Friday, August 10, 2012

Panarchist Welfare Economics

           As a write-in candidate, a political independent, and a gradualist market panarchist, I believe that competition in all markets should be promoted, especially the markets for civic ethics and political representation.
 The following is an explanation of four sets of conditions which are asserted by the First Welfare Theorem to be necessary (given a certain set of assumptions) to achieve a minimally efficient distribution of resources; as well as a defense of the sets of civic and fiscal policies I would prescribe to realize such a situation under conditions of maximum individual liberty, and in a manner that is sufficiently socially desirable.

          The set of assumptions consists of 1) the existence of economic scarcity, and 2) local non-satiation (that is, non-satisfaction) of preferences.
To minimize the negative effects of economic scarcity, I would support reforms to eliminate all institutional structures supporting unnatural and undeserved monopolies and oligopolies in all markets and industries.
To minimize the negative effects of local non-satiation of preferences, I would recommend that individuals consider choosing to practice moderation, temperance, self-control, self-deprivation, self-denial, and asceticism whenever possible.

The first set of conditions consists of the ability to rank preferences. I feel that two additional conditions would help to realize – and augment the effects of – the primary condition of preference-ranking ability. These conditions are full information of preference-ranking, and liberty to act upon the personal ordering of preferences.
To achieve full information of preference-ranking and freedom to act upon personal ordering of preferences, I would
1) promote the notion that civic-ethical and market values are subjective;
2) support reforms which would maximize voters’ ability to rank preferences regarding political representation (such as the institution of ranked-preference voting systems);
3) support the maximization of the enlightenment and information of voter consent to representation and delegation of powers (through non-institutional measures such as encouraging the establishment of consumer- and citizen- awareness and advocacy agencies; and through institutional measures such as supporting reforms providing for A] the institution of mutual privity of consent to and recognition of contractual agreements between voters and representatives; B] the abolition of secrecy in voting systems and in government, and the public disclosure of voting results; and C] the abolition of favors for special interests, pandering, bribery, and other forms of undue influence on independent voter choice);
4) support reforms which would be conducive towards establishing a stable yet dynamic catallactic civic-societal consensus on standards of uncoerced consent to – and sufficient information regarding – the repercussions associated with the making of social, economic, and civic decisions, such as becoming party to contracts and becoming subject to political-representational and other hierarchical civic relationships;
5) support efforts to uphold and augment the rights to A) peacefully speak, transmit speech, believe, and express oneself without credibly threatening or causing immediate harm or defrauding another; B) defend oneself and others in the presence of immediate harm or threat thereof; and C) full information of the rights of juries and of the accused; and protection of such rights as fundamental and inalienable; and
6) support reforms which would uphold the freedoms to profit, lend, borrow, gift, trade, barter, share, purchase, sell, and ascribe value to goods and services.

The second set of conditions consists of establishing a dynamically complete system of markets, and minimizing externalities. I feel that to fulfill these conditions would necessitate numerous commercial, monetary, budgetary, taxation-related, and financial reforms.
 To fulfill these conditions, I would
 1) support reforms eliminating negative externalities such as systemic risk, moral hazard, and social cost (by instituting fee-for-service models, compartmentalizing risk, and urging safety and discretion);
 2) support reforms minimizing positive externalities such as free-rider problems (by permitting and promoting minority-unionism and members-only collective bargaining);
 3) support reforms making transaction costs (referred to as “friction”) minimal, negligible, and / or negative (by prohibiting usury, fractional reserve banking, the use of debt as a medium of exchange, and speculation without possession of full assets; and by promoting consumer patronage of credit unions, Mutualist banks, full-reserve banks, and zero-interest lenders rather than patronage of interest-rate-manipulating lenders such as pernicious and easy-credit lenders); and
 4) promote the notion that efforts to affect conservation and moderation of consumption of resources should be preferred to maximizing the efficiency of potential consumption thereof.

 The third set of conditions consists of the establishment of perfect price-taking behavior, such that no actor takes up enough of the market to significantly affect prices.
        To help perfect price-taking behavior, I would 1) support reforms to minimize market distortions such as disproportionate influence on price (by eliminating all institutional structures supporting unnatural and undeserved monopsonies and oligopsonies in all markets and industries); and 2) promote the existence and practice of polyopsony in all markets and industries.  

         The fourth set of conditions consists of perfect and complete competition – and competitive equilibrium – in all markets.
      I would assert that all goods and services which are typically provided by government (including defense, security, justice, and political representation) are commercial and market-oriented in nature; in that they are industries and markets, and in that they can be – and / or are (in other times and at other places, for example) – provided by some other actor or actors.
         To perfect and complete competition for the privilege to represent voters, I would support reforms which would
     1) place strict limits on the finance of political campaigns under monopoly government;
     2) permit the unlimited finance of political campaigns under conditions of competing government;
          3) facilitate candidates’ and parties’ access to polls, ballots, and debates;
4) institute consensus-based federalist, republican, and / or democratic forms of government;
5) provide for a more complete separation of powers and a more effective system of checks and balances between the branches of government;
6) restore dual federalism, augment the rights of local and subsidiary governments and governmental agencies, and permit secession and confederation;
7) invoke the Interstate Commerce Clause to justify the use of federal power to abolish federal and state territorially-monopolistic jurisdictions (effectually abolishing state borders);
8) urge states and their subsidiary governments and agencies thereof to consider extending the options of citizenship and provision of services to denizens residing and traveling in nearby jurisdictions; and
9) permit individuals to choose civic agencies from among sets of agencies competing in given territories, regardless of where individuals are located and without being required to move or travel given sufficient geographical expansion of market coverage.

In addition to establishing a consensus on informed consent to civic relationships, I would also support establishing a consensus which is more or less uniform across trading cultures on standards of 1) commercial and merchant law; and 2) uncoerced consent to – and sufficient information regarding – the repercussions associated with the making of social, economic, and civic decisions, such as becoming a party to contracts regarding political representation and socioeconomic hierarchy.

I would add that a system of competitive government would necessitate inter-governmental adjudication and dispute-resolution, as well as the resolution of disputes between individuals and their governments by some – but not necessarily (and preferably not) always the same – independent, fair, neutral, and uninterested third-party arbiter or arbitration agency.
Such a system of private law and security would likely cause and necessitate the practice of potentially perpetual and infinite appeals to a series of independent arbiters; any perceived semblance of finality only reflecting contemporary, recent, and / or sustained trends in economic, social, and civic ethics.
Through making economic, social, and political choices with fully-informed and enlightened consent, citizens – as consumers of security, defense, justice, protection, etc. – would be free to boycott and engage in cartelizing in the market for political representation.

In summary, given the assumptions of economic scarcity and non-satiation of preferences, I believe that a Pareto-efficient outcome which is minimally economically efficient, maximizing of individual liberty, and sufficiently socioeconomically just and equitable, is possible, provided that
1) preference-ranking is fully-informed; 2) there exists a dynamically complete system of markets; 3) externalities are minimized; 4) price-taking behavior is perfect; and 5) there exists perfect and complete competition – and competitive equilibrium – in all markets and industries.

As such, my primary objectives in this campaign are to
1) promote the notion that goods and services typically provided by government are forms of commerce which exist in a market;
2) support individual civil liberties and basic freedoms of the marketplace;
3) establish voluntary and consensus-based accession to and abolition of political agreements (for voters, politicians, and governments alike);
4) permit the mutual and independent choice from among competing arbiters, with sufficient preference-ranking ability and information, and given some widely-accepted consensus on systemic civic and economic standards, with potentially perpetual infinite appeals to a series of independent arbiters;
5) support the right to act, vote, buy, work, et cetera according to one’s own personal decisions and preferences (especially when they are informed, and provided that any externalities they cause are compensated-for);
6) support the right to pursue restitution for harms and benefits caused by externalities;
7) support the minimization of transaction costs and externalities (through Austrian-School and Mutualist banking reforms);
8) promote the moderation of consumption (especially as preferable to economic efficiency);
9) promote natural and deserved competition and collaboration over institutional and artificial collusion, oligarchialization, and monopolization in the provision of goods and services in all markets and industries (including – but not limited to – arbitration, political representation, security, currency, and business and labor and representation thereof);
10) promote a system of delegation of political power which is primarily derived from the rights of the individual, the locality, and the sufficiency of competence of subsidiary agencies;
11) support minimizing unnatural societal distortions and compromises which arise from excessive imposition of social culture, economics, and civics upon one another; and
12) support the right of individuals to boycott and petition competing governments to resolve past and non-institutional exploitation (such resolution being conditional upon sufficient sustained popular consumer demand).

For more entries on justice, crime, and punishment, please visit:

For more entries on free trade, fair trade, the balance of trade, and protectionism, please visit:

No comments:

Post a Comment