Stirner and Keynes met in my ideal

My pursue in politics is to find the way to maximise both the sustainable aggregate industrial productivity and individuals' freedom of choice and liberty together. So, I have been supporting free market economy (Many call it "Capitalism" but I try not to use this term capitalism) which is known as a complex computer spontaneously optimising both the distribution of resources and individuals' needs and wants.

Moreover, the individual anarchist political philosophy by Max Stirner has inspired me to open up my horizon of socio-economic political imagination. Since I read Stirner, I have realised that there is an alternative ideal which we have not created but are able to imagine, and this is the theory which provides us with the potential and the virtue of free market economic mechanism by abolishing many obstacles of free market economy such as monarchy, nation-states' government, and jealousy and over-emotional wishes of many irrational individuals who shall be called socialists.

Max Stirner was not an advocate of free market economy so much. However, he defended individuals' property right, freedom of choices, and honest attitudes of accepting egoism and natural desires, and Stirner's objective and the objectives of the free market economy share the common objectives which they wish to achieve.

On the other hand, I also know that free market economy having existed in the world is not a perfect socioeconomic political model although it has been the best ever among all the others having existed in the world. When economy expands its scale, the entire mechanism becomes way too complex and sometimes catastrophic. Then, any errors caused by mistakes and bugs of this complex computer called free market expands faster and causes a bigger negative impact on economy and individuals living there than a smaller scale. Therefore, some error correction unit overriding to forcibly intervene into the freely flowing market transaction processes.

John Maynard Keynes was the first and the most articulate economist who pointed out this problem. Keynes supported maintaining market economy itself meanwhile he suggested that economy should not be left perfectly free as it needs some intervention by positive planning.

Keynes finally concluded that some collective intervention by a big government intervention is inevitably needed for this solution. Keynes was against socialism and did not look like a nationalist who was ultra keen to protect an invincible nation state with its big government. But, he liked his own nation United Kingdom of Great Britain, and he merely concluded that government and nation might be necessary regardless of its controversy in order to enable the market economy survive. If there had been an alternative solution to solve the problem, he would have proposed an alternative without government and nation.

Max Stirner also recognised the potential problem of market economy as same as Keynes, and he did not invent a precise solution of it unlike Keynes. Stirner affirmed that the cut-throat competition and the monopoly of wealth should be prevented in order to protect all individuals liberty of living although he demanded to maintain the free market which allows individuals' freedom of transaction and decision making processes. At this point, Keynes also affirmed the same perspective as same as Stirner.

As Stirner was not an expert of economics, he did not draw a clear algorithm like Keynes could do. But, If Stirner had been equipped with the knowledge of economics, he would have created the same or similar analysis of catastrophic business cycles as Keynes described.

The big difference between Stirner and Keynes was that Stirner was passionately against government and nation-state whereas Keynes passionately supported government and nation-state. My personal objective is to discover the brand new model theory which fulfils both Stirner's aspiration of abolishing government and nation state and Keynes' inevitably claiming government positive interventions into economy.

Nevertheless, none has yet discovered or practiced the methods of stabilising economy by avoiding catastrophic errors without a positive collective intervention into economy by a governmental body. Someone who invents such a model will be definitely rewarded with Novel Prize. Otherwise, should we simply conclude that there will be no perfect socioeconomic political model theory like this one mentioned in this topic?