Trade, Specialization, and Social Development vs. Self-Sufficiency, Living off the Land, and Simple Lifestyles
I have recently had discussions about the "self-sufficient lifestyle," "living off the land," "living off the grid," "living simply," etc. Although I certainly respect and appreciate folks who are able and willing to live in a rigorous and uncompromisingly agrarian manner, I have a nuanced perspective on the course of life that I find appealing, as I will attempt to explain below.Cooperation is the economic foundation for social progress. Men and families are inherently inefficient when they keep to themselves and attempt to provide all of life's basic necessities on their own -- access to God's Word, food, water, clothing, shelter, warmth, healthcare and medicine, education, sanitation and cleaning facilities, transportation; not to mention the blessings and pleasures of music, arts, and all the other "non-necessities" that we enjoy. Under a strict "self-sufficient" lifestyle, we are unable to exploit the benefits of comparative advantage that I explain in my economics essay.
Men and families can cooperate by trading. They can divide their labors, specializing in the areas in which each has a comparative advantage. Trading, division of labor, and specialization -- all of which make economic development and social progress possible -- are facilitated by money. The best economists define money simply as the most highly valued commodity in an economy. Thus, money serves as a means for roundabout trade, as when, for example, a farmer trades some wheat for gold, which he intends to later trade for clothing. Rather than directly trading the wheat for clothing, which would require finding someone with clothing who would accept his wheat (economists call this the "double coincidence of wants" problem), he could easily trade and calculate his revenue, expenses, and profits, from business and trading, in one common denominator of money.
I am in favor of sound money, which facilitates efficient and mutually beneficial exchanges in a free society. Trading allows us to move beyond self-sufficiency, which has never been a realistic option for large populations of people. Scripture speaks repeatedly of the blessings of fruitfulness and multiplication and commands us to have dominion over the earth, which are facilitated when men and families cooperate by dividing and conquering. This is why I believe in trade rather than strict self-sufficiency. I believe that specializing to some extent will enable me to better steward my gifts rather than attempting a "jack of all trades, master of none" lifestyle.
A caveat: I believe in having "multiple irons in the fire" -- a recent "lesson learned," borne out through practical experience. Thus, I am opposed to "hyper-specialization," even though I believe in a wise level of specialization, division of labor, trading, and money.
Another caveat: What happens when money itself breaks down, as when the state inflates the fiat currency and "bails out" the fraudulent fractional reserve banks that it has propped up over the years? Without sound money, roundabout trade becomes nearly impossible, and the complex social order built around division of labor, specialization, and mutually beneficial exchange, collapses. Thus, the self-sufficient lifestyle appears to be a winner in this scenario.
In a world of freedom under God's Law, with honest money and morally upright people, self-sufficiency would, in my opinion, be undesirable. In a world under man's folly, with fiat money, fractional reserve banking, widespread hyper-specialization, and a complex, unsustainable social (dis)order, some level of self-sufficiency is desirable.
Actually, in either scenario of the above paragraph, godly communities are desirable. Personal relationships with neighbors, with whom one can trade and cooperate in good times or in bad times, are desirable no matter what. Large plots of country land on which to build epistemologically self-conscious homes to raise large families and grow nutritious, delicious, economical, and reliably accessible food supplies, are desirable no matter what. And the list continues.
In short, I am very sympathetic to many elements of the worldview of self-sufficiency and simple living. However, I disagree with the approach that eliminates trade; specialization among craftsmen, laborers, professionals, and entrepreneurs; division of labor for various needs and wants in society; and the monetary unit that makes all of this possible. Rather, I propose moderate specialization, as when a man acts entrepreneurially by seeking many opportunities to wisely steward his resources and create value in society.
Are trade and self-sufficiency mutually exclusive? Strictly speaking, yes -- if one trades, he is no longer functioning self-sufficiently. The self-sufficient person would desire to minimize his output of anything he does not need for himself because he would not intend to trade his surplus for other goods and services. At some level, then, even the proponents of so-called "self-sufficient" lifestyles are, almost without exception, inconsistent. There is relative "self-sufficiency" and relative "hyper-specialization," and our culture has certainly swung to the latter extreme without a doubt. But almost no one is completely "self-sufficient" or "hyper-specialized."
We should strive to create godly communities and personal relationships; develop large plots of productive land; steward our abilities, resources, talents, and other gifts God entrusts to us as we cooperate with others in our communities and larger economy; and strive for social development and progress through sound money, moderate specialization, division of labor, and mutually beneficial exchange. In my view, this is a biblical, balanced, and practical outlook on applied economics.
posted by C.S. Hayden @ 6:00 AM
1 Comments:
This is an excellent essay, which addresses an extremely relative topic among many in the homeschooling/large family community who desire an agrarian lifestyle, as does our own family.
The key seems to be strengthening the local economy. CSAs (Community Sustained Agriculture) certainly encourage agricultural trade. Entrepreneurship encourages easily marketed skills among local artisans.
It seems unlikely that any family will truly have all of the skills needed to provide for all of this millennium’s "necessities", and would therefore be forced to look outside the family. However, in a depression, etc, it would seem to be wise to attempt to have the very bare essentials, such as some kind of food (perhaps not a great variety), water, cloth, shelter and warmth.
Thanks for a thought-provoking essay!
The Discher Family
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home