Skip to main content

It is the Economy Stupid- But it is Not a Game of Morality

In a real economy and not a tragic morality tale personal and economic liberty preclude the ideas of corporate welfare. Economic liberty is a mechanism of trust, hard work and capital investment.

An amoral market is defined by the unseen laws of economics. It either values its productive forces or wastes them. These are laws as a regular a clockwork. For years now we have been operating on an unsustainable platform of corporate subsidies, non-free market policies and government support and stagnation in unsound financial vehicles in a mercantilistic economy.

Drawing from the lessons of Adam Smith, who was dealing with the same phenomena, and John Nash's revision of Adam Smith that defines it precisely one can see why maximum economic liberty and personal liberty go hand in hand and are opposed to rigid or hierarchical control. They are horizontal systems that allow people to move up or down based on ability. They are in essence a neutral scale people can move along.

The two systems- one rigidly controlled and the other liberty oriented- are incompatible because economic controls define so much of the scope of social life that when they are rigidly controlled they determine how life will be lived and give managers and co-workers the ability to seek control over others. The other system gives the individual liberty to seek their own and others good along a social scale that is not limited by rules, but by what the individual can do.

At the authoritarian end the rules I am talking about go well beyond being preachy, and dictate the forms what is acceptable and what is not socially leaving others who do not "fit the mold" out of the economic system. It has been a basic law of economics since the time of the Byzantine Empire that whenever you seek to regulate social markets of human behavior you create a kind of economic stagnation much more serious then during the libertarian periods of history. And as a consequence innovation dries up. Therefore whenever the "progressive" controls of social goods are enacted the people neither have economic or personal liberties except at the cost of productive force which is the backbone of economic growth, and except through being granted "permission" to have liberties from the state. The New Scientist calls this "entering the new dark age of science..." but in reality it is spread equally across all professional and social fields.

It is how the nanny state smothers her baby because she "loves her so much."

Here is a continuation of my debates with the democrats and republicans about the issue and I welcome your comments:

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...