As far as I can tell, pretty much anyone with christian ethics, with an IQ over 85, can contribute to society if we assist them by providing an economy that allocates work to them.
But the idea that we need a MONOPOLY form of economy, instead of different ECONOMIES for each class, is rather stupid in retrospect.
The laboring classes clearly don’t benefit from a market economy the same way that the middle, upper middle, upper, and elite classes do.
It’s not clear at all that the Upper and Elite classes actually participate in the market economy, or merely exploit positions that assist them in collecting rents on the distsribution of fiat currency (shares in the productivity of the labor, working, middle, and managerial classes).
Under the monarchies we did not try to create ‘one way’ of organizing society. In part because they had no alternative. But as long as the government doesn’t institutionalize involuntary transfers, there is no reason why we can’t end this enligthenment era fantasy of making the entirty of society operate like its middle class.
Q&A: CURT: DIFFERENT ECONOMIES FOR DIFFERENT CLASSES?
—“Could you elaborate on the concept of different economies for different classes? Does this mean laws can be enforced differently on different classes?”—John Zebley
No it just means that the working and middle class and upper middle class market of voluntarily organized production does not account for the various commons produced by the people who make possible the voluntary organization of production (the market) by NOT engaging in criminal, unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial actions – and paying a high cost of doing so. Nor does the middle class market account for the vast extractions performed by the upper and elite class market which appears almost entirely extractive, and of trivial if any value. The working and laboring classes and the underclass contribute mostly by consuming (creating demand), policing each other, policing the commons, and serving in various hazardous capacities. But this is costly for them. And if they have access to consumption but not access to production then the market is ‘failing’ to pay them for what the market needs of them: behaving in the interest of the market. The same is true for the upper and elite classes most of whom benefit from tax revenues of questionable if not negative value, and the financial classes who benefit from our archaic liquidity distribution system in which they actually provide zero if not negative value.(really).
SO that may be a lot to grasp. But the classical liberal economic system – as well as the keynesian and new keyensian, fails to account for externalities paid for by the underclasses, and rents privatized by the upper classes.
The point is not so much that we need markets, but that by cherry picking what we measure, we legitimize the positive externalities of the middle class market, but fail to compensate the lower class market, and unjustly compensate the upper class market.
So it’s not a matter of different law. It’s a matter of insufficiently accounting for the very different inputs and outputs of the different classes.
I mean the whole world knows the middle classes generate prosperity. That’s settled science. But that doesn’t mean the middle class market and profit and loss account for the full inputs and outputs that make the middle class economy possible.
The Propertarian Institute