Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy

OUR CONDITION (AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS, LIBERTARIAN)

(important)

We still own the biz cycle which is, as far as I know, the only substantial question of 21st century economics, and what we should be investigating and in the paradigm we should be investigating economics: the behavior of sustainable networks of specialization and trade.

What we don’t do is call AE the Economics of Rule of Law of Reciprocity, or the Economics of Natural Law, or Operational Economics – we’d get farther with it if we did. These are descriptive names, not historical (arbitrary) names.

When AE is framed as the economics of rule of law by natural law, then it is no longer an isolated fringe discipline, open to ridicule – and at the same time, but the one and only economics of that system of rule of law upon which western civilization originated, developed, depends. It frames (correctly) opposition paradigms as violations of reciprocity and natural law. It correctly identifies the production of commons by contract, even competing commons, rather than monopoly (majority rule) common (authoritarian) with the central problem of free-ridership remaining, but providing a market competition for free ridership via the state. And as such Rule of Law, AE, contractual commons, solve the problem of the malincentives of the state, by constraining commons to those of *demonstrated interest*.

Unfortunately Rothbardians (including me as a Hoppeian) forever tainted AE – so much so that before the last crisis (before economics lost its influence to politics once again) leadership in the community (George Mason) considered changing the name once again (AE was originally disparagingly called Jewish Economics just as capitalism was a disparagement and ‘propertarian’ was a disparagement). And they should have – and we should.

Like Randians, Rothbarians and many AE advocates are attracted to it, ignore the methods and findings of all other economic paradigms, fall for the sophomoric apriorism et al (german and jewish sophisms of Kantian rationalism and rabbinical pilpul), and are obsessively defensive of that malinvestment, in which they have constructed and invested their identity and moral framework, like any cult does. So many of these people are no different from the Marxists. Because these folk have treated AE as the economics of the private property commune, just like communists the economics of the common property commune: the pretense that an territory, polity, and economy can survive without the production of sufficient commons to (a) deny all opposition, (b) attract and retain sufficient population, (c) attract and retain sufficient revenues, to retain, population, defense, territory, political control sufficient to produce the institution of property and it’s juridical defense.

We do not have the choice of determining the commons of polity we wish to have – the market does. The ideal isn’t possible. There are no borderlands to settle on behalf of an empire, that provides territorial defense at no cost in exchange for settlers to occupy it any longer. One must produce sufficiently competitive commons to maintain control of a polity on the terms one desires, or that polity will not survive competition in the market for territories and polities – just like every single other human organization from the family to the empire.

You do not determine the scope of property necessary to preserve cooperation in lieu of violence, nor the scope of commons necessary to produce a polity that can survive competition in the market for polities.

The market does.

So you must start at the market demand and work backward to the polity that can successfully obtain and hold territory against competitors in the world at this moment and any future moment.

Otherwise you’re a simpleton: a useful idiot to those who would undermine the only civilization ever to produce rule of law: European.

And why I need state such an obvious series of necessary dependencies to a political ideology pretentiously advocating the logical contradiction between an operational law, attendant operational economics, dependent upon the economic productivity for its justification, and that of an ideal polity independent of market forces is simply beyond me – and a measure of what lengths the human mind will go to in order to escape reality on the one hand and free ride upon the production of commons by others, on the other.

There is only one source of Sovereignty(Upper), Liberty(Middle), and Freedom(working), and that is the rule of law by the natural law of reciprocity, reciprocally insured by every man capable of bearing arms, in role of individual, sheriff, warrior, and judge of the commons, measured by the economics of rule of law of reciprocity, with the scope of property consisting of anything over which man can engage in dispute.

Everyone else is engaging in yet another sophomoric pseudoscientific effort to assist in undermining the only people every to produce any order of sovereignty for all but the few, in all of human history.

Thanks.