Taxpayers would ensure to get the best value possible for their contributed money in common goods. Should we judge your conduct in public life as well as your private beliefs and practices as our representative? Is it not, my friend, a noble calling to be a public figure in governing government and institutions that hold tremendous accountable to taxpayers?

In this series of dialogues on Separation of Powers, we explore how one’s private virtue application towards managing public funds. Let’s get started.

Money is often associated with power that can easily be abused, but there are calls for better use of money for the public good.

The concept of being careful with your own money and prudent with other people’s money is often associated with economist Milton Friedman, who argued that when you spend your own money, you are careful and try to get the most out of your money.

Milton Friedman, in his book “Free to Choose”, detailed the four ways to spend money: You spend your own money on yourself. You spend your own money on someone else. You spend someone else’s money on yourself. You spend someone else’s money on someone else.

If we measure by Economize, and Seek Highest Value, you may debate on the four combinations by “Whose Money is spent” and “On Whom Money is spent”, the government funded public money is not likely to be use wisely and faithfully in compared to yourself.

Let’s add another dimension Friedman is not discussed in the above combinations diagram. Fools are one of the most important reasons why people suffer. Not wisely using money is a common problem for many people. If you cannot manage your home and business well, you are not far from being unable to serve the public.

In modern society, if you have common sense, are knowledgeable and work hard, you can safely be classified as average. Getting to a competent level is much more difficult. How much sound money management do you have for both long-term and short-term goals? Knowledge and wisdom are only part of the equation. Others include your acquired discipline and trustworthy character. A person may not get this theory suggested results even with one’s own money. Does this make the outcome even more worrisome and complicated?

If you are a representative who is not trustworthy in your deed, or lacking wisdom on money management, why should taxpayers let you to have the opportunity to be in the leadership the first place? Isn’t this a very simple moral obligation?

Private virtues are very important. The governance bodies need to carefully conduct the candidate select processes and balance power with oversight to reduce the potential major mistakes, which is the goal of any organization.

---

This is one of “In Focus” topical discussions on citizen public life engagement.