On Brexiting

“…if all sorts of non-European countries decided to define the values of their currencies as on a par with the euro, without actually joining into any system of cooperative regulations associated with that, then the effect of that would seem likely to destabilize the stability of the euro if it would otherwise be highly stable and of good value quality.~John Nash, Ideal Money”

This is a curious statement by Nash that I still have not truly deciphered. I did have SOME insight on the point he makes that I previously tried to express here: https://medium.com/@…/an-interesting-corollary-60390abad518…

I see the sentiments around the web that are mostly and generally a sense of shock, disagreement, disgust etc. I think these people do not understand law and its relation to freedom, democracy, the purpose and power of voting, and what markets are for.

We must look to Hayek, a very great an underrated man that Nick Szabo introduced me to, in order to understand why we have such “votes” in the first place. What is the value of them, and why should we be happy with their “outcomes”:

…the “data” from which the economic calculus starts are never for the whole society “given” to a single mind which could work out the implications and can never be so given.
The peculiar character of the problem of a rational economic order is determined precisely by the fact that the knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess.

What Hayek is saying is that no subset of the population could possibly have MORE knowledge than the entirety of it. And this is a hidden basis for democracy, as well as a basis for having votes by ANY nation deciding whether or not to leave the EU.

This means that the vote is smarter than you. It means brexiting is optimal, and there is no person, persons, or proof otherwise that could put forth an argument that is more justifiable than the actual vote.

Again we re-visit the concept of “propriety” so that we might understand what truly “governs” us:

…the state or quality of conforming to conventionally accepted standards of behavior or morals.

Propriety is our leader, and the reason that your subjective viewpoint does NOT lead our society is because it would lead to irrational and disorderly behavior inspired by equally irrational and disorderly rules.

What we create together is what is intelligent.

And this is what economics means to show:

Economics is the social science that describes the factors that determine the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services

That is to say “economics” is a SOCIAL science, best lead by the aggregated knowledge of as many beings as possible.

Britain has exercised its right to its own freedom. It cannot be said that it is the correct or incorrect decision otherwise but what CAN be said is that if they were unable to exercise such freedom, or if they stayed in the EU for altruistic reasons (or for any other reasons other than their own wants and desires) this would be a horrible result for this world, for our global economy.

Democracy and freedom was exercised and brought to our awareness as this event transpired. Even if the election was rigged it is the best they have available at the moment (remember PROPRIETY is important here.)

Economics says brexiting is “ideal”.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.