Anarchy

---

Its easy to create absurd images of anarchy in one’s mind, crazed bomb throwers are popular images but mobs of looters are also a favorite characterization. What is the reason for this negative view? What is the alternative image?

Anarchists are generally depicted as people who oppose the state which gives them the persona of people who hate organization. Perhaps a more correct assessment would describe them as people who object to the rule of law; this being the primary function of the state and the primary way they are pictured by their detractors.

If it is the legal apparatus that most irks anarchist, why is this? What is wrong with the status of a law-abiding citizen at peace with the state? Is this not what Jesus wanted?

To simply pass of anarchists as enemies of the state is to over-simplify their position. It would be just as wrong to suggests those who oppose totalitarian dictatorships are opponents of the state. The opposition to the state by liberals only exists insofar as the state is totalitarian.

Anarchist oppose regulation. They do not do this because their deepest desire is to run amok. If anarchy in the negative sense does exist or manifest itself, it is to demonstrate the limitations of the legal framework model of social organization. It is fair to ask what actually are the alternatives that confront the casual observer? How many options has he or she to consider before taking up the mantle of anarchy? We have mentioned it is the legal view of social organization that anarchist opposes. They do not accept order can only come through law and if anything, believe law will ultimately produce conflict and social division, as law is never impartial.

Law is not a natural phenomenon, it is man made and must reflect the prejudices and values of the law-maker.

Law of necessity treats humanity as a hive insect. Society is more about relationships than duty and procedures. But, take away law and what is left? How do we administrate a population without recourse to the law? This is where the popular imagery of anarchy breaks down. One picture is of the deranged individual the other is of a mob. Neither really speaks of a person without the law at least not in anything like a positive way.

The truth is neither the individual or the mob is even a good characterization of a human being, we need our fellowman to properly survive as a human being. The individual is not the opposite of the group nor is the group the opposite of the individual, though this is how they are often posed. A mass of humanity is simply a lot of individuals. In both cases we are faced with individuals without any means of creating order. The state tries to do this by invoking law, but this may create as many divisions as it heals.

The imagery of the anarchist is imagery supplied by those who fear a free citizen. The imagery is based on the assumption that if the elites do not control the peasantry they will return to a state of nature. Anarchy is the denial of this. But this begs the question: “If we are not governed by law, what is the default setting?” 

Anarchists believe this is the market. Why this is so, is because mobs are self-destructive, and individuals cannot survive in the human sense of the word. At some point people need to eat and obtain assistance in building shelters and acquiring clothes. At some point a market has to emerge. 

Oddly, what harms a market is the same thing that harms it when elitists rule. This is why if elitism was truly eliminated all the problems that plague markets would also vanish.

A market is a group of producers who come together to exchange complementary goods and services. We are not talking about a free market here, we are talking about a real market or to better differentiate the two, a positive market.

If P1 produces what P2 cannot use then they are not complementary. P1:P2 must co-exist within an environment in which the products of each complement each other. P1 produces z0 and P2 produces z1 because this is more efficient that P1.2 producing z(0,1).

That is specialization increases productivity so complementary production with trade benefits all members of a market.

Anarchy is simple the rejection of a command economy run by elites, to whatever extent or degree this may be. Anarchy is the desire to produce in the most efficient way possible. This requires the adoption of Utilitarianism.

There are only two choices to choose from, one is anarchy and the other is liberalism or what is sometimes called legalism. We are either ruled by law which means the imposition of elites and experts onto the body politic, or the market. 

These are the only options available to us. God created reality and he Created it in such a way that right and wrong are clearly delineated.  The choices come down to giving control to an external agent or living in compliance to an objective standard. The market is the only way to create a non-specific administrative agent free of human bias. In this sense the choices come down to being ruled by politicians or moral law.

The political option is the state which anarchy rejects. The other option is anarchy, but anarchy is not a real option unless one is willing to subject oneself to moral law. This may seem to give rise to a third option, rejecting both the state and moral law. This gives us the classical view of anarchy as a wild bohemian tossing bombs into everything good and decent. This is not anarchy it is simply criminal behavior and far from eliminating the state ensures its continued existence.

The market is the only viable option if one rejects the authority of the state. Once more we must stress that we cannot choose a market that necessitates the states, the choice if a choice it is, is counter-productive. The free market is not sustainable without the authority of the state. Only a positive market enables us to wean ourselves off the dictatorial interventions of the state.

The free market is considered to be the most powerful social technology available to humankind, yet it has not solved the problem of unemployment, debt or inflation, or things we will not go into here.

The power of the free market is said to be its reliance on the invisible hand. However, the free hand has always been supervised. Despite the assurances the market will sort things out on its own, governments still feel pressed to intervene. If the invisible hand was as powerful as its supporters say, why has it not gained autonomy from the state?

If the most efficient business is the one without government regulations back why have not the efficient businesses not made governments redundant?

Regardless of the theoretical assertions it is extremely difficult to imagine capitalism existing without government regulators, not so much regulating the business side of things perhaps but restraining those who would tar and feather many of our prominent business leaders, and run them out of town on a rail, were it not for the benevolent oversight of the state.

Let’s be honest; unions were not developed as a way to protect the sanctity of the market. It is very difficult to see 5000 study workmen taking abuse from a portly entrepreneur because the unfettered free market would produce the best possible outcome.

This reality is looked at for two reasons, capitalism needs the state and no amount of assurances to the contrary alters the fact the private enterprise system exists only because the public sector protects it as the public's expense.

If the free market would be effective if the state was abolished, the free market will never be effective because capitalists will not consent to the elimination of the state. 

Positive Markets can and will overcome the public sector because positive markets do not require public sector intervention to exist.

Positive markets transform the public sector by transferring assets from the public sector to the grassroots organizations of the positive market. 

Positive markets assume jurisdictional authority over the physical assets of local and regional governments, social goods to be provided through the market.

Positive Markets are composed of between 3 and 15 persons. Any product or service provided by the free market or public sector can be provided using the positive market. Public goods such as policing and health care and education can be provided using the positive market, and with the same facility conventional goods and services are.

​Positive markets can be registered as a charitable not-for-profit corporation. Registering markets as a not-for-profit will facilitate operations, for the time-being. The market will operate with the fewest disruptions if legitimized in the eyes of the state.

Every member of the positive market owns one voting share. Common Shares allow the member to vote in elections and on policy initiatives and also to a share of the assets of the organization if they were sold. However, positive markets are never sold or liquidated. The assets of a positive market can be transferred to a different sector, but positive markets never become non-viable.

​Positive markets issue Preferred Shares as a form of voucher-based currency. Preferred Shares represent the equity of the market and are issued based on the accumulated assets of the market. Thus, positive currency is always fully backed and never generates inflation. Nor do positive markets produce or use interest bearing debt nor inflation.

Positive markets are as varied as the goods and services people need. Positive markets are set up and expand using positive funding.

Positive markets work best with an average 12 persons, but the actual number is not important. The number is relevant only in terms of the groups capacity to perform its function.

Positive markets naturally create organizations free of social costs. 

Caring for the planet is an economically measurable activity. Positive markets add value to the planet and the value can be measured. Capitalist enterprises may claim to be making a profit when in fact liabilities are being externalized. Double entry bookkeeping permits the formation and externalization of liabilities and often encourages it. Perhaps a lawsuit waits in the wings or an employee has made a choice that will bring the company down. The accounting of a business is never accurate in terms of real costs. No company measures the pollution they create or adds this cost to the price of their products. But these are real costs.

Positive markets generate currency as required, they do not use the assistance of either banks or bureaucrats. 

Capitalization is achieved through Positive Funding. There is more than one way for this to happen.

In this scenario members sell their assets to the positive market and receive in payment, preferred shares; they receive equity in exchange for their assets. Equity is a financial vehicle used to express value. A piece of equipment sold for $500.00 is an asset worth $500.00 and therefore represents $500.00 worth of equity.

Equity is represented in the positive market by preferred shares (₧). An Exchange that receives an asset valued at $500.00 is able to issue 500 preferred shares valued at $1.00 each. These are allocated to the member who provided the asset. Preferred shares have economic value and can be exchanged for goods and services. Preferred shares represent a fully backed currency and used as a unit of value in all economic transactions.

Christians are required to divest themselves of personal wealth and yet they are required to be doers of good works. This includes caring for their families. The only way these parameters can be satisfied is through the formation of a positive exchange. As was said personal property required for the care of oneself and family is not the issue here. What is on the table is capital or commercial assets. All surplus goods need to be given to the church. What we have, must be committed to the service of God. Our personal goods are those things that enable us to work for God. They make our foundation strong. What is not needed by us for our walk with the Lord is needed by others to help them in their walk. All capital needs to be donated to the church.

Positive markets are organizations expressions of a specific mission to build the church. The church is composed of the wealth not given over to Babylon. The church is what we have not delivered into the hands of Satan and his minions.

By giving title of our assets to the church and the positive market reimbursing us with a currency created by the church we have sold all we have. 

Positive currency or preferred shares is used for the purchase of goods and services. Preferred shares can be freely distributed because they serve to build the church. There is no way to divert this wealth into the economy of Satan i.e. Babylon.

Positive markets convert the assets of the private and public sector into assets belonging to the church. 

A Firewood Exchange is a positive market created to provide firewood. 

​The woodlot from which the firewood is obtained is preferentially owned by the positive market. This property may have been owned by a member of the church. Ownership is transferred to the positive market. The woodlots value is transformed into preferred shares which are given to the member donating the resource.

Work is paid for with preferred shares. These act as credit vouchers. Contributions of capital are paid for with preferred shares.

If the church did not replenish the trees cut for firewood, they will either need to buy a new woodlot or have no source of firewood. There is, ergo, no benefit to not charging sufficient value for the firewood sold. The Exchange therefore ensures maintenance of the supply. Ergo, we have a sustainable economy created without the need for government intervention. 

There is no benefit for a positive market to create social costs, that is costs that the market will pay over and above what needed to be paid. The community creating the costs is the community that will ultimately pay the costs.

A positive economy is ultimately a closed ecosystem. Inputs must equal outputs. If we are taking wealth from the planet, we need to restore this in some way. We must think of a market as an island. Those in a specific Exchange trade with other jurisdictions but the focus must be on maintaining the health and integrity of the local market.

It makes no sense for a business to create a shoddy product or service when this will be used to those in a department. If one department needs a piece of equipment it makes no sense for the manufacturing arm of the parent company to produce the machine in such a poor way that the machine does not work as it ought and suffers multiple breakdowns. This holds true for a positive market. Business activity in and between positive markets is similar to in-house transfers within a conventional business.

Social costs are what businesses call externalized costs. These are costs created by the production produces but not contained in the price of the products or services sold, thus the uncovered cost accrues to the account of society and future generations. This only makes sense within the context of a social agenda. The formation and pursuance of social agendas is the hallmark of liberalism. Positive markets are a way to combat the agenda of socialists.

Jill makes good bread. Her skill is an asset that creates value. As an entrepreneur her efforts are her own and the rewards accrue to her. However, God made us in such a way that we all need others, and no one is good at everything just an no one is without some gift. As a member of an Exchange Jill works with others to make bread. The activity of the Bread Exchange creates value for the positive market. The assets that go into making bread are the property of the positive market. The activity of making and distributing bread creates value that generates equity for the body of Christ. Jill’s gift creates value or equity in the Exchange for the church. Thus, Jill’s gift is able to serve God by bring Glory to God and benefit to His people.

Jill’s bread adds value to the positive market. This value-added serves as the basis on which preferred shares are issued. These shares represent the equity of the Exchange. Shares are produced based on the value created by Jill. These shares are used as money in the Exchange. 

John is a mechanic. If John is the only mechanic in the area it may not make sense for him to sell the tools of his trade to a Mechanics Exchange. He would be the only one using the tools. However, if the community as larger and there were several mechanics then it would make sense for individual mechanics to pool resources to lower costs and risk. 

If John sold his tools to a Tool Exchange this would give other mechanics more tools to work with. He may find it made sense to do this because it might give him access to more and better tools also. John would be reimbursed for contributing these assets. John is given equity equal to the value represented by the tools donated.

Ownership is not about personal power and control. Ownership is about creating specialization and therefore prosperity. Ownership is not a legal position but an economic one vis-à-vis an asset in an economy. Ownership is about linking responsibility with authority. An entrepreneur is a specialist. Entrepreneurs find ways to do things in a specialized way within an economy and community. This process of developing specialized functions is the single source of all prosperity in a community.

John is a mechanic, so it makes sense for him to have and control the tools required for his trade, even if these are not privately owned by himself. It also means that should he need additional equipment to do the work the positive market creates a demand for, it makes sense for the members to provide John with additional tools and equipment. Why would those who will benefit from his expanded line of services refuse to make it possible for John to perform these other jobs? Having someone to fix their cars increases the equity of the community.

If the required tools and equipment are present in the Exchange, meaning if other members have the equipment needed, transferring these assets to John does not alter the asset mix of the Exchange. The transfer increases the value of the Exchange and thus the equity of the economy because they are given greater value by being put to better use, even though the actual mix of assets has not changed.

When assets are better used their value increases. When the ability of people to work increases, the equity owned and operated by the Exchange also increases in value. The assets are simply transferred from the account of one member to another member’s account, however, the transfer increases the economic activity of the Exchange. Tools that may have been idle are turned into wealth-creating assets for they allow the Exchange to expand services.

When one joins an positive market one is no longer dependent on what bankers think of your character or business sense.

Gladys has few resources. She is a single mother of two small children and is willing to baby-sit and do housecleaning. None of the members in the local community are well off and under normal circumstances would find it difficult to hire and pay Gladys. However, a positive market always tends towards balancing credits and debits. If Glady’s is a consumer of goods and services, it makes sense to make her a better producer of goods and services to offset her debits as a consumer.

It is to the benefit of the positive market to have Gladys hired to do anything she can do to compensate for the resources she consumes.

Positive markets pay all members the same scale. The world considers her work unskilled, but Gladys gets paid the same rate for her work as others get paid for theirs. Services are compensated for at the same flat rate. Exceptions are made if a higher rate of compensation is justified due to specific circumstances. Wage disparities will fade away over time as exceptional circumstances are corrected for. A lawyer may require a higher rate of compensation than other service providers over the short term. These issues are resolved as they arise. Over-time as the system evolves and more people are born into the program wages will settle towards a common level.

The point to remember here is that students are paid for gaining an education so there is no need to pay professionals for defraying their earning years.

Bill is a handyman and does odd jobs. Gladys needs some plumbing work done. Gladys does not need units of the domestic currency to have Bill fix her plumbing problems. She does not need any money at all, which is good under normal circumstances Gladys would not be able to afford Bills regular rate. Gladys pays Bill in preferred shares. She transfers her equity position in the positive market to Bill to compensate for the value created by his labor. The transfer of shares compensates Bill for the value he transferred to Gladys in the work he does. The transfer means Gladys’s account is debited for the same amount that Bill’s account is credited. Preferred shares are a unit of account that is created, as needed to reflect changes in the relative equity levels of members. Bill’s work creates equity and so preferred shares are created and issued according to the amount of equity created by Bill’s services.

If a paper currency is used the accounts of each member in a transaction reflects the equity transferred. Paper money allows the economy to function on a kind of Petty Cash accounting.

Gladys can buy bread, get her home and car fixed based on the equity she represents to the positive market. Positive markets always help members fulfill their obligations because this increases the economic activity of the market. 

Gladys does not purchase services from the Exchange based on her credit worthiness. Gladys may be unemployed and broke when she joins. She purchases goods and services on the credit worthiness of the positive market itself. Sellers are willing to sell to Gladys not because they trust Gladys. There is no need to trust Gladys or know Gladys or be aware of her credit worthiness. The various Exchanges back the currency the market issues, so the seller only needs to know the market is creditworthy.

It is important that we take the time needed to understand how positive markets work. Positive markets bring people together in a way that reduces risk. Liability accounts represent risk levels. Positive markets eliminate liability accounts.

It has been taught that with opportunity comes risk. Some say the greater the opportunity the greater the risk but certainly the opposite is not true. If one does not understand that the purpose of a positive market is to eliminate unemployment and eliminate the social costs of socialist markets the casual observer will assume risk is being created when credit is extended. Remove liabilities and there is no risk.

Bill does not need to badger Gladys for payment nor get paid up front. No matter Glady’s financial situation sellers know they will be paid. The market itself guarantees payment. The positive market credits the sellers account, so the seller is able to consume the proceeds from the sale. What this means for Bill and others is that Bill can buy goods and services on the strength of the credits he earned working for Gladys.

The positive market pays Bill using shares issued based on the equity created by the job Bill just completed. All economic activity creates value and all value can be expressed as equity. Equity quantified in multiples of itself and issued in the form of shares are issued as a currency called prefers and designated by the symbol ₧.

When Gladys hires Bill she is not creating debt in the way debt is understood by banks. Bill working for Gladys creates value. If Gladys has a house and Bill works on the house his work increases the value of the house, this increased value is expressed as an increase in the equity of the asset as well as an increase in the assets of the community and world. If Bills work is valued at $800.00 then the house has increased in value by $800.00. The Exchange can now credit Bill with the equity his work created. He can now transfer this equity to someone else and in exchange obtain goods and services from others.

The goods and services available to Bill provide Bill the security he needs to sell his services to any other shareholder.

Bill never needs to hesitate when selling his skills. Positive markets always guarantee payment and always have the means to make payments because it is the claim on its assets that gives positive markets the equity used to issue preferred shares which are what it uses to pay its bills with. A car sold to the market or a member of the market is an asset that forms the basis of an equity issue of preferred shares. A car comes in one end of the accounting process and preferred shares are issued at the other end. In the same way risk does not exist within a corporation making an in-house transfer of assets, transfers of assets within a positive market are the same as an in-house transfer of assets within a corporation. Risk shared is risk eliminated. Risk is absorbed by common ownership of the market.

Conventional businesses that have large capital flows in the upward or downward stream may choose to create an Exchange as a kind of Trust Fund equal to the average value of goods and services in the stream. A business that risks $5000.00 selling goods to its customers may find it convenient to create an Exchange for facilitating transfers between it and its customers. 

The supplier and its customers set up an Exchange capitalizing it with $5000.00 held in trust. All purchases and sales are done by and through the Exchange or positive market. Buyers and sellers are represented by accounts with the Exchange. Single Entry Bookkeeping eliminates the need to transfer funds back and forth or up and down the product stream. The Exchange turns separate businesses each representing a specific risk into a single pool of assets. Positive markets absorb risk because the risk is contained in the Exchange. A buyer cannot default because everything bought and sold, and all debits and credits are contained in the same pool of assets.

The entire product stream is contained within the parameters of the Exchange, so all the economic activity is part of the same economy. Positive markets create a closed system. A farmer who grows crops and feeds his family and livestock and breeds his livestock and saves the seeds from his crops cannot lose money within this process any more than could a group on an island. Bankruptcy and business losses are a result of dividing a production stream into individual components. Competition divides and compartmentalizes risk and thus increases risk.

Instead of a glass-maker selling bottles to a bottler as a unique economic unit the glass-maker transfers assets to another component of the production process and is credited the value of the transfer. Those who need bottles get bottles as a simple transfer of assets in exchange for equity. All shareholders represent equity to the Exchange that is all shareholders represent value to the rest of the shareholders. Each shareholder can acquire assets by giving up equity.

The bottler takes possession of bottles and obtains debits. This means the bottler has given up equity. The glass-maker gives up bottles and accepts shares in the Exchange as payment as credits. This means the glass-maker has acquired equity. If conventional currencies are obtained, they are traded for shares in the Exchange. The secret to eliminating risk is to share it. All shareholders of the Exchange share the risk by exchanging their exposure for equity in the Exchange.

Conventional money obtained by the positive market is used to pay down the dollar debt of shareholders. The Exchange takes over shareholder debt, debiting shareholder accounts with the value of the debt and uses cash on hand to pay off member debt.

Instead of the bottler trying to squeeze concessions out of the distributor and so on, the distributor and retailer share in a combined effort to reduce overall costs.

The bottle maker attempts to supply bottles in a timelier fashion and in a manner that fits with the usage needs of the bottler because both the glass-maker and the bottler are shareholders in the Exchange and benefit as the Exchange equity increases. This is the same as saying businesses prosper as the community prospers. There is more to be gained from paring down costs for the whole chain than there is to be gained by one part exploiting the rest. Whatever profits are made are shared so it pays the entire chain to work towards the lowest over-all costs. Positive markets create a closed loop where inputs equal outputs. Positive markets work as the early depictions of the economy as presented in textbooks say an economy ought to work. Positive markets are free markets in the ideal sense and co-existent with a local economy.

It pays the Exchange to keep commercial operations going. If a business is not producing goods and services that are needed its assets are re-assigned to other uses. An exit strategy is always in place.

Supporting a business when its closure will cascade costs throughout the community may require extraordinary steps be taken. If it costs more to close a business than to keep it open the community is better off if it continues to support the business.

Maintaining the operational services of a struggling retailer who is the sole supplier to a small satellite community may require another retail account to serve as a sub-station or drop off point where the distributor can leave extra product for the smaller store to pick up as needed. This enables the small store to get re-supplied at more frequent intervals than the distribution company can provide. What is important is the value created in the Exchange not the value of a single account. The entire production and distribution and consumption system is a single system. All open loops and waste are eliminated, and the system made as efficient as possible.

The market would see the struggling retailer as a liability and shut it down.

Canada Post and other nationalized services are constantly under attack by private interests who wish to take over the profitable routes whilst leaving the outlying areas to the national service or without any service at all. This makes sense according to the market but not to the community or the nation it is in. People have to get their mail and it does not serve the interests of the nation to deny services to people because the cost of delivery is higher to them than elsewhere. The profits made delivering to dense populations helps offset the cost of delivery to the outlying regions. The service is provided because the people and the nation need it. Finding ways to do this in the overall lowest cost per unit is the goal of decentralizing services. Servicing the fewest customers for the highest profit gives us Globalism.

National governments look at is what is best for the nation. It may make economic sense to move everyone into a single city (economies of scale could be captured) but from another perspective to empty the nation of people to make things efficient is not really a rational strategy. Efficiency is good, but it is not the reason the economy exists.

The best-case scenario from the perspective of a Capitalist is for a private company to service the densely spaced accounts and leave the public to fund the widely spaced accounts.

When a business is shut down the costs of running the operation are ended for the owner. The workers who lose their job are a cost, but they are a social cost not a business cost and they are not a cost that is recorded anywhere. The unemployed do not have an account. Indeed, the company recorded them as a liability and having divested itself of employees the company lowers its liabilities. Yet the cost of living has not really changed substantially for these men and woman. Yet, if they do not sign on with some government program, they effectively disappear off the nation’s account books.

What positive markets do is to keep unemployment costs on the books. To do otherwise is not rational. The Law makes such actions appear rational and as a consequence creates a division in society. Some think the business owner has the right to shut down a failing business others think this is unfair on the workers. Thus, our energies are spent in fighting over who is entitled to what instead of dealing with the real issue which is why does this division exist in the first place. Society does not escape the cost of unemployment by closing down a business. If the community needs the product and the jobs it may be cheaper to keep the factory running at a loss than absorbing the costs of closing the business down. It may make more sense to close it down in stages as assets are shifted elsewhere and consumer needs are met using alternative sources.

It is unrealistic to put the entire cost encountered when a business shuts down onto an individual. If the business is not profitable it must be shut down, what matters is how this is done and what happens to the assets. 

The profitability of a company is really the responsibility of a community and the costs of failure is a cost borne by the community. An unprofitable company cannot, by definition, live up to what might be considered its moral obligation to the community and its workers. 

A business by itself cannot eliminate risk. No business owner has the authority to make the decisions that would eliminate risk. A business is privately owned in a legal sense and yet no individual can alone maintain business solvency. Why ought the business owner face the responsibility represented by the costs of bankruptcy? Businesses are subject to all kinds of risk not all of them foreseeable or insured against. The more costs the business must absorb the more likely it will collapse. If society must bear the cost of business failure, then it also has the right to expect a share in the management of the company to ensure it does not fail. Governments create programs that both help businesses and workers, but government programs invariably increase costs and therefore risk. Business owners are aware of this, but the only other solution was to not help, and this was never a realistic option.

Unemployment insurance is a liability for businesses and an expense for the nation, but the situation is like Canada Post delivering letters to the far North. It does not make economic sense to deliver letters to such remote locations, but it does not make sense, not to either. If the nation is dependent on the minerals extracted by northern community’s then ensuring they receive mail is simply a cost of doing business that is borne by the nation. It may cost more to deliver mail to the far north, but it is just a cost of doing the business called Canada.

Canada Post does not exist to make money. In one sense it exists to increase the equity that is Canada. Canada Post is just a department in the national business. Brought up in a culture that sees ownership as a property of economic entities it is hard to think of ownership as a conditional relationship. The idea that profits are immaterial in the present business environment is difficult to accept. Canada Post exists as a service to Canadians to make the country work better and to make the nation profitable not any one part or sector. When an accountant sees that it costs 50 times more to deliver a letter to a remote community than what the customer pays it appears that the resident of the far north is being subsidized. The far North is viewed as a liability that ought to be removed.

Governments record liabilities and yet are required to subsidize various sectors of the economy. Government tax cuts serve to keep struggling sectors going by taxing solvent businesses. To an accountant or hard-nosed businessman every business ought to pay its own way. Many see government funding as akin to communism. To some extent State assistance does follow the Communist adage: “From each according to his ability to each according to need.” Any assistance beyond preventing an untimely death is considered by many to constitute a statist agenda. Ayn Rand became a cult figure by promoting a philosophy of rugged individualism a position reminiscent of Niccolò Machiavelli’s “The Prince”.

Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527), Italian statesman and writer, whose work The Prince (1532) advises that acquiring and exercising power may require unethical methods.

This autonomy may serve a business well, in a free market situation, but we have to remember society does not exist as a place for a few people to strike it rich. The individuals do not necessarily exist to serve the group. We are equal. The community exists for the benefit of its members.

The market is like a body. The body does not exist to benefit one organ and one organ cannot be exploited for the benefit of the body. There is unity and common purpose in a body and the same situation exists in a positive market.

It is hoped that this short discussion will assist you in seeing the need to eliminate socialism and promote positive market use and in the process eliminate unemployment and economic inequality. 

In summary, mankind exists to build up the body which is the church. We help one another as a market. One is helped, the other helps. Someone else helps and another offers help. This makes us all consumers and producers of help in the form of goods and services. Positive markets are a market composed of consumers and producers. The positive market is the way the body builds itself up according to Scripture.