Keith Wilde has written, in reference to the "Austrian School" and presumably, therefore, to the ideas presented by the late Ludwig von Mises:
It is not out of date if it is still the paradigm. And just because you have stated a different position doesn't mean that you are right. I detect that this latter may be a novel idea to you; try reading it a second time.) The important contrast between binary economics and the Austrian doctrine is that the latter had a very careful development and was vetted by quite a large number of critcal cooperators. That is how it became a paradigm. Binary economics has quite a long way to go before it accumulates the same trail of scholarship and application. This doesn't mean that the Austrian doctrine is correct; I haven't said that it is, and neither has Ryan. (I am progressively inclined to the view that it is wrong.) [WALLY RESPONDS]: The Austrian School has received several brief mentions on this site. Whether a thing is right or wrong can be evaluated in the absolute or ultimate sense--or whether or not it is appropriate to achievement of a chosen objective. Somewhere in a past issue of the Douglas journal The Social Crediter was cited an alleged claim that the von Mises school had declared its aim as being to "make the world safe for International [I believe] Finance." The goal of Social Credit is to make the world safe for ordinary people. Social Credit most certainly does not assume that the two objectives are synonymous. Some time has elapsed since my reading of von Mises, but I believe that his school upholds Say's Law and the position of gold in the monetary system, which makes it also technically incompatible with Social Credit. It follows, therefore, that his ideas are also philosophically and theologically incompatible with Social Credit in that they make no provision for independent consumer income (e.g., a Social Credit National Dividend) originating from outside the price-system. As I recall, the Austrian School is dedicated to the un-Christian concept of Salvation through Works. Mention has been made of Islam and a suggestion has been made that Social Crediters would be well advised to modify our position to make it more palatable to those of the Muslim faith. Although adherents of the Muslim religion may claim to have a concept of grace, Islam [and Judaism] operate, I understand, essentially from the concept of Works. That is why Islam easily and morally advocates a financial system free from usury (interest). It is also the reaosn why the concept of a National Dividend--regardless of its demonstrated necessity in terms of reality--which goes to a higher level than mere proscription of interest-taking, has not automatically been acceptable to Islam in general. While their religion takes a clear stand on usury, they have probably been largely unaware of the concept of a Social Credit Dividend, and--not generally understanding Douglas's analysis of the price-system--are inclined to regard the Dividend (when the idea is presented to them) as "inflationary." One does not have to be a Social Crediter and one does not have to be a Christian. But like it or not, Social Credit derives from principles which are uniquely (but not necessary exclusively)Christian. Social Credit aims to give "Flesh" to the "Word"--that is to incarnate Christian principles in our ORGANIC or practical, as well as our spiritual relationships. The abstraction of Christian principles into the purely Spiritual Realm, i.e., the separation of the spirtual and physical aspects of reality, has been called, I believe, the Manichean Heresy. Douglas said that the great issue with which we must grapple is that of the Incarnation (the bringing of the spirtual and physical into a realistic relationship). This relates to Salvation through Grace rather than Works, and to Inheritance. Christianity takes a UNIQUE position regarding these matters--a unique position that is rejected by both Islalm and Judaism. Islam holds to One God, and although often accepting Christ as a Prophet, finds absolutely sacreligious the idea of a Triune God (Trinity) in which Christ holds Divinity. Judaism, as I understand it, rejects the redeeming power of Grace and holds that "only the deed" counts toward Salvation. The soundness, or unsoundness, of ideas can be measured by the way in which they integrate with reality to produce results. This can be revealed by the test of practical experience. Everyone must come to their own conclusions based upon the test of reality--but the consequences of making the right or wrong choice will inevitablly and inexorably come to bear. Conflicting ideas or principles cannot all be "right"--and herein lies the danger of unrestricted eclecticism. The laws of the universe cannot be abrogated without penalty. I agree with Vic Bridger that Social Crediters should be promoting Social Credit. Possessing a highly integrated and inter-dependent system of ideas, we should guard against the dilution and compromise of our principles and policies by being seduced to incorporate them with other systems of thought which we have reason to believe are less compatible with our concept of objective reality. Sincerely, Wally [END] --^---------------------------------------------------------------- This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^----------------------------------------------------------------
