7. That power and responsibility are complementary.
8. That the economic responsibility of economic power (or control of value) is taxation.
9. That just taxation must therefore rest upon the same basis as the control of value, namely, land-area, population and time.
10. That under democracy effective effort is directly proportional to inducement.
11. That the tokens of value, put forward as inducement should then be incapable of partial repudiation, or debasement.
12. That the tokens of value, or currency, must therefore bear an integral relationship to total basic value, and can only be finally determined by the product of the same three factors—land-area, population and time—as modified by the cost of order.
A dynamic[1] theory of economics may now be assembled as follows:
The normal human effort toward ampler freedom, being a constant expression of energy in the medium of matter, the value arising from this effort can only be stated mathematically in terms of population, area and time.
Whether conceived as freedom to move, or as a flow and counter-flow of effort induced by the certified right to command, at any time, relatively equal effort in return for effort expended, effective economic value can only be measured in a definite region of equilibrium, or self-imposed order, in which the pro rata responsibility for the cost of this order has been definitely apportioned with relation to population, area and time.
If effort, and the resistance of the area in which it is exerted, are stated in comprehensive measurable terms,—population, area and time,—a mathematical resultant is obtainable
- ↑ The word dynamic is employed in preference to kinetic. It has, for one thing, a deeper-sunk niche in our comprehension. In modern scientific terminology the word dynamic includes both statics and kinetics; and we shall have to consider both in economics since we have money and interest, wealth and income, potential effort and effective effort. The word dynamic should also be employed as a tribute to Jevons, the English mathematician and economist, who would undoubtedly have amplified his dynamic conception of economics if he had enjoyed the advantage of being involved in the apparent chaos and the tremendous potentialities of democracy.
