One of life’s greatest blessings is to live in a community where trust is the norm. This is true for innumerable social, psychological, political, and economic reasons.

Trust is indeed a luxury to treasure. Among its other benefits, is that it reduces the costs of all exchanges and transactions. If we trust the person or firm with whom we deal, contracts and lawyers are unnecessary. Here are a few personal examples illustrating this principle.

I’ve dealt with Kamp Implement for over 40 years and have learned that it is an utterly trustworthy firm. For example, a decade ago I took an old Kosch hay mower to Kamps, asked them to sell it, and then promptly forgot about it. A few years later I went to Kamps to trade-in a lawn tractor for a rather expensive new Cub Cadet.

I selected one and asked how much I owed after the trade-in. Bob Kamp said, “You don’t owe anything. I just sold your Kosch and it covered the difference.”

This spring I needed another machine, but needed to hold cash in reserve for a major project. I explained this to Kamps and said I would pay by September. The answer was simply, “OK.” And they delivered it the next day.

No contract, no paperwork, no problems. Transaction costs were approximately zero. It’s an increasingly rare pleasure to live in such a world.

In a market setting such trust fosters business success. Those who violate it are ultimately selected out and close shop.

Alas, trust is rare in national politics where skillful deception brings success. This applies across parties. Phil Gramm, a Ph.D. economist, was a Republican senator from Texas who boasted nationally of his free market principles. Yet, despite his training and frequent pronouncements, he bragged to constituents, “If I brought any more pork to Texas, I’d die of trichinosis.”

Most politicians hide special interest legislation benefiting campaign contributors behind public interest claims. Occasionally especially egregious projects such as Alaska’s “bridge to nowhere” and Rep. John Murtha’s Johnstown Airport are exposed for what they are, pure pork. Hence, trust in government gradually erodes. This is one reason why health reform is so difficult; citizens learn.

Economists often propose changing institutional arrangements to increase efficiency. These reforms alter the incentives of those who deliver public services to better match citizens’ preferences. Current deliverers naturally resist changes that reduce their control and benefits. This explains teachers unions’ opposition to charter schools.

Fortunately, not all policy activists are self-interested. Some are motivated by ecological values such as saving endangered species. Others, Quakers for example, have a long history of seeking social justice. Quakers were among the first to campaign against slavery and for the humane treatment of prisoners. They believe that the “divine spark” in all people is in tune with ethical living. They want to use that spark to make the world more fair and change individuals to keep it fair.

The Quakers have no central authority and don’t speak with one voice. I know one, with a Yale Ph.D. in history, who argues for increased national defense spending to promote peace. Most Quakers, however, advocate policies such as disarmament, increased minimum wages, rent control, and other “progressive” measures. They believe such interventions will foster social justice.

While few policy analysts agree that such interventions will actually help the intended beneficiaries and indeed many are harmful, none label the Quakers wicked or self-interested. The strongest criticism is that they are naïve.

The Quakers are immune from charges of hypocrisy for one simple reason; we trust them not to employ the rubric of public interest to disguise self-interest. They have earned this trust.

I hope Quakers and other religious individuals will simply ask one question when considering policy reforms: What are the logical consequences, including implications, for liberty? If they ask and answer this, we can trust both their intent and their intellect.