Skip to main content


I reserve the right to be wrong.

PEACE = Absence of violence or aggression.

JUSTICE = People getting what they deserve.

ORDER = Rule of law.

Is it just me or are peace, justice and order three descriptions of the same thing? And are they not the parent and child of the condition called liberty?

That is to say, the condition of complete rights (freedom, power) over everything that you as a person - as a moral agent - own. That logically means that you do not own anything that other persons - other moral agents - own and so have no freedom or power over what others own.


Peace and liberty? Peace seems to be about the simple quiet of the non-initiation of violence of any kind. Perhaps the courtesies and forms of politeness and avoidance of conflict are the peaceful part of our social activities.

Liberty might promote peace insofar as living in liberty makes it disadvantageous to do violent things, where today it is often advantageous to be aggressive or cruel, such as when people riot in protest at something or when police clamp down on such protests by shooting or beating the protesters.

The absence of violence or aggression includes lesser aggressions like coercion. Don't coerce people into things. If you intimidate or shame another person into doing something you are an aggressor, and don't be surprised if a free society finds you to be a disturber of the peace!


Why should liberty create justice? If justice really is people getting what they deserve, then how does liberty cause that, and how does it absence make it less likely or impossible? .

Now injustice takes in mandatory education, paying taxes, going to government prisons, the military, the police, and let's not forget those monopolists and controllers of justice itself, the government court system and its opaqueness and inaccessibility to all but the rich.


Since these three terms are interchangeable, it's difficult to say unique things about them all. Order and peace in particular are almost literally the same thing in two words. Orderliness can be seen as everything moving along smoothly, as everybody getting along, and disputes being resolved quickly and efficiently when they arise.

Contrast this with the human response to government regulation, which is either actual chaos (Haiti and pretty much every low-income country in the world) or paralysis (like the UK utilities, trains, and finance sectors).

The chaos in poor countries takes the form of people resolving disputes through violence, including but not limited to assault, rape, murder, theft, even civil wars and genocide... not quite a gleaming endorsement of the Workers' Paradise.

So the condition of liberty gives rise to those three wonderful - if synonymous - things, and they in turn reinforce liberty.

On the next Ecomony Blogtime; Matt arrests the development of Africa to bring you some fascinating words from our sponsors!


Popular posts from this blog

What Lingos Are Most Similar to English, Though?

Commentaryism - The Death Toll of Capitalism

How many people have died because capitalism exists? How many would still be alive if it had never existed? Let's dig in!

We will take two approaches over the course of this blog post by looking at the the death tolls attributed to the word in its broad popular definition - everything socialists don't like - versus the toll that fits the definition offered previously on this blog.

By the same token I will not lay any outsized figures at any other mode of production's door except where that mode of production demonstrably caused the problem that killed people. It's political ideologies that really matter here, and this is where the first big problem with even trying to lay a specific body count before capitalism runs into problems - there is no political ideology called capitalism.

Now then, Alfonso Gutierrez says in a comment thread that "capitalism and free-markets have murdered billions of people" which is a risky claim at the …

Trickle-down Economics as Economic Theory in Reality

I watched an interview with Deirdre McCloskey on the Youtube channel of the Institute for New Economic Thinking. [1]

After doing so I contributed to a comment thread, recreated in full below, wherein a chappy who claimed to be an economist tried to convince me that trickle-down economics actually is a serious thing after all. This was in response to my posting a link to Thomas Sowell's article The Trickle-Down Lie, and I am so far unconvinced by the tale the economist in question spun for me.

He cited a paper from the 90's as his example, and I entreat you to have a gander at its abstract and compare that to trickle-down as described by David Stockman in his interview with William Greider on supply-side economics. [2][3][4]

Steve Horwitz isn't in love with the phrase, but offers a decent definition;
It’s hard to pin down exactly what that term means, but it seems to be something like the following: “those free market folks believe that if you give tax cuts or subsidies to …