Anarchism (?

Libertatis quilibritas

Homogeneity and heterogeneity in the field of economics

The term homogeneity is usually applied in the field of physics and it means invariance under certain mathematical transformations. In other words, a mathematical field is homogenous when it is equally distributed in space and time. By a simple analogy, we can ask whether a certain characteristic, for example income, in the field of economics could be equally or unequally distributed between the members in a society. Of course we all know that today, as in the past, the distribution of wealth between people is unequal, with few people owning most of the wealth. Could all people receive an equal amount of money, and would this be fair? Perhaps income homogeneity is not the most just distribution of global wealth. Then which is? I would say a normally distributed heterogeneity of income and I will explain right away.

Normal distribution
A normal distribution is a mathematical function with applications in many scientific fields. In physics it shows how the intensity (amount of photons) of radiation in the universe is distributed for certain wavelengths since the time of the big bang. The characteristic of such a distribution is its bell shape. It is called Gaussian thanks to the mathematician Gauss who invented it. Its values start from zero or a certain value, get larger and larger up to a point, and then the curve fades to

infinity. This way the universe can handle its total amount of energy without this energy getting infinite or being zero.

Cosmic background radiation

Global income per capita distribution, for the year 2009

The last two diagrams are mine using data from Wikipedia. They show a histogram and the corresponding normal distribution curve. Everyone can see the unfairness of this distribution, since there is a huge concentration of people in the area of small income, as well as a threefold gap between a working, a middle and an upper class. So here we may pose the following question: Which are the right values for a more uniform distribution of global wealth, and which is the most suitable political system to impose this distribution?

Nolans chart
The following charts were made by Nolan who developed them to illustrate that libertarianism, which might be regarded as the modern political system closest to anarchy, represents both economic and personal freedom, in contrast to left- wing, which, according to Nolan, advocates only personal freedom, and right- wing, which advocates only economic freedom:

Nolans chart 1

Nolans chart 2

Despite the fact that definitions of left and right are highly subjective in politics, the most fundamental factor is the amount of government control over human freedom of thinking and acting. Furthermore, Nolan reasoned that virtually all political action can be divided into two broad categories: economic and personal.

A normal distribution of income

A revision of Nolans chart: According to Nolan personal freedom is analogous to economic freedom, which means that personal freedom can grow to infinity. A more realistic graph is that of a Gaussian curve, where economic growth helps personal liberation up to a point after which overconsumption and speculation turn against personal freedom. So the real problem is to define the parameters that maximize both personal and economic freedom without disrupting regular social life.

In Nolans thinking, in a libertarian society personal freedom can grow side by side with economic freedom to infinity. This is what I would call Nolans ultra- market catastrophe. Because as we move from a primitive situation where freedom has no political meaning, we become free more and more till a turning point where economic freedom acts against personal freedom. This is not absurd because an uncontrollable market will sooner or later take over personal freedom in the name of profit. Economic freedom cannot grow without some restrains, even if these restrains come from the market itself. A market without control is just a financial bubble growing, collapsing, and repeating itself. But the market is a part of a state, a gathering of people for a certain financial cause. So the fundamental dipole is between personal freedom and state control. We can again use a non- linear comparison between these two aspects of social life. Personal freedom gets strengthened by some amount of state control, up to a point beyond which this relation is reversed. In this manner we can say that there exists a maximal freedom, a minimal state but also a best amount of freedom and a corresponding best amount of state.

The platonic ideal and the five states

In a primitive society people may be free but they dont know it because they dont have an ideal regarding freedom. This ideal can be cultivated only in organized societies where freedom is understood relative to civil rights. Plato believed in the succession of five types of state: timocrasy-oligarchy- democracy- tyranny- aristocracy. Timocracy means state of honor, where, in this primitive society people give value to the law of the strongest. Next is oligarchy, the state of the few, where some people gain material wealth and use the army to impose their power. Next comes democracy, after a revolution of the repressed people. But the problem of democracy, according to Plato, is the misuse of freedom that leads to exaggeration and abuse. This chaotic situation which democracy dissolves into can then be controlled only by the wise ones, the philosophers, the aristocrats, those that hold the best.

As we see, the previous Platonic comparison fits well with what goes on nowadays. In our times, democracy is abused everyday by money prophets and speculators. This supposed economic freedom is in fact a tyranny which leads to revolts and austerity measures. What we really need is not more freedom but more social education about what freedom is. What we need is aristocrats in a modern sense, technocrats with a new philosophy about economy and what a modern state could be like.

Relations of power vs. relations of information exchange

Since antiquity, societies have been based on the dipole master- servant. This juxtaposition can be explicit or hidden in the form of modern financial transactions. Despite the progress of technology and human spirituality, all financial efforts are led to capital assimilation instead of diversification. Consequently if we regard our planet as a closed system of resources, the deliberate scarcity of products creates artificial wealth but also real poverty. Economy is all about politics and politics is all about control. What we really need is not a change of financial means but one of political destination. The internet and information technologies in general can help a lot a well- informed society on a collective and personal level. This way, relations of power can be replaced with relations of information exchange as the glue connecting the members of society.

Economic singularity
The term singularity is used to express a unique event which marks a paradigm shift, a change in attitude and in the way of thinking. It was used by Ray Kurzweil to denote the progress of information technologies. It is a turning point where artificial intelligence grows with an accelerating rate. The same could hold true for human intelligence and civilization in general. This could be called a cultural singularity, including an economic one. But this sort of transformation is impossible with the present degree of social awareness. Because we need much more than crowd behavior and selective enforcement of the law in order to reach the unique individual and the singular state. The economic and political singularity will occur in a society where human relations will be based not on authority but on ideas. This is why we need to overcome our profit- oriented selves for the sake of a more sustainable economy and society.

The meaning of anarchy (?)

Primitivism Natural freedom. No state. Law of the jungle. Pack behavior. Non- monetary. Resourcesgathering economy. No individuality. Aristocracy Status freedom. War state. Law of honor. Political oligarchy. Gold- based economy. Heroic individuality. Imperialism No freedom. Colonial state. Constitutional laws. Slavery and religious imposition. Centralized monetary system. Crowd behavior. Profit- oriented individuality. . . . . (?) Political freedom. State non- intervention. Collectivity. Problem- solving laws. Technocracy. Anti-monetary. Recourses-based economy. Universality. No masses.
Indicative stages of human political evolution: The present one could be identified with imperialism, although some progress has been made in terms of human emancipation.

Anarchy is a notion recurring with different interpretations in different social contexts through the ages. For a communist it would mean a collective life away from capitalist employers, after the supposed great battle of the classes, while for a libertarian it would mean liberation of the person through free market processes. For a simple person it may simply mean chaos. But in fact it means just a new stage of political life, a next step in human civilization, with more

sophisticated means of production and more humanitarian and ecological ways to distribute their products. Under this interpretation, by means of repetition, anarchy is a new principle or, by a method of exhaustion, a non-principle. Groundless though it may seem, modern economy is more technology-oriented than ever, and as technology may be heading towards a singularity, inevitably, the way we see and treat ourselves and the environment will change too, in every aspect of life. So let the news be known because ignorance is the worst enemy.