Becky Hargrove
Building a More Meaningful Level of Economic Freedom
Initial publication, 19 August 2020, The Intentional Marketplace,
monetaryequivalence.blogspot.com
Chapter 4 Intro
When it comes to how we work and make a living, we are free in many respects to choose where we go, and how we might tend to the processes involved. However, what does freedom mean, what is it worth, if existing institutions don't need our contributions, or perhaps can't provide sufficient support for us to remain fully responsible in society?
Until now, the most important freedoms appeared as though political. In The Rights of Man, for instance, the arguments of Thomas Paine were scarcely removed from a historical era which was still in some respects under the spell of kings. We now see that the intellectual rights Paine also assumed to be natural rights, were not as clearly delineated as others.
Otherwise, there might have been more serious debate before some rights in applied knowledge were removed from the public domain. There have been many times when governments gained additional strength by claiming applied knowledge rights once held by citizens, and then dividing the spoils with the special interests which assumed responsibility for skilled services production. Yet much of this was achieved in the guise of consumer protection, especially in the 20th century. Even though America's founders knew that freedoms could all too easily be lost, the context for greater clarity regarding economic freedom was simply was not there.
Many of us need economic options that nurture settings where personal resource capacity can be fully utilized. In such environs, we could potentially make the most of our economic freedom. But what if we lack sufficient instances where this is possible? The exclusionary nature of many towns and cities is not always immediately evident upon one's arrival. For that matter, many initially appear open and welcoming. In some instances it is only when new residents stumble in their efforts to maintain gainful employment, that local residents make it clear, perhaps a newcomer should not have come in the first place. Unfortunately, for those who lack certainty regarding reliable income, the search for fortuitous circumstance is by no means easy. Hence when I speak of a need for stronger patterns to secure economic freedom, I am especially concerned for those who search fruitlessly, in hopes of finding community where a full range of human potential is welcome.
Nevertheless, economic freedom is not generally framed as a societal striving to preserve positive freedoms. Perhaps for this reason, it is still too easy to legislate away the means by which we tend to productive levels of survival as a species. More often, the freedoms that remain - such as they are - tend to be framed in political terms, especially in the sense of law and order to stem the negative repercussions of those who abuse their given rights.
In particular, let's not assume that "planning" for positive freedoms would "ruin" free markets. It is only natural that humans approach market structure with personal intentions (hence the name of my blog). What is important in this regard, is when do someone's personal intentions affect the ability of other citizens to thrive? Indeed, some personal intentions become market structure which creates ripple effects all the way to general equilibrium level, such as intentions on the part of associations to limit supply side activity. Clearly, personal and group intentions can turn out to have good or bad ramifications, depending on how they are applied. Who is planning what at any given moment, and in what institutions do their intentions manifest? Given this reality, conserving spaces where the greatest number of citizens possible might remain free, can't simply be left up to chance.
It is troubling that we have few economic means to accentuate freedom as a positive concept. The lack of structure in this regard, leaves society little choice but to worry about the more negative aspects of those left behind. Alas, it takes planning to make room for positive freedoms, and this planning should not be confused with moralistic intentions or authoritarian "solutions". Nevertheless, the utilitarian goal of greatest good for greatest number, makes most sense in decentralized settings which do not impose a one size fits all approach on everyone.
When societies choose to pursue high income groups as the standard ideal of community formation, millions of others are left struggling to make the most of their own skills and resource capacity. Yet there is value in building community in more affordable ways. Doing so can free residents to do much more in life, not to mention the fact that community infrastructure burdens can also be lessened.
Only consider what happens when societies become disinclined to include many of their own citizens in routine economic activities. The result is often an informal or underground economy which exists just beyond the radar of the existing social norms. Importantly, once nations find themselves in such a position, by no means is it a simple matter to back up and start over. Since the majority of nationally recognized wealth is already configured and defined, efforts to reintegrate informal economies tend to disrupt these existing patterns. For the U.S. in particular, stronger economic patterns need to be established along formal lines, before countless smaller communities become lost to the larger economic whole.
The Lost Production Rights of Mutual Assistance
When we think of lost freedoms, our limited ability to provide mutual assistance may not be the first thing that comes to mind. Yet losses in this regard are beginning to add up, and they matter. When individuals face a lack of economic options in the workplace, that doesn't mean they automatically have a chance to return to a productive family and community life, instead. Hence our work spaces and communities are now full of challenges and unknowns.
Much that is positive about human nature, is not only expressed in our desire to pursue personal challenges, but also to share them in ways which contribute to our identity and sense of meaning. Monetary roles have helped societies in these challenges, because the use of money helped establish reciprocal patterns beyond our immediate families and neighbors. Toward this end, one could suggest that monetary roles contributed to our personal freedoms.
However, there is a problem for monetary representation in the present. In the past, we relied on money for primary means of goods trade between strangers. Over time, trade came to represent services as well, once exponential output provided sufficient income that strangers could provide mutual assistance in professional settings. The problem of late, is time based services dominance in relation to the discretionary markets of those original goods. Given what we expect to pay for many skilled services (in contrast with tradable sector good deflation), we now struggle to rely on originating wealth sources for further expansion in professional services.
Consequently, an evolution is needed in how we approach services generation. In order for many communities to thrive, citizens will need greater economic freedom to create useful services beyond their own immediate circle. Even so, this market expansion needs to occur without relying on complete levels of monetary representation. While money has served as the sole economic unit till now, extensive claims have been made on its general equilibrium potential. Since time is the most basic resource unit other than money, a time centered marketplace could encourage people to establish new patterns of mutual assistance which extend beyond friends and family.
Only consider that when societies lack freedom for economically based mutual assistance, people can struggle to tend to their own needs as well. Granted, what's at stake in this process is different from the work people are generally willing to assume in their own dwellings. What needs to be done in regard to the latter, is to make certain all family members retain the strongest economic connections possible in their own communities. Without these vital connections, too many family members may end up sacrificing their own personal freedoms, and in these instances societies often struggle to come to their rescue. For this reason, the main economic priority is for communities to create reliable patterns of mutual assistance which function at both social and monetary levels.
What we can provide for others outside our own immediate circle, is especially a matter of reclaiming production rights. Production rights for skilled services generation, is a prerequisite to mutual reciprocity on constructive terms. Rights of production involve doing, while our ability to choose a non passive state in community is closely linked to individual autonomy and personal agency. All too often, the emphasis on consumption rather than production rights - while important - results in further reductions in one's ability to care for others. In all of this, what we hope to produce is what we hope to create, and being able to do so is an important part of our own happiness. Indeed, production rights are integral to what we hope to become in society.
A marketplace for time value, would allow us to negotiate mutual preferences for personal assistance in ways that preserve not only autonomy, but also our personal boundaries. Even though freedom and free markets are associated with libertarian thought, in the past there was excess emphasis on what people deserved freedom from, rather than what people could gain freedom for.
In crucial respects the latter holds more meaning. For example, Richard Cornuelle expresses how "The lack of a coherent, comprehensive vision of voluntary community has forced libertarians, unnecessarily, I think, into an individualist emphasis, a suspicious aversion to any kind of collective activity beyond the commercial, in spite of the fact that the libertarian movement is, itself a voluntary collective with a strong sense of solidarity and remarkable power." How might libertarians ultimately respond? For Cornuelle also noted that "Now history is beckoning from a somewhat different direction, one that many libertarians will find forbidding."
Indeed, the present challenge is unfamiliar territory. Much prosperity has been built on the economic base of tradable sector growth in recent centuries. Yet today's non tradable sector dominance is a very different reality, and much of it has been generated in ways which not only create disequilibrium, but distort markets in terms of supply and demand. Today's potential for economic freedom includes the possibilities of new patterns for social engagement, to restore dynamism and long term growth.
Getting there involve plenty of discovery and exploration, before new versions of services generation prove viable. Atul Gawande understood well the need for personal autonomy, and yet In Being Mortal he wrote: "Having more freedom seems better than having less. But to what end? The amount of freedom you have in your life is not the measure of your life. Just as safety is an empty and even self-defeating goal to live for, so is autonomy...Whatever the limits and travails we face, we want to retain the autonomy - the freedom - to be the authors of our own lives."
Economic Freedom as Reciprocal Alignment
What makes reciprocal alignment for mutual time preferences so important? Without it, people tend to rely on financial and redistributive mechanisms which don't necessarily set up sustainable systems for services generation. In particular, when citizens try to coordinate time based services via widely diverse income levels, time management becomes increasingly difficult for those on the lower end of the wage scale.
Those who are self employed can sometimes coordinate a full range of time commitments successfully. However, many employees tend to lack sufficient options to manage time scarcity. While time arbitrage would function similarly to self employment, not everyone appreciates greater flexibility for time management if substantial risks are involved in maintaining steady income. Toward this end, participating groups would seek to reduce some of the greatest risks involved. In particular, incremental ownership is one of the best forms of protection, so as to keep monthly expenses for living necessities as low as possible.
Reciprocal alignment of time priorities would allow the services dependencies which societies face to become something else altogether: a direct source of wealth and future prosperity, which would further translate into potential for individual abilities and aspirations. Even though the societal temptation will always be there to organize services via redistribution or generational debt, a broader economic context is also needed - once which makes it possible for individuals to rediscover the reciprocity and mutual exchange they feel most comfortable with.
Economic Freedom Needs Coherent Structure and Flexibility
In the 20th century, the stability of reliable employment sources was too tempting for many to pass up. even though it meant giving up one's freedom to pursue personal challenges. Yet when the warnings went out of a changing reality, we were nonetheless informed there would be a silver lining. People would finally be free to choose their own entrepreneurial paths, once again. After all, it was only a century earlier that farmers questioned why people would willingly sacrifice their personal autonomy for a paycheck from someone else.
Of course one reason it has proven difficult to embrace those new freedoms, is due to the coherent structure that well compensated employment with benefits once made possible for our lives. Hence while millions now have greater freedom and flexibility overall, their own personal level of choice has yet to align with preferences and aspirations held by others. This lack of coherent structure in recent economic arrangements has led to considerable political fallout as well.
I continue to hope that time arbitrage might provide a structural approach to address these uncertainties. Even though future employment will lack the guarantees of yesteryear, new community forms of organization might still achieve economic stability and more reasonable levels of risk than many now experience.
Economic freedom needs context and understandable patterns, if it is to create productive and successful outcomes. Nevertheless, context depends on how patterns become utilized. As local communities discover scalable means (via increases in applied skill and knowledge), each community would develop its own unique approach. Much depends on activities which best support local group cohesion, how communities become defined, and other variance in human inclination. And while innovation is certainly involved, often it will be applied differently. Alberto Mingardi explains:
Innovation travels, so to say. It may be received differently in different contexts. Its success depends on the circumstance and on people's needs, more than the sheer brilliance of a certain invention or a given inventorIn the same post (which highlights Matt Ridley's How Innovation Works) Mingardi notes the importance of flexibility. For instance: Just as corrugated iron is important for "slums of expanding megacities, where property rights are uncertain", flexible building components would be needed for new communities which focus more on the priorities of shared knowledge, than specific geographical traits. Ownership in these communities would consequently be more closely correlated with reliance on group coordination roles, and also personal ownership in the manufacture of building components, and also personal ownership in their place based residence. One might think of these as movable ownership rights, just as Matt Ridley describes how corrugated iron could be readily dismantled and moved as needed: "It is one of the first things shipped into earthquake zones to provide shelter in short order."
Tangible Freedom Requires a Production Context
When people lack the freedom to pursue life challenges, some respond by withdrawing, while others become inclined to destroy what they can of the world around them. While these responses are quite different, both destabilize communities just the same. How can societies encourage substantive production rights for citizens - rights which lead to better destinies without doing damage to the outcomes others experience?
Even though it is common to complain about regulatory excess, we don't really understand the stories these regulatory losses tell, perhaps because their effects are now so vast. We consequently lack clarity, in what has actually taken place in what people once were able to do for themselves, especially since the process has slowly unfolded across generational divides. However, we have already discovered that attacking regulatory excess is generally not effective, when legislatures attempt to change these supply side restrictions one regulatory statute at a time.
For this reason, new communities would serve as a sort of time out from regulatory excess, without needing to directly confront the reasons those regulations remain there in the first place. In new communities, production context could begin as a clean slate, which does not need to insist or assume that new production means should make previous means unnecessary. Again, this is the case primarily in terms of time based services and housing, because these are the two areas which have become so exclusive they now lock out lower income levels in effective economic participation.
One reason hierarchical versions of services generation can feel oppressive, is that top down decisions re how individuals "should" relate to one another, sometimes miss the mark. Even more problematic is that when someone does complain, any followup response tends not to occur where problems originate. When does our behavior towards others become intolerable? Even an activity as seemingly spontaneous as authorship, suggests clues. For instance, in The Writing Life, Annie Dillard clarifies what personal freedom involves, given the realities of societal expectations:
Your freedom as a writer is not freedom of expression in the sense of wild blurting, you may not let rip. It is life at its most free, if you are fortunate enough to be able to try it, because you select your materials, invent your task, and pace yourself...The obverse of this freedom, of course, is that your work is so meaningless, so fully for yourself alone and so worthless to the world, that no one except you cares whether you do it well or ever.Perhaps the best thing to do when people fail, is to just encourage them to keep trying. Should individuals in new communities lose the willingness to reach out to others or encourage one another, it would be difficult for them to make real progress in the long run. In particular, everyone could benefit from flexibility in their own personal offerings, for after all, everyone craves differentiation and variety. Chances are, there is a tremendous range of knowledge and skill just waiting to be discovered, and some of it would come from places we least expect.
Production context could give greater meaning to the value of economic freedom. We need to sort through a wide range of market intentions in this regard to discover what could work. Otherwise, not knowing how one might face the future, can become downright scary. Indeed, the fear of not knowing, comes through in lyrics from decades earlier, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose". Willa Cather also echoed this sentiment when she wrote: "Freedom so often means that one isn't needed anywhere." If we keep reaching out to discover what is possible, there's a good chance that millions will ultimately benefit.
Freedom Includes the Purpose of Doing
The narrative of a consumer society was never really enough. For every consumer, there's an individual who seeks to express what the world has on offer, through the prism of their interpretation. Given the chance, each individual could create an inkling of supply side potential, no matter how simple one's offering might appear! And while efficiency is important, it exists alongside human values which are far more subjective. Hence efficiency may lose meaning when expressed in constant form, if only because of the rebellion of individual inclination. For instance, who among us imagines we've figured out what family members want from the grocery, only for someone to abruptly change their mind.
Each individual requires differing amounts of practical and experiential stimulus - not just in terms of consumption but particularly in production. Yet formal education does not differentiate well between the two, and students consequently receive insufficient emphasis on practical learning. One reason this matters, is that emphasis on doing via practical means, could allows individuals to more fully experience life in community, before experiential concepts become the major part of curriculum.
Instead, many students are exposed to experiential studies before they've gained sufficient life experiences (not to mention social graces) to understand them. Increasingly these experiential concepts are now wrapped up in ideological struggles as well. Worse, students without complete college educations are often expected to shift to practical activities indefinitely afterward, when otherwise many might have just begun to explore the world on experiential terms. Building a more meaningful level of economic engagement, should begin with mutual engagement in practical activities during one's youth, when those simple social connections can lead to more positive outcomes.
One's desire to contribute to society on meaningful ways, is closely related to personal identity and self respect. Ryan Avent In The Wealth of Humans, describes why the ability to shape our own destinies is so important:
people of all backgrounds seem to value narratives of personal ambition and responsibility. People wish to have control over their economic lives and to be seen as contributing both to society and the well being of their families. People desire agency. They do not wish to be forced into unpleasant work by the need to feed their families, but neither do they want to be written off as unnecessary - or assigned meaningless work as the price of a generous welfare check.Routine Economic Patterns can Increase Good Expectations
Societies could reduce economic uncertainties by encouraging continuous patterns for mutual engagement on economic terms. Such interchange would likely lead to more positive expectations of others on our part, and ultimately boost our own expectations for what we are capable of achieving.
Only recall how earlier forms of physical production included daily and ongoing personal interactions in communities of all sizes. Indeed, the direct activities of villagers in small scale production, centuries earlier, was largely responsible for the civility Adam Smith observed and celebrated in The Wealth of Nations. Alas, some of these earlier aspects of civility have been lost. For those of us of a certain age, once or twice weekly encounters among the shops which remain, aren't really enough.
Time arbitrage could present new opportunities for shared experiences in services generation. In some respects, these activities would be reminiscent of coordinated mutual efforts long ago. Even though though many skill sets are more precise and demanding in a modern era, we have scarcely tapped the potential of digital means for mutual assistance.
Freedom: Only for the Wealthy and Strong?
Why have many libertarians lost out politically - especially of late - in advocacy for free markets? While arguments for greater freedom remain common at an abstract level, such discussions could benefit from a more useful context - in particular one which embraces a full income spectrum. Thus far, however, few observers have engaged in constructive dialogue towards this end.
Instead, economic freedom is more likely to regarded as the province of the wealthy and strong. For the most part, free market persuasion which highlights lower income levels, notes how low income citizens benefit from free markets as consumers. While this is certainly true in the accessible output of tradable sector activity, the exclusivity of non tradable sectors is quite an exception. And when it comes to the production of applied knowledge, lower income levels are especially short on services production options.
It will be difficult to disentangle the political problems now developing, until nations take a more practical approach to their domestic supply and demand issues. Even though we are not all equal in skill, we each have the scarcity of our time in common. Another way of phrasing this, is that our existing time scarcity is the only way we are all truly equal. Since time is the resource we share in common, it is also our most viable means to regain equality of opportunity.
Bottom Up Reform for Economic Freedom
Even though adaptation to changing circumstance tends to have grassroots origins; as societies become more complex, many expect reform - if it happens at all - to be top down in nature. Nevertheless, top down attempts at reform are often resisted and sometimes ridiculed, especially by groups which don't stand to directly benefit. How to respond to the political gridlock of our time?
For one, it could helps to discern where we gain from productive economic complexity, and where in fact this is not the case. When procedures or requirements for getting things done become overly complex, they may actually detract from societal well being. However, this task is not as well suited to government activity as one might expect. Unfortunately, even the act of determining which regulations are overly burdensome or possibly restrictive, gets caught up in political differences of opinion. Who ultimately determines what regulations should remain, and who stands to benefit if they do? Centralized settings can only accomplish so much in terms of pleasing everyone, and the inability to do so gets in the way of the most apparent simplifications.
A grassroots approach could help bring much needed simplicity to the table, so long as it transpires in groups of a size that makes it feasible to start with a clean slate of mutual obligations and commitments. In decentralized settings, it would not be near as difficult to discern, whether desired amenities or additional obligations would mean more burdens than local participants are able to readily assume.
Preserve Free Markets. Create Anew, Where They are Missing
The free markets which have brought such wealth and prosperity, have come under increasing pressure of late, and by no means is it all from the left of the political spectrum. Ultimately, however, much of the current disruption stems from markets which were constructed so as to restrict production rights at the outset.
All too often, political constituents forget that vital markets in healthcare were initially limited, especially during the earlier years of the 20th century. Part of what's frustrating in this regard, are arguments that people deserve rights to healthcare. But rights to consumption are impossible. A more accurate interpretation, is that people should regain their right to produce healthcare services. Even though we are learning to use the digital realm for do it yourself preventative healthcare and more, this approach is not sufficient, nor does it provide the economic benefits that could be realized with a more dynamic approach to supply side production.
Healthcare markets which at times seem inexplicably missing in action, are also those where governments carries considerable responsibility for their costs, even though much of this activity is carried out by private interests. Still, it is misleading to assume that the nature of organizational problems stems either from public or private sources, because both have been responsible for arbitrary limits in participation and access. Also at stake is the fact that private enterprise in its present form is not well positioned to expand important markets where they are needed most. Hence non tradable sector private enterprise actually needs assistance, in the creation of services markets which are self supporting and independent of additional revenue sources.
The Importance of Applied Knowledge for Personal Freedom
Even a century earlier, freedom was a simpler matter than it is now, because one could still make a living with resources which were correlated with knowledge and skill at a fairly basic level. Much has changed, and even though intelligence is becoming increasingly important to maintain freedom in society, this reality has yet to percolate into the mindset of present day workplaces, where low skill workers remain at the margins.
How might we think about intelligence in relation to knowledge? In Big Mind, Geoff Mulgan considers origins:
There are many definitions of intelligence. But the roots of the word point in a direction that is rather different from these metaphors. Intelligence derives from the Latin word inter, meaning "between", combined with the word legere, meaning "choose". This makes intelligence not just a matter of extraordinary memory or processing speeds. Instead it refers to our ability to use our brains to know which path to take, who to trust, and what to do or not do. It comes close in this sense to what we mean by freedom.What we choose has been limited in part, because knowledge has yet to be utilized at an economic level in our peer to peer relationships. Fortunately, it is possible to make this approach a viable economic option in the near future.
Economic Freedom as Means to Preserve The Civilization We Know
Increasingly, classical liberalism is being exposed to attacks from all sides. Yet classical liberalism - given the chance - could apply mutual restraints more appropriately while preserving our rights to shape our own destinies. If classical liberalism is to survive the changing nature of our times, we might create more balance between our personal priorities and our natural desire to help one another.
We still have the ability to restore greater abundance and dynamism to all income levels. There is little need to allow the fears born of artificial scarcities, to rule the day. We could build an organizational approach where the purpose is to strengthen all citizens, so that individual members of society will not have to be dependent in ways that are demeaning to them. Interdependence is important, yet it needs to exist on terms which also allow for mutual respect and civility. Freedom should not have to be anything less. Hopefully there is still time to make the transition to a more dynamic economy, before the fears of the present undercut the wealth and prosperity of our times.
Notes
Paine, Thomas, The Rights of Man, (London: Coventry House, 1791)
The Lost Production Rights of Mutual Assistance
Cornuelle, Richard, 'The Power and Poverty of Libertarian Thought', The Libertarian Reader: Classic and Contemporary Readings from Lao-tzu to Milton Friedman, page 370, edited by David Boaz, (New York, NY: The Free Press,1997)
Gawande, Atul, Being Mortal: Medicine and What Matters in the End, (New York, NY: Macmillan Publishers, 2014)
Economic Freedom Needs Coherent Structure and Flexibility
Mingardi, Alberto, 'Innovation Travels', 18 August 2020, econlib.org.
Ridley, Matt, How Innovation Works and Why it Flourishes in Freedom, (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 19 May 2020)
Tangible Freedom Requires a Production Context
Dillard, Annie, The Writing Life (New York, NY: Harper and Row, 1989)
Kristofferson, Kris, "Me and Bobby McGee", Kristofferson, (Monument Records, Washington D.C., 1970)
Cather, Willa, O Pioneers!, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1913)
Freedom Includes the Purpose of Doing
Avent, Ryan, The Wealth of Humans: Work, Power and Status in the Twenty-First Century, page 220, (New York, NY: St. Martin's Press, 2016),
Routine Economic Patterns can Increase Good Expectations
Smith, Adam, The Wealth of Nations, 1776.
The Importance of Applied Knowledge for Personal Freedom
Mulgan, Geoff, Big Mind: How Collective Intelligence Can Change Our World, page 14, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2017)
