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.
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