Hello libertarians (and other strong supporters of liberty and--therefore--capitalism):
I contacted Jeffrey Tucker regarding the idea referred to below, and he suggested I put a post on this forum.
I stumbled upon a way to improve capitalism systemically and to accomplish everything any libertarian has dared to hope for--and more. The only thing that has to be changed is the approach to the money. This idea leaves the debate over having a metallic currency far, far behind. It actually harks back to the idea of neutral money, the concept that first attracted those who would form the Austrian School, and especially F.A. Hayek. It is impossible to summarize it in a post of this kind and do the idea, well, justice, but an essay of 3,000 words at www.ajustsolution.com presents a reasonably thorough introduction of it.
I must warn readers that the key to the idea is a money supply that is purely fiat money. Materially (as opposed to purely ideologically), the problem with fiat money has been that the supply of it can be manipulated--indeed, is designed to be manipulated--by a group of cloistered individuals making arbitrary decisions (thereby subjecting everyone else in the economy to their arbitrary wills--the very definition of injustice according to John Locke, and one that is consistent with my own account of justice). In my proposed approach to the money, the supply of it would be truly exogenously determined: No person, group, organization, or institution would have the means or the opportunity to alter the size of the money supply. Output would in turn be determined by that exogenous variable.
Again, the website is www.ajustsolution.com.
liberty student:Right, but it is no crisis.
Absolutely not. Value statements are involved in every facet of life. Every action expresses preference and therefore value.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man:Well economics is not a normative science but I remember Dr. Salerno making an insightful remark 'No one is just an economist'
'No one is just an economist'
indeed
Laughing Man:Absolutely not. Value statements are involved in every facet of life. Every action expresses preference and therefore value.
yeaper
Re Joseph Bright, "...you seem to be under the impression that 'Austrian economics' is a poliitcal program..."
I'm thankful this thread has taken on a life of its own, but this is marked as unanswered, and I think I have answered it.
Replied to on page four of this thread. What I'm saying is that to transform the economy into an economy that would be consistent with Austrian theory would require changes to the present economic system (as a rough definition, the set of institutions via which production and exchange take place). Certain institutions would have to be greatly modified or done away with altogether. The only way to change the existing set of economic institutions is through political action of some kind. [Here's where the definition of the political process (from Warren J.Samuels's definition of "social power" as "the ability to effect choices") is very useful: The political process is the process of effecting choices for the community as a whole. It is organic. It is inherent in the existence of any formally organized community.] Presumably, Austrians aren't contemplating an armed revolution (though that would still be a political act), so some engagement with the political process would have to take place for Austrian theory to be instituted.
Now, I thought, mistakenly, that this forum was populated with libertarians. According to my understanding of libertarianism, some of the fundamental goals of it (as a general perspective) include ending management of the economy by government and/or a central bank, doing away with transfer payments of all kinds, and in general minimizing the impact of government on the citizenry. The idea I am proposing would accomplish those things. So would an economy organized on the basis of Austrian economics. So, when it comes to those goals that transcend the purely economic part of life, they can be accomplished by more than one set of institutional arrangements.
In general, life is about optimality problems: Which is the best option? It's almost never as simple as plugging some data into an equation and, presto, there's your answer, especially when it comes to effecting choices for the entire community. As has been noted on this thread, human interactions always bring up normative issues that must be taken into account. What's more, people will never have the same beliefs regarding the ethics that underlie our responses to those issues. Absent a necessarily universal ethic (its applicability to every human being cannot be coherently denied by any human being), we are left with, as Thomas Hobbes put it, a war of all against all, or, as Michel Foucault put it, an endless processioin of contests of power.
Stephen Yearwood:What I'm saying is that to transform the economy into an economy that would be consistent with Austrian theory would require changes to the present economic system (as a rough definition, the set of institutions via which production and exchange take place).
No third party is able to "transform" the economy in any desirable way. Changes must and will emerge naturally through voluntary transaction and mutually beneficial cooperation (trial and error). Austrians believe in spontaneous order and not in various forms of interventionism, in the labor market or whatever.
Stephen Yearwood:Now, I thought, mistakenly, that this forum was populated with libertarians. According to my understanding of libertarianism, some of the fundamental goals of it (as a general perspective) include ending management of the economy by government and/or a central bank, doing away with transfer payments of all kinds, and in general minimizing the impact of government on the citizenry.
We (as in libertarians) want to end the central bank and government intervention because these institutions are coercive and destructive (they are destructive because they are coercive). We don't want to replace coercive institutions with other coercive institutions. We don't sit around and try to figure out ways to manage the economy; in fact, this is we oppose.
Stephen Yearwood:In general, life is about optimality problems: Which is the best option? It's almost never as simple as plugging some data into an equation and, presto, there's your answer, especially when it comes to effecting choices for the entire community. As has been noted on this thread, human interactions always bring up normative issues that must be taken into account. What's more, people will never have the same beliefs regarding the ethics that underlie our responses to those issues.
This is not problem, it is a virtue. The vast array of human experiences and desires is what causes mutually beneficial cooperation; it's why some teach our children, why others manage banks, and why some clean our streets. These professions are all noble, but most of all, they're necessary. The very fact that people desire different things and have different philosophies is precisely why we don't want centralized institutions directing people and dictating what they "should" do. When left alone, they will organize and create a set of decentralized institutions which benefit them and don't infringe on the liberty of others. Your proposals are the antithesis of libertarianism.
Stephen Yearwood:I'm thankful this thread has taken on a life of its own, but this is marked as unanswered, and I think I have answered it.
No it's not. JosephBright answered your question.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Stephen Yearwood: Re Joseph Bright, "...you seem to be under the impression that 'Austrian economics' is a poliitcal program..." I'm thankful this thread has taken on a life of its own, but this is marked as unanswered, and I think I have answered it. Replied to on page four of this thread. What I'm saying is that to transform the economy into an economy that would be consistent with Austrian theory would require changes to the present economic system (as a rough definition, the set of institutions via which production and exchange take place). Certain institutions would have to be greatly modified or done away with altogether. The only way to change the existing set of economic institutions is through political action of some kind. [Here's where the definition of the political process (from Warren J.Samuels's definition of "social power" as "the ability to effect choices") is very useful: The political process is the process of effecting choices for the community as a whole. It is organic. It is inherent in the existence of any formally organized community.] Presumably, Austrians aren't contemplating an armed revolution (though that would still be a political act), so some engagement with the political process would have to take place for Austrian theory to be instituted. Now, I thought, mistakenly, that this forum was populated with libertarians. According to my understanding of libertarianism, some of the fundamental goals of it (as a general perspective) include ending management of the economy by government and/or a central bank, doing away with transfer payments of all kinds, and in general minimizing the impact of government on the citizenry. The idea I am proposing would accomplish those things. So would an economy organized on the basis of Austrian economics. So, when it comes to those goals that transcend the purely economic part of life, they can be accomplished by more than one set of institutional arrangements. In general, life is about optimality problems: Which is the best option? It's almost never as simple as plugging some data into an equation and, presto, there's your answer, especially when it comes to effecting choices for the entire community. As has been noted on this thread, human interactions always bring up normative issues that must be taken into account. What's more, people will never have the same beliefs regarding the ethics that underlie our responses to those issues. Absent a necessarily universal ethic (its applicability to every human being cannot be coherently denied by any human being), we are left with, as Thomas Hobbes put it, a war of all against all, or, as Michel Foucault put it, an endless processioin of contests of power.
Gettin' too high on your own kool-aid.
In this forum, we aren't entirely concerned with how a socialist business model would work. We see from the start that it is socialist, and that is why people don't really bother to analyze it any further.
Giant_Joe: In this forum, we aren't entirely concerned with how a socialist business model would work. We see from the start that it is socialist, and that is why people don't really bother to analyze it any further.
And as such, it is not a "new" idea.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
No we don't just dissmiss socialism outright. We don't hate socialism "just because". Socialists essentially hate capitalism "just because: We have more concrete reasons. We aren't zealots in that respect. The Austrian school is the originator of the calculation problem. Some of us here may dismiss you as a crank but others have asked you genuine questions. Ignore the hostility and focus on the productive posts.
Stephen you need to go up and address Lilburne's question, that starts to hit the root of the problem.
Stephen Yearwood:Replied to on page four of this thread. What I'm saying is that to transform the economy into an economy that would be consistent with Austrian theory would require changes to the present economic system
False. The current system is perfectly consistent with Austrian theory.
Stephen Yearwood:The only way to change the existing set of economic institutions is through political action of some kind. [Here's where the definition of the political process (from Warren J.Samuels's definition of "social power" as "the ability to effect choices") is very useful: The political process is the process of effecting choices for the community as a whole. It is organic. It is inherent in the existence of any formally organized community.]
False. Individual secession is not a political action.
Stephen Yearwood:Presumably, Austrians aren't contemplating an armed revolution (though that would still be a political act), so some engagement with the political process would have to take place for Austrian theory to be instituted.
Austrian theory cannot be "instituted". It is a method of study.
Your proposed system, rather than reducing government managment of the economy, increases said management to 100%. It vastly increases the impact of government on its citizenry.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
filc:No we don't just dissmiss socialism outright.
And who said we do?
filc:Stephen you need to go up and address Lilburne's question, that starts to hit the root of the problem.
As I already pointed out, Stephen has shown he is not interested in a discussion.
Spideynw: filc:No we don't just dissmiss socialism outright. And who said we do?
Don't be so confrontational. I wasn't referring to you.
Spideynw: filc:Stephen you need to go up and address Lilburne's question, that starts to hit the root of the problem. As I already pointed out, Stephen has shown he is not interested in a discussion.
It becomes less obvious when people admit their emotion. Stephen can easily ignore the hard questions and focus on people's emotional questions. IE the thread becomes cluttered and the specific, important, points are easily ignored. And again I'm not specifically talking about you, so calm down.
filc:Don't be so confrontational. I wasn't referring to you.
My apologies.
filc:It becomes less obvious when people admit their emotion. Stephen can easily ignore the hard questions and focus on people's emotional questions. IE the thread becomes cluttered and the specific, important, points are easily ignored. And again I'm not specifically talking about you, so calm down.
Oh, I didn't think you were. I was just pointing out that Stephen has consistently demonstrated a lack of interest in a discussion and I doubt he will address Lilburne's question.
Spideynw:I was just pointing out that Stephen has consistently demonstrated a lack of interest in a discussion and I doubt he will address Lilburne's question.
Yes thats sadly becoming apparent. He doesn't realize that we are trying to help him.
Stephen, you have given no indication thus far that you have even considered the possibility that your proposal might be faulty. You seem to believe that your proposal would "accomplish all those things" that it has set out to do. We have patiently, for seven pages now, explained why your proposal is impossible. And we haven't heard a legitimate argument from your direction. Rather than consider the possibility that your proposal may be flawed, your responses indicate that the problem lies with us. You seem to believe that you have brought your proposal to the wrong audience, that if you had only taken it to a forum "populated with libertarians", you may have received a much warmer response. I hate to break it to you, but this forum is filled with libertarians. Not the constitution-thumping libertarians who are ignorant of economics, mind you, but libertarians who derive their beliefs from an understanding of sound economic theory. The libertarians here do not hold their beliefs due to some whimsical desire to see less government intervention in the world, but because we understand the consequences of violent intervention in the market.
So you could take your proposal to a less economically savvy libertarian forum. You may there find the encouragement you are seeking. They may read your proposal and consider it plausible. And that would be reassuring. But it would be a lie. And to accept a lie because it is comforting to to one's view of the world is intellectually dishonest. It is akin to the child who stubbornly clutches to the belief in Santa Claus even while given evidence to the contrary, simply because the belief in a jolly fat man is more comfortable to their personal inclinations.
You should consider yourself fortunate that you have come to a place that won't just accept your ideas at face-value, and will critically examine them. A resource such as this forum is rare, and gives you the opportunity to understand the flaws in reasoning that led to certain mistaken conclusions; to learn from those mistakes and grow in knowledge and wisdom. If you honestly put forth the effort to understand where you have erred, rather than to seek reassurance from those less qualified to judge your works, you will be a better person for it. Detach your personal feelings from your work, examine that work with an critical eye, and do not overlook the wisdom and advice of others. Remember, "all of your failures are training grounds."
Here are my recommendations for further study:
A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Democracy: The God That Failed, by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
What Has Government Done to Our Money?, by Murray N. Rothbard
Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles, by Jesus Huerta de Soto
Best regards,
Bright