what would you call this kind of economic theory

[altoidmintz]

I have a field of study I am interested in writing a book on. I study the intersection of morality and anarcho-capitalist economics, but I extrapolate it from an economic theory into a multi-disciplinary theory called a systems theory.

I have been calling my area of interest caeconomics for christian anarchist economics but I have run into a marketing problem because the idea of anarchy freaks people out.

Please do me a favor and rank, from 1-10, how much you like each of these new potential names for my area of interest. Don't worry about whether it accurately describes my interest, just rate how interested you would be to hear someone talk about a subject if it was named a certain way:

1  moral systems theory
2  christian systems theory
3  wordlview based systems theory
4  intelligent systems theory
5  simple systems theory
6  post neoclassical systems theory
7  post new institutional systems theory
8  universal systems theory
9  neovoluntaryism
10 neovoluntaryist systems theory
11 postvoluntaryism
12 post voluntary systems theory
13 post structuralist systems theory
14 teleological systems theory
15 post neoinstitutionalism

[Adrian-x]

...but I have run into a marketing problem because the idea of anarchy freaks people out

I love what you are doing.

I LOL'd at the quote above in my world it isn't anarchy that freaks people out but the word Christianity that does.

FYI morals aren't derived from Scripture they are reflected there.

Your thesis should reflect morality a little more "objectively"

Check out CBC Ideas podcast, for some light listing on the subject and an introduction to some noteworthy authors.

[herzmeister]

well, could you sum up in short what's new or different with your "theories" in comparison to all the already existing ones?

[altoidmintz]

I love what you are doing...
FYI morals aren't derived from Scripture they are reflected there.

Your thesis should reflect morality a little more "objectively"

Check out CBC Ideas podcast, for some light listing on the subject and an introduction to some noteworthy authors.

1 Thanks!
2 I know! Actually one of the most interesting parts of my idea is the CAE interpretive proof which involves proving the same concept twice in two independent fashions: first through deductive or logical reasoning and secondly through observation-based scientific reasoning.
3 What do you mean? Suggestions perhaps?
4 Ok I will check it out


Also what did you think about all the other potential names (if it is too much work nvm i guess but it would be very helpful.)

Also, for others reading, I think I will take down nonresponse/indifference as a rating = 5/10
Feel free to throw out other names I haven't considered.

[altoidmintz]

well, could you sum up in short what's new or different with your "theories" in comparison to all the already existing ones?

Actually I was deliberately hoping to AVOID this and just get some feedback on how positive/negative you feel about the different wordings for marketing, rather than academic, purposes.

I am going to VERY RELUCTANTLY go ahead and indulge the request, but I am extremely reluctant because to do a comparative analysis properly would take the length of writing of an academic white paper.

1 The starting point is a synthesis of various contemporary free market economics schools of thought. Voluntaryism, Anarcho-Capitalism (as per David Friedman most specifically), Austrianism and Chicago school economics all combine to form this "starting point." These schools vary widely so simply describing how this synthesis occurs would already be lengthy and I just can't do it in a small amount of space, but I will point out a few things.

2 I hypothesize that the subjective theory of value is incorrect and that an objective theory of value is correct. Instead of running back to the falsified Ayn Rand objectivist school I utilize a new method of objective analysis that works through comparative worldview.

3 I prefer a combination of deep deductive and inductive reasoning for analytical purposes the likes of which obliterate the standards set by any other school.

4 I emphasize social and human capital and define this mathematically in a way at least equivalent to the leading edge of other schools.

5 I emphasize the role of time much like the Austrians do.

6 I don't only describe "what is" but also "what should be," something no other school can claim, with deep justification going all the way to cutting edge ethical philosophy and comparative religion.

7 VERY IMPORTANTLY: I take economic modelling and turn it into intelligent system modelling so that it works for any intelligent system including political systems and others, not just economic systems. Only the bleeding edge of science does this and it is usually referred to as some varient of institutionalism

8 Unlike most kinds of institutionalist and structuralist thinking, which assert that people are influenced by institutions and structures which are difficult to change, I pay special attention to the fact that intelligence leads to developement of institutions and structures and consequently can easily and radically change them under certain conditions. Further different from those sectors, I bring mathematical rigour by positing that each of these organizations, institutions and structures are really just microeconomies operating under certain special rules.

9 I also hold to the idea that if you can't explain a system in micro terms and justify your system of aggregation then you don't know what you're talking about...None of that "it's macro, it's different" here.

Lot's of other stuff too but that'll get your feet wet.

[ronimacarroni]

post and neo anything sounds like liberal hogwash.
and the other ones sound too broad.
also anarchism is an oxymoron.
You can't have socialism without some form of government.

[ronimacarroni]

Christian voluntarist theory would sound best I guess.

[Adrian-x]

2 I know! Actually one of the most interesting parts of my idea is the CAE interpretive proof which involves proving the same concept twice in two independent fashions: first through deductive or logical reasoning and secondly through observation-based scientific reasoning.
3 What do you mean? Suggestions perhaps?
4 Ok I will check it out


Also what did you think about all the other potential names (if it is too much work nvm i guess but it would be very helpful.)

Also, for others reading, I think I will take down nonresponse/indifference as a rating = 5/10
Feel free to throw out other names I haven't considered.

2) Before you bring religion into it, the topic is probably best served by fitting scripture quotes to the facts not twisting the facts to for the religion.

3) Morality WTF it's subjective! 

4) An interesting tale on Morality and a guide to assessing morality objectively, is listed below. (Lots of perspectives and Fud,) you can't get to the bottom of it because it is subjective, but give it a go.

The Science of Morality, Part 1
The Science of Morality, Part 2
Some reading:  After Atheism
After Atheism Part 1
After Atheism Part 2
After Atheism Part 3

None of you names have any traction with me. (thinking about it, few couples deicide on a name before there're pregnant and the baby is well formed in the womb, or even name it after its birth. Don't get hung up on the name by putting the cart before the house, you need to gestate before you have a feel for the name.)

Re herzmeister point,  in the past 8 years of intrest I have read a lot of existing ideas / a myriad of theories, all of which present truths, yet all to a lesser or greater degree rendered invalid or opposed because of the authors a prejudice, or preconceived ideal. 

So while there is opportunity to take all the truths and reconcile the theoretical ingredients from the perspective of an objective morality, which is what I understood from your OP,  that is no small task. 
IMO some prominent understandings expressed by Adam Smith, Marx, Mises, Keynes, among many others all have shortcomings common insights and omissions.