Enjoyed the article, very thorough and nuanced!
But I have a question -- would imposing one particular type of money on an economy, and then removing any ability for the society to avoid using that money, and then steadily devaluing that money to almost zero -- really count as "economic freedom?"
Imagine if, instead of steadily changing the amount of money units in circulation, the government steadily changed the definition of a unit of measurement like a foot or the minute. This year -- a foot is 12 inches and a minute is 60 seconds. But next year? A foot is 11 inches and a minute is 55 seconds.
And these changing definitions steadily went on and on. And when feedback loops came back to try to bring balance back to the system, because contracts are getting screwed up, surveys are incorrect, and all of us live in larger and larger houses and are working longer and longer hours every year without changing a thing -- the government steps in, and imposed an iron economic hand to keep the whole thing floating. To me, that's not even close to economic freedom.
I think that economic freedom works great as long as the system is allowed to balance itself, which means using a resource based money and allowing the system the freedom to choose whatever money it wants.
Gresham's law, that bad money drives out good, is certainly a problem. But few recognize that Gresham's law only runs in this direction when the market is broken because a monopoly on money has been imposed on it. In the absence of a money monopoly, the absence of legal tender laws, then good money drives out bad. It's like a chemical reaction -- it can run in either direction depending on the circumstances.
Again -- great article, I enjoyed it!
Thanks for the thoughtful response!
I'm not claiming to have workable answers... at best, I can point at some of the things I see as potential pitfalls.
Economic freedom is an interesting idea... I tend to get blocked by exploring "whose" freedom. One person's freedom might be the next person's idea of "repression." Sure, we can say "everyones" but how do we reach consensus on that? Or DO we reach consensus? Again, not saying I have the answer...
I'm not claiming to have workable answers either ;-)
I think the idea would be to not allow repression. But we have to be very careful about our definition of repression, because responding to claims of "repression" is usually how freedom is smothered.
Our concept of freedom has been diluted down to nearly non-functional by what I would consider to be goal seeking logic and philosophy. Usually trotted out to justify buying one person's vote with someone else's money or freedom.
I actually agree with probably all of the problems you see. It's just that, to my way of thinking, their roots go back to things other than economic freedom.
Consensus is difficult. At best, I think we should hope for a sort of oscillating or revolving consensus that steadily tries (and fails) to reach equilibrium -- fails because equilibrium is always moving, especially for a restless, inventive creature like Man, but if we want a stable system, then we have to allow it the freedom of movement to never stop falling back towards equilibrium.
But -- I have concluded that the only way this can occur is if we allow groups that have incompatible demands to peacefully withdraw from interaction with each other. The right to peacefully withdraw is what brings balance to society. If we forbid this, if we lock two groups in a room and only let them out once they reach an agreement, then the team that "wins" is the team that proposes the most extreme demands and is the most militantly resistant to compromise, because by refusing to compromise they can force their opponents to give more ground.
And that's what's behind our politics of extremism today. So what options does that leave us?
Like I said -- not like I have the answers either.....