Published Articles by Michael Reber

Blog Publication

Reber_What It Means to Be An American_ArticleSubmission


LIBERTARIAN PAPERS JOURNAL

  1. Distributive Justice and Free Market Economics: A Eudaimonistic Perspective.” Libertarian Papers Journal 2, 29 (2010). ONLINE AT: libertarianpapers.org.
  2. Systems Thinking for an Economically Literate Society.” Libertarian Papers Journal 2, 33 (2010). ONLINE AT: libertarianpapers.org.
  3. The Role of Work: A Eudaimonistic Perspective.” Libertarian Papers Journal 4, 1 (2012). ONLINE AT: libertarianpapers.org.

John Dewey Society’s Education and Culture Journal

Reber_SelfGovt_Publication

4 Responses to Published Articles by Michael Reber

  1. Michael Reber says:

    In regards to my first article, “Distributive Justice and Free Market Economics: A Eudaimonistic Perspective,” Damon Vickers has written a new book, After the Dollar Crashes. The show goes through the 15-Day scenario of the crash of the US dollar and the lead up to Global Anarchy.

    Pt. 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdt2SjG1Bz8&feature=related.
    Pt. 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCD6H3ON1yE&feature=related.

    Hence, the efforts which we are pursuing, each of us, for liberty and “distributive justice,” as I write in my article, MUST prevail; so when this day does come that instead of the world becoming either a communist or fascist one-world order as Damon Vickers states, that it becomes a world of self-actualizing individuals.

  2. Richard Evanoff says:

    Thanks for sending me the links to your articles. I like the “eudamonia” approach you take (it also informs my own writing) and share your concerns about big government. I suppose I’ve always been more of a social libertarian, however, since I’m not entirely convinced that free markets are the best way to achieve distributive justice, at least not as they’re operating at present. Adam Smith suggested capitalism could only work if wealth is widely distributed in society and Jefferson said that democracy could only work if political power is widely distributed in society. I don’t think we have that kind of situation right now, and it may be partly because free markets have allowed wealth and power to be concentrated in the hands of a minority, which makes it difficult for everyone else to achieve satisfactory levels of eudamonia (both domestically and globally). Even though I basically reject the idea of government redistributing wealth after the fact, I also think that social organization at the “grassroots” level can institute a fairer way for wealth and power to be justly distributed in the first place. In other words, my approach may be more collectivistic than individualistic, and it would supplement markets with the idea that democratic political decision-making could inform how those markets are set up and run. All of this could be better achieved, I think, at the grassroots level and in the absence of government intervention, which actually often serves to maintain existing inequalities rather than to promote genuine freedom for all. I realize my position may not be consistent with dominant libertarian thinking at present, but I thought I’d share my views with you and welcome hearing more about yours as well!

  3. Paul says:

    Both great articles. The ‘holistic’ outlook really appeals to my sensibilities. It’s quite clear that simply providing logical arguments is not sufficient to change people’s attitudes towards the free market. Best of luck with the show and the book!

  4. Hey Mike,

    Another great article there!

    “Mura shakai” and “voluntary association”, good distinction.

    And the more that government steps in, the more that it collectivizes things and responsibilities, voluntary association is slowly erased, It becomes collectivized association or coerced association.

    A distantly-related topic would be what I found out this morning — the mind-boggling huge number of UN bureaucracies. A (govt) bureaucracy is a state creation supposedly to help the collective, the public. But it will come to a point after sometime that bureaucracies just exist for themselves.

    Voluntary association means the expansion of independent civil society organizations that rely on members’ and citizens’ support, not government funding. NGOs that rely on UN, WB, ADB, EU, JICA, and other government funding are not real “non-government organizations” but deteriorated to “government funded organizations” or GFOs (I read that term first from Andrew Works of LRI a few years ago).

    Civil society is a state where citizens take charge more of their own lives, their own households and their own communities with the least coercion and supervision by the government. The voluntary association nature of a state of civil society is what will bring peace with diversity in society.

    Here’s what I wrote, below.
    regards.

    Nonoy
    ————
    http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2010/12/un-bureaucracies-too-many.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s