Jim Hlavac
| Politics Home The Practicalist The Socialist Era Politics Re-Explained Fundamentals Domestic Affairs Economic Theory Foreign Affairs Libertarian Ideas Political Theory Philosophy Royalty & Theology |
Economic Theory
| Economic Theory |
We are all merchants. Not a person alive doesn't have something to
sell -- his or her labor. We are renting it and selling it and trading it
constantly -- all of us are engaged in constant merchant activities. It
was Marx who set merchants aside as a class to be scorned and even
eliminated. When the government becomes the owner of everything
then they are merchants too. No matter how you cut it being a
merchant is inherent in the existence of mankind. No matter what
thing is made, by what ever means of production, owned by
whomever, when it comes time to get it into the hands of individuals
a merchant relationship is created.
Therefore the question is not one of whether we should have
merchants, only should we allow individuals to make their own
economic decisions, or should we have the government control the
economy. And once again, the more individual merchants and less
state merchants the wealthier and freer a people will be.
A merchant is of course always a boss over whom he hires to
work for and with him. Whether individual or state owned enterprise
-- the merchant function requires a number of people to work
together in some fashion. There is no inherent adversarial
relationship between merchants and employees. A merchant who
desires to stay in business and keep the people he trained must keep
on a friendly relationship with his employees. He has absolutely no
incentive or purpose in oppressing his workers. Indeed, his incentive
and purpose is to have the best relationship possible.
Nor is there an inherent adversarial relationship between
merchants and society. A merchant must keep his dealings honest and
reasonable, he must keep his premises in good repair, he must
endeavor to be helpful to all who come to his place of business. It is
in his interest to cooperate and join with all society -- that is what
will profit him the most.
Karl Marx saw only the very real adversarial position between
royalty and individuals. But he confused merchant royalists and
kingly royalists and religious royalists. He saw them as different
because they do seem so very different. But just as feudal lords kept
their people subjagated as his divine right, as the industrial revolution
came about and the lord moved along with the technology in
developing factories, he kept subjagating people as his divine right.
There is nothing inherent in a the relationship between merchants
that make one want to oppress another merchant. It is only the
divine right of kings which leads to repression. The bigger the power
of the king to interfere with merchants the easier it will be for him.
And the larger the technological prowess of the society merely affords
the king a bigger chance to oppress people -- merchants and workers.
Whether the king is called king or commissar doesn't change the
equation. In fact, merchants and workers are actually joined together
in the inherent adversarial relationship between individuals and the
divine right of kings.
How does a king, or government, benefit over other merchants?
Through the use of force and law. How does a merchant benefit over
other merchants? By providing a better set of goods, services,
working conditions and salary. If a merchant can only make money by
doing good how can he be adverse to society?
That there are crooked merchants there is no doubt, and even
mean merchants, and oppressive merchants -- but there are also
crooked, mean and oppressive government enterprises -- because the
bad lies in the person, not the system. What Marx was wrong about
was were the adversarial relationship really lay. And he was wrong
about what contained the bad things -- people contain bad things --
not natural systems. He put the bad into merchants' hands, when
rather we are all merchants -- and we are not all bad. The bad lies in
some, whether they are private or government.
sell -- his or her labor. We are renting it and selling it and trading it
constantly -- all of us are engaged in constant merchant activities. It
was Marx who set merchants aside as a class to be scorned and even
eliminated. When the government becomes the owner of everything
then they are merchants too. No matter how you cut it being a
merchant is inherent in the existence of mankind. No matter what
thing is made, by what ever means of production, owned by
whomever, when it comes time to get it into the hands of individuals
a merchant relationship is created.
Therefore the question is not one of whether we should have
merchants, only should we allow individuals to make their own
economic decisions, or should we have the government control the
economy. And once again, the more individual merchants and less
state merchants the wealthier and freer a people will be.
A merchant is of course always a boss over whom he hires to
work for and with him. Whether individual or state owned enterprise
-- the merchant function requires a number of people to work
together in some fashion. There is no inherent adversarial
relationship between merchants and employees. A merchant who
desires to stay in business and keep the people he trained must keep
on a friendly relationship with his employees. He has absolutely no
incentive or purpose in oppressing his workers. Indeed, his incentive
and purpose is to have the best relationship possible.
Nor is there an inherent adversarial relationship between
merchants and society. A merchant must keep his dealings honest and
reasonable, he must keep his premises in good repair, he must
endeavor to be helpful to all who come to his place of business. It is
in his interest to cooperate and join with all society -- that is what
will profit him the most.
Karl Marx saw only the very real adversarial position between
royalty and individuals. But he confused merchant royalists and
kingly royalists and religious royalists. He saw them as different
because they do seem so very different. But just as feudal lords kept
their people subjagated as his divine right, as the industrial revolution
came about and the lord moved along with the technology in
developing factories, he kept subjagating people as his divine right.
There is nothing inherent in a the relationship between merchants
that make one want to oppress another merchant. It is only the
divine right of kings which leads to repression. The bigger the power
of the king to interfere with merchants the easier it will be for him.
And the larger the technological prowess of the society merely affords
the king a bigger chance to oppress people -- merchants and workers.
Whether the king is called king or commissar doesn't change the
equation. In fact, merchants and workers are actually joined together
in the inherent adversarial relationship between individuals and the
divine right of kings.
How does a king, or government, benefit over other merchants?
Through the use of force and law. How does a merchant benefit over
other merchants? By providing a better set of goods, services,
working conditions and salary. If a merchant can only make money by
doing good how can he be adverse to society?
That there are crooked merchants there is no doubt, and even
mean merchants, and oppressive merchants -- but there are also
crooked, mean and oppressive government enterprises -- because the
bad lies in the person, not the system. What Marx was wrong about
was were the adversarial relationship really lay. And he was wrong
about what contained the bad things -- people contain bad things --
not natural systems. He put the bad into merchants' hands, when
rather we are all merchants -- and we are not all bad. The bad lies in
some, whether they are private or government.