The Pricing Mechanism is the core of the free market. Voluntaryism is the heart of the free market. Prosperity and happiness are the end results from the free market.
I do not make such claims out of a self-absorbed desire to be right; I make such claims from the understanding of the nature of the Pricing Mechanism, the morality of Voluntaryism, and the empirical evidence of the free market's ability to improve conditions.
Will you blindly disagree with me? Or will you attempt to understand and refute my claims?
Will you blindly agree with me? Or will you attempt to understand my claims and act upon the conclusions you derive from the same understandings?
Will you blindly pass by this opportunity to learn and think in favor of a mindless and careless life, affected by the actions of others and taken advantage of by those who claim to know what is best for you? Or will you fight for your own decisions, your own ability to choose what is best for yourself and suffer the consequences as a reasonable and righteous human being?
This is my challenge to you; think for yourselves, and fight for what you know is right from a true understanding of the realities we all face daily. Don't take anyone's word as the truth -- understand things for yourself!
Obviously it is a good thing to think for one's self and attempt to understand concepts in a logically consistent manner. Most people would even claim that they do think for themselves. I would bet that this article will come across as an insult rather than a challenge to most. Regardless, on to my argument.
ReplyDeleteMost people wouldn't lose too much sleep at night if they had a disagreement over economic policy. Many people WOULD have a problem, however, if the discussion was concerning morality. Most people consider themselves moral human beings, and therefore the argument from morality seems to be the best way to frame the discussion. That is why I find the "Pricing Mechanism" argument futile. Of course, with a solid knowledge of the pricing mechanism you can truly understand WHY the free market is the most "effective" form of societal interaction. But most people don't care about the effectiveness of society. If they did, we wouldn't have a government!
On the other side, everyone cares about morality to some degree or another. I think most rational people would say we need a moral society (as opposed to an immoral society). Now, we have some footing because it is very logical to see that our society is NOT moral. Voluntaryism arises much more naturally by using the argument for morality. If we always attempt to frame discussions using the argument for effect, we won't get anywhere. The point is that the things government does are morally inconsistent and logically fallacious. But only from this moral standpoint can we see that government is a moral evil, not a moral good. THEN, we can sit down and talk about how to build a productive, effective and moral society.
If people do think for themselves, then how could this be an insult to them? I gave a question for any possibility, and since no one can possibly understand exactly, thought by thought, what anyone is stating, the attempt to understand is important. I structured the wording of this post very carefully (especially once my final edit went through for the fix to grammar.)
ReplyDeleteFurther, your second paragraph of your comment, Mr. Anonymous, is inconsistent with your first. If it would be insulting to insinuate that people do not think for themselves when they believe they do, then would it not also be insulting to insinuate that people are not moral when they believe they are? Regardless though, I addressed both sides here, the economic and the moral sides. If anyone wishes to discuss any side, then they are welcome to do so, no matter which is a better way to frame the discussion for specific people. Further STILL, if people cared about being moral (and right) then we wouldn't have government.
I would actually argue that people care equally about economic realities and morality, and such care about both aspects leads to the use of government with the intentions of expanding the pie as well as making sure everyone gets what they deserve. It is when either, or both, of these aspects are misguided that the use of force is advocated. Both sides must be addressed, not just one.
I would also like to note that we have footing from an economic standpoint as well, as it is very logical to see that our economic system is not stable or sound. Voluntaryism follows the moral argument, while the allowance for the pricing mechanism to work unhindered follows the economic argument.
"If we always attempt to frame discussions using the argument for effect, we won't get anywhere."
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here, but it seems that any argument made must be effective, otherwise it is a waste and we won't get anywhere.
"The point is that the things government does are morally inconsistent and logically fallacious. But only from this moral standpoint can we see that government is a moral evil, not a moral good. THEN, we can sit down and talk about how to build a productive, effective and moral society."
Things government does are economically inconsistent and logically fallacious. But only from the logical economic standpoint can we see that government is a drag on society's ability to provide value, not a frame for stability and growth. THEN we can sit down and talk about how to conduct our own individual business as we see fit, creating moral and prosperous spontaneous order.