Skip to main content

Is Money the Root of All Evil?

The vilification of money and the unequal possession thereof is merely the tip of the iceberg of imminently-recognizable disparities among individuals. Money, oddly enough, serves merely to express individual preferences across regular intervals of time, rendering possible and powerful the dynamic demands of all participants and the benefits of mobilizing to match those demands.
As it turns out, money most clearly reveals the costs of behavior, further motivating merit-based transactions. Without the expedient and efficacious tool of money, civilization regresses to a state of uncertainty and imperfect matches.
The civilization becomes more insensitive to its losses spawning from lower-level discrimination, while an agrarian or barter-style system of exchange, heavily limited by the double-coincidence of wants, restricts the reach and convertibility of goods in foreign markets, thereby inherently impeding relationships and hardening the civilization’s isolationist posture.
Of course, this not only causes the tragedy of inefficient, underperforming markets, which are sure to lift off through specialized trade and comparative advantage, but rather enfeebles the community in terms of intercultural relations and awareness and its capacity to endure supply shocks.
The popular phrase goes, “Money is the root of all evil.” This shorthand verse grossly misrepresents 1 Timothy 6:10, wherein the Bible states, “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.”
One must be sure to recognize the distinction here uncovered between money as the root of all evil and the love of money as its root. Remember the words of Aristotle from the Nicomachean Ethics: “The life of money-making is one undertaken under compulsion, and wealth is evidently not the good we are seeking; for it is merely useful for the sake of something else.”
This compulsion, if founded upon voluntary exchange, can yield handsome sums of wealth only by the mutual satisfaction of personal demands. This produces a non-zero-sum game in which all parties perceive advantage.
It is only by the mechanism of theft or coercion that zero-sum outcomes, or even net-negative results across the longer term, are even possible.
The condemnation of money, or such tools employed for exceptional achievement, serves only the shortsighted interests of a specific group of persons, historically clergy or statesmen who stand to gain from clever, compelling redistributions of wealth under the name of welfare, righteousness or social justice. Ultimately, these are merely euphemisms for selective privilege absent accountability.
Let us voyage into an example of such a civilization: Cambodia during the reign of the Khmer Rouge. The Khmer Rouge, a French name for Red Khmers, was a Communist regime that designed their own micro-utopia in Cambodia from 1975 to 1979. As it turns out, their ideal civilization was a dystopia rooted in agrarian socialism which resulted in the mass genocide of 25 percent of Cambodia’s total population, approximately 2 million people.
As it turns out, this power-play was the consequence of the appeal of government-guided mercantilism whereby the principal agenda, equality for the majority, translated to an elimination of money, a shortage of medicine, and caloric and dietary restrictions which led to cases of people eating spiders to survive.
Ultimately, this is how designs of equality and social justice end and there exists no sound theory by which man can make men equal. Any attempt to achieve this end is deliverable only at the expense of the individual, his potential and ambition and the expedient progress of his predecessors.
It is not to even the playing field, but to make life lousy and play-less, all while the prevailing governing body lays claim to any gains to sustain its monopoly over the social good.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. It was a war whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes