Page:David Atkins - The Economics of Freedom (1924).pdf/165



itself is the mass movement toward freedom, as distinguished from the individual movement; and since the effectiveness of this movement is reflected in national area there is no scientific reason why the cost cannot also be precisely apportioned in terms of the occupancy-value of this area. Order is as dynamic as any other effort toward freedom; and has no set form or limit such as our hasty reformers so pathetically endeavor to crystallize, once for all, into final “law”.

In basic terms, order is the growing community consciousness of the importance of freedom, and is no more or less than an intelligent recognition of the limitations of our medium. If initial freedom is assured politically, order—the clearing of the way—because it serves all instead of one, has always been the most advantageous contribution to value.

If order is super-imposed on human effort, the resulting value is arbitrary and has nothing to do with freedom. If, on the other hand, order is non-existent, there is no assurance of either freedom or value. It would seem, therefore, that only under some arrangement, such as democracy, where order is self-imposed, can we expect to find what we call economic value, if we assume that value in any way implies calculable relative precision. If it does not imply precision of some nature, we can only pray forgiveness for the economists who have been talking so long about a measure of value.

As already suggested the conventional assertion that rent, wages and interest are the ultimate expenses involved in the production of economic value is well worth consideration. Disregarding once more the deplorable fact that these so-called