Having established that Milton
Friedman, poster child for reasoned and polite debate in economics, had no response to
binary economics, we probably should look at what binary economics responds to:
the idea that underpins both capitalism (greed) and socialism (envy). We refer, of course, to the slavery of past
savings.
The slavery of past savings is
relatively easy to understand. Given
that the only way to finance new capital formation is by cutting consumption
and accumulating money savings, ownership of capital must be concentrated. Only
those whose capital produces far more than they can possibly consume can afford
to finance new capital. The only
question is if the greedy, thieving private owners (a.k.a., “bastards”) will
control (“own”) capital, or whether control will be vested in the envious, thieving
State bureaucrats (a.k.a., “S.O.B.s”).
Since private sector “capitalists”
obviously cannot be trusted, Marx stated clearly in The Communist Manifesto that his entire philosophy was based on
abolition of private property in the means of production. This would deny every person the right to own
or share power and profits as an owner of productive capital.
No one could become a capital
owner under Marx's vision. Under Kelso's vision, everyone could become a
capital owner without taking property rights from current owners, a right that
under natural law theory is a right for duration of one's life.
Like Buckminster Fuller's design
science principles for making the physical side of the non-human world work for
100% of humanity, Kelso developed the design science principles for
restructuring the laws and institutions that make up the "invisible
structures" (especially money, finance and tax laws) which determine
whether any economic systems delivers economic justice and equality of economic
opportunity for everyone without being at the disadvantage of anyone.
