Thursday, March 21, 2019

A Parallel?



At the Mises site, there is published an article by Hans Hoppe, entitled “Banking, Nation States, and International Politics: A Sociological Reconstruction of the Present Economic Order.”  I focus on one section:

While it is in everyone's economic interest that there be only one universal money and only one unit of account, and man in his pursuit of wealth maximization will not stop until this goal is reached, it is contrary to such interest that there be only one bank or one monopolistic banking system. Rather, self-interest commands that every bank use the same universal money — gold — and that there then be no competition between different monies, but that free competition between banks and banking systems, all of which use gold, must exist.

While reading this, it struck me: there is a parallel to this and the medieval order – a period in history when law was relatively libertarian and governance was quite decentralized.  I took a crack at capturing the parallel, with changes noted in red:

While it is in everyone's political interest that there be only one universal ethic and only one ethical yardstick, and man in his pursuit of liberty maximization will not stop until this goal is reached, it is contrary to such interest that there be only one king or one monopolistic state. Rather, self-interest commands that every king use the same universal ethic natural law defended by the Church — and that there then be no competition between different ethics, but that free competition between kings and states, all of which use the Natural Law defended by the Church, must exist.

To summarize my modifications:

Economic = Political
Money = Ethic
Gold = Natural Law defended by the Church (the Universal Ethic)
Unit of Account = Ethical Yardstick
Wealth maximization = Liberty
Bank = King
Banking System = State

My modified paragraph describes quite well the medieval order.  So it got me to thinking further…the context of Hoppe’s words is his description of the development of money in the market; this was driven by the desire for maximizing economic efficiency.  In my modified paragraph, I find maximized liberty.

In neither case do we find perfection – either a perfectly efficient market or a perfect liberty. Nothing done by imperfect humans can be perfect.  But in both cases we find maximum choice, maximum possibilities.  In both cases we find examples of the maximum (economic efficiency / liberty) afforded to man on earth.

There is a story to be told here.  Maybe someone has written it; if so, I welcome a link.  In any case, I will think about this some more.

2 comments:

  1. The ultimate parallel is found in the nature of God. This is where Plato did have some insight. Reality is made up of universals and particulars. God exists in this same way the universal of the nature of God. There is one God. There are not multiple gods. However, God does exist in particular persons; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

    Sounds to me like created nature and its efficient operation fall in line with the nature of the Creator. Cool stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  2. By coincidence Lew Rockwell just published a link to a video in which Hoppe makes the case for a 'Europe of a thousand Lichtensteins rather than a single European Union'. His idea is that if you're going to have political control then you want hundreds of tiny competing political microstates which exert constant downward pressure against regulation and taxation. He points out that Germany and Italy prospered, grew fastest, and were most civilized when they were decentralized. Under EU domination economic growth in the EU has stagnated just as civilization has radically declined.


    https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/hoppe-on-hangar-subtitled/

    ReplyDelete