rkm website: http://cyberjournal.org
Begin forwarded message:
From: Robert ZukowskiDate: 5 October 2012 20:59:22 GMT+01:00To: Richard Moore <•••@••.•••>Subject: Re: Foster Gamble responds to rkm…
Hi Richard,I understand that you are trying to build a culture or spirituality for your utopia presented in “Escaping the Matrix”. I was also a great fan of laissez-faire and “Austrian” economics. I know the pain. Those myths were debunked by Anthony Migchels and his friends: http://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/
Foster:3) You condemn me for advocating “laissez-faire economics.” Laissez-faire means “allow to do.” I am all for allowing people to buy, sell, exchange…as they wish – as long as they are honest, keep their agreements and do not violate any other’s rights to the sanctity of their person or property.
From a spiritual perspective this laissez-faire economics is nothing more than traditional worship of a golden calf. This is simply a fascination with money and power. IMO sick fascination and justification of usury. It appeals to the lowest human instincts. For this reason it is so attractive. An economy is not an ideology or a science. It is a natural, organic process including the voluntary, un-coerced exchanges of millions of individuals making free choices.
NO. We should start with definitions.
Economics, then, will study: firstly, the constituent relations of the members of Christ, who compose the family; secondly, the science of the production, distribution and exchange of natural wealth, in view of securing that sufficiency of material goods which is normally indispensable for the virtuous life of members of families; thirdly, the auxiliary art of the manipulation of money or artificial wealth, which is meant to facilitate families in procuring by exchange the above-mentioned sufficiency.
He was obviously inspired by Thomas Aquinas. His definition is different because he was Christian.
Your definition results from your perception of human existence.You assume:1. dominance of monetised “market” economy over gift economy– OK – this is your ideological assumption; and2. that humans express themselves as sellers and buyersis earning or spending money really a goal of life? – OK – this is your ideological assumption.
In the context of money spending this belief is a basis of consumerism. IMO miserable consumerism. In the context of earning money this belief is an element of ancient Mammon cult. I do not like this god; and3. individuals make free choicesIndividuals are not free, they are victims of ignorance, media manipulation, etc. This assumption is a mistake.
One of the greatest myths is that free-market capitalism leads to monopolies, but that is not what history shows. We have been duped into mistaking state-intervention, managed markets and crony deals for actual honest voluntary exchange. Monopolies depend on the state for enforcement. The free market allows true competition to provide alternatives when prices get too high or service is not optimized.
History teaches us otherwise. Rev. Fahey was obviously closer to the Truth.
I don’t advocate unregulated markets. There would be clear rules against fraud, counterfeit, breech of contract, sales of stock you don’t own etc. – in other words making money honest and contracts accountable. Individuals would be personally liable. But no one would be centralizing control of the economy – which is unnatural and has always led to disaster.
History teaches us that Mammon worshippers can “convince” political power to regulate markets in a way suitable for Money Power and its industrial puppets.
Did you have a chance to study organisation of MIR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obshchina), traditional Russian organisation of communal life?
They did not need to get a mortgage to buy a house. Everybody in the community helped to build one. I heard of a house which was destroyed in fire and rebuilt by neighbours. It happened in Poland/Bialystok (Orthodox Christians) in the 90s.
Their spirituality may be interesting. Why did these people support each other for centuries?