Let us say that economic models fall along a spectrum from a totally centralized to a totally decentralized economies. The question is, where on this spectrum do we see the greatest source of wealth for human prosperity? Well, this question is answered in turn by a prior question of whether wealth is of a bounded quantity, or unbounded quantity.
If wealth is bounded, and there is only a finite amount of wealth to go around in this world, then the haves are always taking from the have nots. This is a great injustice, and the only just economy that provides prosperity for the most people, even though it is quite limited, is a centrally planned economy that shares out the wealth equally amongst all.
However, suppose wealth is unbounded. Suppose new wealth can be created at any given time to improve the lot of man. Then, a more decentralized economic model is more just than a centralized model because the decentralized model produces more wealth and benefits a greater number of people. In fact, a centralized model in this case becomes inherently unjust because it is artificially and needlessly restricting how much wealth can benefit mankind, and thus leading to greater poverty and misery.
What is the nature of wealth, bounded or unbounded? Within the modern paradigm of materialism, the answer must be bounded. Matter abides by strict conservation laws, and while resources may get shuffled around, there is no such concept of "creation." As such, within a materialistic worldview, the most just economy is a centralized economy. Therefore, capitalism is unjustified within a materialistic worldview.
On the other hand, if we adopt a worldview that includes intelligent design, then creation becomes a live option. We gain the metaphysical possibility of wealth generation. How so? According to ID, intelligent agents are defined by their ability to originate information, not merely pass it from one location to another. Consequently, it is only within an ID friendly worldview that capitalism gains the necessary metaphysical properties to make sense of an decentralized economic model based on wealth creation.
If wealth is bounded, and there is only a finite amount of wealth to go around in this world, then the haves are always taking from the have nots. This is a great injustice, and the only just economy that provides prosperity for the most people, even though it is quite limited, is a centrally planned economy that shares out the wealth equally amongst all.
However, suppose wealth is unbounded. Suppose new wealth can be created at any given time to improve the lot of man. Then, a more decentralized economic model is more just than a centralized model because the decentralized model produces more wealth and benefits a greater number of people. In fact, a centralized model in this case becomes inherently unjust because it is artificially and needlessly restricting how much wealth can benefit mankind, and thus leading to greater poverty and misery.
What is the nature of wealth, bounded or unbounded? Within the modern paradigm of materialism, the answer must be bounded. Matter abides by strict conservation laws, and while resources may get shuffled around, there is no such concept of "creation." As such, within a materialistic worldview, the most just economy is a centralized economy. Therefore, capitalism is unjustified within a materialistic worldview.
On the other hand, if we adopt a worldview that includes intelligent design, then creation becomes a live option. We gain the metaphysical possibility of wealth generation. How so? According to ID, intelligent agents are defined by their ability to originate information, not merely pass it from one location to another. Consequently, it is only within an ID friendly worldview that capitalism gains the necessary metaphysical properties to make sense of an decentralized economic model based on wealth creation.
"within a materialistic worldview, the most just economy is a centralized economy. Therefore, capitalism is unjustified within a materialistic worldview."
ReplyDeleteMaterialism is a bad ideology, but hyper-individualistic, decentralzed, anti-social democratic capitalism, which has led to vast inequalities such as in the USA, is good?
"if we adopt a worldview that includes intelligent design"
This sounds like the old 'idealism' vs. 'materialism' discussion from 100+ years ago.
Is intelligent design a worldview or just part of a worldview, iow, a theory people hold rather than a (designed) thing itself?
"only within an ID friendly worldview" - what does this actually mean?
Economics already studies things that are designed, built, made, constructed, traded, etc. by intelligences. But the intelligent design movement doesn't talk about designers, while economists do on a regular basis. Are you suggesting talk of designers should become part of the IDM?
What makes you think a theory called I+D oriented mainly towards origins of life and biological information should be transferred into economic sciences? Why then has George Gilder's not come up with an intelligent design economic theory, since he co-founded the Discovery Institute?