will tend to benefit the whole.

For capitalism to work, you’ve got to have people freely expressing their preferences and tastes, trying to get the best bargains, trying to create products that meet the customers’ desires, getting the highest return for the lowest investment, marketing the highest quality for the least cost, and so forth. This means that people would act as what is called "rational economic men." In Cheon Il Guk, we are talking about the ideal society made up of selfless people. Will it be capitalist? Well, can selfless people go shopping? Can they engage in transactions, choosing what they like, expressing preferences, trying to get higher value for less cost? These things sound selfish, but without them the capitalistic system won’t work.

When an original person goes shopping, does s/he act as a "rational economic person"? Let’s consider the closest example we as Unificationists have, our True Mother. She actually does a good deal of shopping. Does she try to get the best quality for the cheapest price? Does she go where she does not have to pay taxes? Would an original person purchase the poorest quality goods because to buy something better would be selfish? Would he buy a poor suit for a lot of money, because he has sympathy for the shopkeeper? Perhaps in Cheon Il Guk no one can shop, because shopping requires economic decisions and no one has any criteria to make decisions, since no one can live for themselves.

Here’s the solution: we shop for others. We don’t shop for ourselves but spend our time shopping for others. What does that sound like? Actually, we do this every year. It is like Christmas. When we get home, our house is full of goods that others have bought for us. Similarly, we are buying for others and delivering what we have bought to others’ houses. Then the model for the original human being would be that of a rational economic person, except that s/he is buying for others.

Then, what if I find myself short of toothpaste? Should I wait for someone to bring me toothpaste? Is the theory that "all a person’s needs can be fulfilled by others’ shopping for them" going to work? Well, parents shop for their children. Who shops for the parents? The grandparents do. Therefore, shopping for others is a family system. Shopping for myself is individualism, but shopping for others is family.

What of the problem of "taste and preference"? Will an original person have tastes and preferences? I think so, because each person is a unique creation and without tastes and preferences we would have no creativity, no zeal for life. Are tastes and preferences selfish? Let’s get concrete for a moment. Taking the example of clothes, I let my wife decide and I never buy my own clothes. Husbands usually are okay with that. But are wives usually okay with husbands’ decision about their wardrobe? It is rare. Perhaps her mother and sister would choose what she should wear. To disagree with them is mean-spirited. Thus, we all give up our own tastes and agree with the decisions of others close to us. This is the unselfish life: dressing for the sake of others. The joy that I feel from making others happy by accepting their choices is much greater than the joy I would feel by wearing the clothes that I choose for myself. And the buyer is challenged to discern what the recipient most likes, what his/her tastes and preferences are. Here is where the implications of the Unification theory of happiness for economics are revealed.

What about the arts, music, literature, drama, cinema? What music should I listen to? Similarly, I listen to the music that others want for me. This would be the music that others believe is uplifting and beneficial for me. So my daughter buys me the soundtrack to "Peter Pan," because she thinks it is the best for me. On what basis does she make that decision? It would be through her intimate heartistic connection with me. She thinks I would benefit most from light, cheerful, romantic music. So she gives that to me, and I appreciate it and appreciate her heart. I give up my preference for heavy, depressing rock music.

What we are presupposing here is that each person has the ability to grasp the innermost heart of his/her family members and close friends enough to select the goods and services that will make them maximally happy. And we are presupposing that each person values the heart and love of their family members and friends more than the specific quality or characteristics of the goods and services their family members and friends provide them.

So this discussion of market dynamics in Cheon Il Guk leaves us with a capitalistic model, with no social planning taking place. The only difference is that instead of shopping for myself, I am shopping for my family members and friends. Everyday is like Christmas, and this also strengthens familial bonds and friendship networks.

This is the customer side. What of the supply side? All people know that goods and services are produced with an eye to the wants and needs of others. This is called market research. Here the market system will work just fine -- in fact, far better than in the present world, because we would have completely free trade without planned obsolescence, cartels and protectionism. And no one would produce degrading, unhealthy or immoral products that waste resources and hurt people. Even if they were produced, no one would buy them. Therefore, the market would eliminate them, because there would be no profit in it. Why would no one buy them? Because everyone is shopping for others, and no one will give another something that will harm them. Parents shop for children, and grandparents shop for parents, inserting an automatic moral value into private economic decisions. This also channels the power of advertising in a moral direction. Advertising will not be designed to stimulate the consumer’s self-indulgence or self-gratification but to stimulate the giving of gifts of maximum value.

In the ideal market system, price is set by supply and demand. Even if I am buying for others, still I will seek the best quality for the least price, as does True Mother. There has been one historic incident contrary to this, when the spirit world told Rev. Ho Bin Ho of the Inside Belly Church to buy the best material for clothes and to pay the asked-for price, not trying to bargain it down. But this was a special case, I believe. "Best quality for least price" is, in my opinion, part of the Divine Principle, similar to water flowing down hill, leaves turning toward the sun, and people desiring to sleep in a comfortable position. Best quality for least price is the foundation for competition, creativity, innovation, invention and the efficiencies that make possible a pleasant social environment.

On this basis, we can eliminate the claim that socialism is necessary to insure reasonable consumption. Further, socialism has no better mechanism than the free market to prevent over-production; the market prevents over-production by punishing those who make that mistake by driving down their profit. Intelligent planning and inventory control prevent over-production. Staying with that paragraph on p. 342 of the Divine Principle, "destructive competition" obviously will not exist with original people; no central planning is necessary to prevent it. I believe that the term "destructive competition" is easily blown out of proportion. If we prohibited such, we would still have ice houses down at the end of Barrytown Road, because they would have screamed "destructive competition" at the people who invented refrigeration.

Is it unreasonable consumption for me to want my children and parents to live in a beautiful house, with refrigeration, and have a wonderful new car? Unificationists cannot even entertain the possibility that people of original nature do not want the finer things of life. Everyone wants these, but for others. This is why True Father’s statement that "I didn’t want to live in a nice house, but my followers told me I should," is very important. Thus, everyone works hard to gain the resources to give their parents, their children, and their friends the best of everything.

In sum, I argue that the Unificationist teachings of the three great kingships, the three subjects thought, the realm of the royal family, give and take action, the theory of value (which I didn’t delve into), the original mind and the theory that God-centered living for others leads to absolute happiness have implications for economics, and that they result in heavenly capitalism, not heavenly socialism. You may or may not agree with this -- or you may never have thought about it. But it is high time we do think about it, as we encourage people in positions of social authority to consider issues of good governance and the shape that our future world should take.

 Download entire page and pages related to it in ZIP format
Table of Contents
Copyright Information
Tparents Home