The Confluence of Economy and State
War, insularity, and centralization of power led to an impedence of trade until the Age of Enlightenment, when the dynamics of international exchange began to cement themselves. Production before this point was primarily driven by the hands of a few nobles under systems of serfdom, indentured servitude, or artisanal labor monitored by guilds. In all cases, hereditary social systems were the mode, with those not born into a special class subjected to the conditions of the upper classes. In short, those who owned the state also managed the economy, and there was no clear divide between these two concepts. Exceptions existed in critical service fields such as adventuring, mercenary work, and travel-trading, which managed to avoid the property dominance of the nobility by the contract-based nature of their labor.
The hereditary system always preferred subsistence and local trade over internationalism, which tended to be complicated and bogged down by complex laws and tariffs. Those who were willing to forge their own paths by purchasing goods in one locale and selling them in another were often looked down upon by nobility unless they handed out steep discounts, and thus international trade suffered greatly.
The Age of Enlightenment saw a burst in contract labor; part of this was labor overflow due to improving technology, and another part was the preceding ages' migrations which had brought greater bonds (and curiosities) to neighbors all throughout the world. This burst resulted in greater international trade, whose profits became rapidly evident and undeniable in benefit. It also helped draw a line between economics and governance, for economics began to fall out of the hands of lords and into the hands of travelers. Everybody from feudal lords to kings and regents began to buy into the fad, often resulting in detrimental shortages at home in favor of profit abroad.
Disentangling Markets: The Emergence of Free Trade
International trade came to exist, but it was still guided by a few who dominated the means of production and a many who contractually exchanged with these owners. Both the system of production and the system of trade were inefficient. The concept of "free trade" emerged from the thoughts of
Edmund Leyton, a lawyer and disciple of
Thear who came from
Fyra. Proponents of free trade thus sometimes refer to themselves as
Leytonians. Leyton believed that decentralization of economics was the best basis for economic reform, and his advice took hold within the state, leading it out of a deep economic recession and into great profitability.
Ever since Leyton's philosophy took hold, it has begun to spread throughout the world, leading to a loss of economic power for nobles in many states. It also spurred much debate about the proper ways to interpret economics and statehood, and resulted in radical and hopeful alternative theories of economic management, including
Kasperianism. It also resulted in a lot of pushback from nobles not eager to lose their power. This pushback extended into philosophy and economics, where the Governists continue to fight for the old feudal system of economics.
In the modern world, the Leytonians have partially won out. Most states have a thriving merchant class, though the nobility still maintains significant power over economics and friction between the two classes is an ever-present threat. In many cases, nobles have defined a symbiotic relatinoship where they lease production to merchants, who manage the financial aspects of their duties on their behalf. This relationship only tends to amplify friction, however, as both struggle to get the upper hand (financially) over the other.
Critiques of the Divergence
Some have pointed out that, while Leytonianism certainly divested power from nobility, it eventually resulted in a concatenation of power in the most wealthy of the merchant class. Today, Fyra is a nation highly stratified by class, and so the original problems that Leyton sought to tackle did not disappear. Moreover, the nation is driven more by profit than by the judgement of nobility, which had interests in the state's welfare beyond mere economic profitability. Critiques of free trade come a variety of angles; some are reactionary, some are radical, and some simply critique the manner through which "free trade" has come to manifest in practice.
Critiques of the Premise
The notion of free trade presumes that profitability and efficiency are the optimal ends of an economic system. This is not necessarily the case, as there are other factors of conscientiousness and pragmatism that those who rule a nation (and, thus, command an economy) should consider. Those who launch these "critiques of the premise" are most often Governists - those who believe that economy and governance should be tied together, typically under a monarchial or feudal system. Their general belief is that an enlightened leader can harmoniously balance the varied elements of the state without inherently valuing one facet over another. It is, for example, unprofitable to house workers and maintain a military, but even the most incompetent of nobles under the feudal system managed both of these interests alongside production - something which systems of free trade cannot claim.
Critiques of the Process
In practice, "free trade" has often been implemented through arbitrary and unequal means. When a people managed to divest power from the nobility, it was often at a cost; the nobility did not surrender the means of production, but rather sold them for material wealth. This allowed power to shift to a new merchant class, but it maintained wealth among an incompetent noble class and functionally lobbed the nobility into the merchants. Furthermore, racial biases and familial wealth in the broader population impacted the ability for all to have an equal playing field when the markets were first freed up. More radical Leytonians sometimes insist that a free market is an ideal which functions best on an equal social playing field. This viewpoint is criticized by both Governists (a noble could calibrate these other factors) and Kasperians (if the playing field is equal, why not equalize production itself?), though it is the dominant Leytonian viewpoint in academia, and it contributes to Leytonian's pushes for social equality.
Critiques of the Conclusion
The premises of Leytonianism are, perhaps, sound. Efficiency and profitability are good, and the guidance of the economy should not be left to a potentially-benevolent lord. It is not, however, clear that free trade guarantees decentralized outcomes. In practice, it merely seems to recreate a nobility that is marginally more flexible (and, at the very least, not strictly hereditary). In its most ideal form, with all things level, it's not obvious that such a result wouldn't still follow. Thus, Leyton's solution carries with it significant flaws. Those who criticize his conclusions are mostly Kasperians, following the works of economist Gerhald Kasper. Kasperians believe in the decentralization of the means of production away from the nobility
without the capability for their ownership to go to another centralized source. The work of Kasperians has broadened significantly since its inception, and there are many different interpretations of how a system should be implemented.
