Page:David Atkins - The Economics of Freedom (1924).pdf/225

 

Chapter X

Scope of the Dynamic Theory

If, as already asserted,^[1] democracy, self-imposed order, or what scientifically we might call national equilibrium, is a basic condition of measurable economic value (just as the respective masses and rotary velocities of the earth and moon are the basic determinants of mundane and lunar values), it follows logically that since national conceptions of order, even under self-determination, are notoriously different, then various bases of national values are correspondingly different. As a consequence, national units of value, despite edict or fiat, can have no relationship or equivalence, such as the international minded political-economist thinks of as normal.

If, however, some artificial relationship is maintained, resting upon edict or convention, it means only one thing—that we are trying to express the values of autocracy and democracy in the same terms, very much to the disadvantage of democracy.

Under similar celestial conditions we would have to imagine Atlas and his nameless confrères functioning as organ-grinders instead of pedestals, and endeavoring to keep their respective planets in tune for the sake of individual advantage. The various values resulting would be, at the best, a measure of their discretion. Celestial values, however, remain relatively constant because they rest on equilibrium—on self-determination—not on temperament, edict or convention.

Returning again to earth, if by edict, or fiat, a relationship is fixed between various national units of value, in terms of gold, we are forced to admit regretfully the existence of an economic hierarchy—vague, unconstitutional and brought to focus only by the self-interest of the few more powerful as they emerge from the struggling mass of contestants. With out animus, consequently without guilt, and often lacking any

1. See page 135 et seq.

195