Hi Skot,

I am agnostic about economic philosophy. My own is to see reality for what it is, and not for what I might prefer it to be. So when the tool of markets seems appropriate relative to my values, then I apply market philosophy. Sometimes I am an intransigent and irascible mercantilist, and at other times a soft socialist. Depends on what the moment calls for.

I find an inherent paradox in your logic. Nature is not moral. By definition then, people stand outside of nature, because there is strong evidence that people have spent thousands of years trying to construct legal and moral systems, including markets. After all, the argument against socialism is that it is amoral. If you believe that people are separate from nature that then also means that they do not need to use nature as a mental model. So what people think, believe, and create is valid. Witness: language, philosophy, and religions, including scientism. That you refer to people's 'base' nature also implies this same divide and paradox in your thinking. Namely, that people have a base and not-base nature. This again results in the same paradox described in the preceding. Me? I think that people are just as much a part of nature as gnats. After many decades of contemplation I believe that what sets people apart from other animals is our ability to overcome instinct through deliberation. If you believe that is true, then it means that 'nature' becomes less absolute as a model. It means that the concerns of people, such as morality, are an issue to be considered when evaluating the quality of a mental model. Interestingly, this also restores the preeminence of responsibility and choice to people, and it becomes another moral expectation. I note with great interest that you are a 'lowly stock picker.' Ergo, you believe in the power of choice. In the pure instinct nature you describe why is choice, and its twin, responsibility a concern? All there is action flowing from instinct.

Yours, in service,

Jason