The Minimal Government Manifesto
Minimal Government = Minimal Bureaucracy = Minimal Taxes.
Smaller government appropriation from our hard-earned income = Greater individual freedom where to spend or save their hard-earned money.
Smaller government restrictions in movement of goods, services and people = Greater individual freedom where they will work, invest, trade, travel, rest and retire.
---------------------------------------------
Later as population and economic activities expanded, market failures arose - monopolies, oligopolies, externalities associated with production like pollution, dealing with criminals and other deviants that disrupt social order and threaten property rights, dealing with external aggressors, etc. So men invented GOVERNMENT. And government invented TAXES and various fees. Initially it went well.
Later, governments introduced government failures and inefficiencies - bureaucratic red tapes, corruption, excessive tax rates, excessive trade barriers, state-sponsored monopolies, etc. So men invented non-profit organizations, more commonly referred to as non-government organizations (NGOs) and civil society organizations (CSOs). Initially it went well in attempting to reform government and state failures.
Later, it became evident that "reforming government" has become an oxymoron. Bureaucracies, once created, seldom decline, let alone die. In fact, governments later invented habitual BUDGET DEFICIT Many politicians run for government positions not to reform government but to maintain, if not worsen, those state failures.
Some groups went extreme and invented communist parties and socialist parties, to make an already super-imposing state become a "Big Brother" interventionist socialist state, supposedly to "centrally plan" the basic needs of its people. Later, many socialist states could not even plan and produce how many tons of bread and rice, how many million liters of gasoline, how many pairs of jeans and shoes, will be needed by their people. Scarcity led to political instability which later led to collapse of many socialist governments, from the Soviet Union to Eastern Europe. The remaining socialist states (China, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc.) survive because they have allowed the market system to exist in the economic sphere while maintaining political monopoly.
Why reform government when markets can do the delivery of some public goods and services more efficiently?
Why reform government when some government functions can be privatized?
Why keep high and complicated taxes when many citizens are privately paying for services that should have been done by government, but failed to deliver because of government failures?
Why let government bureaucrats and politicians decide how much they should appropriate from our hard-earned income and wages, and where they should spend our hard-earned money, including how much to pay for themselves, their travels and their parties?
In the case of the Philippines, why should the productive sectors be heavily taxed, even harassed by tax administrators -- the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), Bureau of Customs (BOC), etc. - when the former seldom or do not send their children to public schools, do not go to public hospitals when they get sick, spend a big sum to live in gated villages for their personal protection, pay for the maintenance of their villages' street lighting and garbage collection? These services are long-held and believed to be "public goods" and hence, should be provided by the state. But many of these services are now provided by the private sector.
We, members and supporters of Minimal Government movement, believe in the following philosophies and principles:
a. Shrink the size of government and this will reduce corruption in government. If there is less to steal, less stealing will happen. If there is less power to wield unjustly, less power will be wielded unjustly.
b. Reduce tax rates and this will reduce corruption in tax collection. If there is less taxes to pay, less tax evasion will happen.
c.. Lessen "free riding" in benefits that other people have paid for. People should pay for services that they enjoy and benefit, whether publicly or privately provided.
d.. Should government be involved in delivery of social services, the task should be given to local government units (LGUs) and less to national government agencies.
e.. Optimize individual freedom to choose, to trade, to travel, to be happy. The privilege of selling to whomever wants to buy and to buy from whoever want to sell is basic human right and human freedom. To restrict who can sell to whom and who can buy from whom is a violation of such human rights.
To achieve these ends, we seek to advocate and campaign for the following basic measures:
1.. Merge line departments when their functions tend to overlap or occasionally conflict. Out of current 21 Departments, we believe these can be reduced to only 13 or 14. (See a discussion paper on "Merging Some Line Departments for Expenditure Reduction and Making the Philippine Bureaucracy More Efficient"). Corollarily, some bureaus and attached agencies under those departments can be merged, if not privatized.
2.. Corporatize, if not privatize, up to 90 percent of the current 120 state universities and colleges (SUCs). Government should re channel revenues and savings from this move to improve public elementary and secondary education, and to expand scholarship opportunities to poor but intelligent tertiary education students. After all, the really poor students do not reach college. They drop out even before they finish elementary or high school.
3.. A flat individual income tax rate of only 10 percent, versus the current 6 tiers, from 10 to 34 percent. A lower corporate income tax of 16 percent of net income, versus the current 32 percent. Theoretically, we believe that income taxes can be abolished, and government can shift to consumption tax. You buy a car or house, you pay tax. You buy gasoline or hamburger, you pay tax. You buy clothes or shoes, you pay tax. But in consideration of the swelling public debt and perennial budget deficit, we settle for a 10 percent income tax flat rate.
4.. Encourage the poor and those in the informal sectors to pay taxes. It is them who mainly benefit from public education, from public health care, from public safety. Many poor people have money to bet in jueteng, cockfighting and other forms of gambling, have money to buy beer and cigarettes, gin and local alcoholic drinks. Hence, they should pay taxes where they themselves will benefit from basic public services.
5.. Privatize a big portion of current public forest land. The government has terribly failed in protecting public forest land, currently constituting 50 percent of the country's total land area of 30 million hectares. Sell some of those public forest land, tax the new private landowners, while holding them accountable against activities that cause heavy environmental damage – rapid soil erosion, forest fires, uncontrolled mining tailings, etc.
6.. Corporatize or privatize other idle and underutilized resources - including police or military reservation areas. If these are military areas for instance, proceeds from such revenues should be devoted only to modernize the Armed Forces and to retire some maturing domestic debts. Savings from interest payment can be used to increase the pay of uniformed personnel.
7.. Liberalize further international trade. Trade protectionism benefits a few local producers and their workers but penalize the majority of the population. Savings by consumers from cheaper and/or better quality imported goods and services create additional demand on other goods and services, which create new business and employment opportunities which can more than offset business and employment displacement in the affected sectors.
8.. Liberalize further foreign investments into the country. It is better to bring foreign investors and businessmen into the country, than sending Filipino workers to foreign lands. Because of fast population growth and not so good educational system, labor supply always outstrips labor demand annually in the country.
9.. Deregulate sectors where monopolies and oligopolies thrive, where tentacles of government regulations kill entreneurship. The local shipping industry should be deregulated and liberalized to allow competition by foreign shippers, to give justice to local producers who complain of high rates imposed by local shipping monopolies and oligopolies, not to mention government red tapes.
10.. Support the move towards strengthening the LGUs through federalism.
We are NOT advocating a "Zero Government", though. Economic and political theories, as well as practicalities of daily lives, prove that there is role for government. Thus, we believe that there is room for government regulation and intervention in these areas, among others:
1.. Administration of justice, of upholding basic human rights against threats to life and property. This include functions by the Department of Justice (DOJ), the police (PNP), the Judiciary (Supreme Court and lower courts).
2.. National defense against potential external aggression. The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) can be reoriented to focus on air and naval defense. Fighting the communist insurgents, smugglers of prohibited goods (bombs, illegal drugs, etc.) and Muslim extremists is better handled by the PNP and local government units (LGUs).
3.. Basic education (elementary and secondary) and health care for the poor. But these should better be done more by the LGUs and less by the national government.
4.. Infrastructure development where there is little or no private sector interest. This includes power development, public works, transportation and communication facilities.
This is a tall order and a big challenge for us all. We expect public support, especially the middle class and salaried employees, for these reform measures. Reforms not only in governance, but also in our philosophy and concept of the role of governments, in the limits to their intervention, in our lives.
March 2004
---------
Hi Nonoy,
I just saw an episode last night on Jarius Bondoc's show on IBC 13. It was revealed that for the past two decades, Congress has been passing laws increasing the benefits given to the members of both GSIS and SSS without increasing their contributions which is just a minimal 3+ to 9+ percent. Meanwhile, there is a cap of about 7% on the amount that SSS funds could be used to invest in profitable ventures abroad, which further limits the profits that SSS could be making. Thus the SSS funds are steadily dissipated to pay for unscheduled benefits even as no additional income or contribution is being allowed.
Congress should not have any right to tinker with the allocation of benefits or fund management of SSS since this is a private membership which doesn't use government funds. While government has the right to oversee that the funds do not get squandered or invested in dubious projects, it should stay out of legislatively imposing rules that get irrelevant over time. Let's tell Congressmen to stay away from such private funding institutions. Even the GSIS can be partially privatized or corporatized, in which the management can be farmed out to the private sector.
Yes, I also agree that UP (the National State University) and all the other State Universities and Colleges should be given more fiscal autonomy and their units, faculty, and staff should be encouraged to establish investment or R&D corporations such as that in Silicon Valley. There should be a stronger partnership between the academe and the corporate sector to align education with the job market as well as to combine intellectual resources with corporate and financial resources.
-Selwyn Alojipan
Pareng Noy,
It's been a busy day but i took some time off to go through the subject manifesto.
Well, foremost, I will have to say that I came out of it a little wiser. The itemization of the aspects needing change/philosophies looks comprehensive, but perhaps for a few minor things. For instance, the reduction of size of government can well encroach towards the other branches too and need not be limited to the executive. I think the previous paper dealt with what departments to merge and cull out and thus provides a tremendous edge over the generalities (as my friend said) espoused by Dr. Canlas on the same issue. I can see that the paper would have further impact when your group fleshes out the numbers, e.g. magnitude of people/employees that will be displaced and how this "structural adjustment" on their part will be managed (i can imagine your group conceiving safety nets) to cushion the blow. A handle of estimated operational savings can also be a good object of further efforts.
I tend to think in timelines when it comes to public policy, Pareng Noy, so while reading i had thoughts of needing to be clarified about which ones may possible be done first. For one, i could not think that cutting the income taxes to 10% could come early in the reform. Other thoughts came about, especially in the transition stages. I see separatists making trouble as the AFP budget drops (i know i have some flaws in between these lines, as i write them, but please allow me just to express them anyway). I also see rent seekers and risk lovers venturing into kidnapping activities as police visibility and strength lessened during the transition. Unless of course some ways to usher in private-led police forces effectively is made possible. But there are dangers to that as well, for sure. I could see private police officers answerable to private owners for their jobs, and not to the public per se. There's the rub.
But by and large, i think this movement could go places because of the clarity of objectives and philosophies. As long as the movement is able to pinpoint where to exactly make cuts and where to grow more benefits, then it will succeed in really educating the unconverted and the unimpressed.
I agree with the pro-globalization stance, deregulation, liberalization of shipping, and air (?), and the privatization directions. I think your group could cite the WESM as a prime example in the power sector.
On the LGU lead activities, i get the sense that your group will be employing concepts of town meetings as a decision-making process, I remember Bruce Hall's excellent posts on this when we were discussing about turkeys in supermarkets?
Some caveats.
Federalism will require a federal government that will tend to continue to centralize some governmental activities. Health care for instance might tend to be more effectively provided at the federal level. The same may be true with research and other activities needing economies of scale or economic activities that will have to transcend state/LGU political boundaries, e.g. telecoms backbones, heavy rails, etc. So federalism might not mean leaner government in all cases.
I just hope that good hours will be poured into looking at environmental threat issues in the matter of privatizing public lands. Also, good hours in looking at possibilities of allowing foreign ownership of land parcels, in the ffort to usher in more FDIs.
Some ideas.
I think there are many varying ways to make road maintenance more private led and therefore make DPWH BOC a leaner organization.
I think there are also ways to tighten IT budgets. Outsourcing may be the key word to all these. It may just be a very friendly word to your minimal government movement.
NEDA as a planning body can be fully privatized, under ten-year bids, transcending national leadership terms.
Sorry that the thoughts are disjointed, i was typing while digesting your philosophies. I must admit I enjoyed it as a way to cap the day.
I will try to digest further the tax cut at flat 10%, somehow i get the sense that something is amiss. i'll try to get back to you about it. Maybe some time to rethink the idea of privatizing SUCs too. Rest muna.
Ang init naman dito sa bansa niyo. hehe.
- Ozone Azanza
Noy et al,
Count me as a sympathiser ... I just feel lazy and old for active membership (the way I eschew organized religion). I fancy myself as a rugged individualist. Cheers, hurrah for the individual. S/he is a live, pulsating, flesh and blood individual. S/he is not an abstraction, nor a generality, nor just a statistic. S/he is a person, not a thing.
I have not outgrown Ayn Rand ... the Virtues of Selfishness. In the move to set up the Minimal Gov't, we have first to destroy: the myth, the fallacy, the philosophy, morality -- basis of Big Government, which me thinks is to promote dependency, free-ridin' ... free-loadin' ... getting somethin' while sacrificing nothin'. Such actually is the politics also of Big Gov't.
This is my initial salvo ...
- RoyPicart
Sensei Roy Picart, et. al.,
I just hope you do not lose sight of the fact, mi amigo, that Ayn Rand's objectivism went beyond minimalism, she espoused zero government in Atlas Shrugged. And John Galt's new society in a secret valley hidden by the mountains remains to be just a figment of her imagination. It's pure fiction. That it will work in reality remains to be seen.
Don't get me wrong, i am a true blue Ayn Rand follower, i even named my daughter after her. I liked and loved the discourses on money as not the root of all evils and all the stuff about a free market society, freedom of choice (Fountainhead), freedom from centralized governance (We, the Living), etc., but the idea of "no government" is Ayn Rand's pure philosophizing, ergo, can be taken as just a myth as well. True blue as i am, i have to stay grounded. Ayn Rand can afford to be lofty as a philosopher. I can not, as a citizen.
This is the same bone of contention between the grand old party aka the republicans versus the democrats in the US of A. The repubs want a thinner fed government, the democs want a larger, heftier one to push programs on health care, transport safety, intelligence, and anti-crime. But even as the repubs rule now, the fed government remains heftier than ever. There is wisdom in having a big government, in some cases. And there may be wisdom in minimal government in others. Moneyed countries need not privatize, or outsource government activities, because absent is the driver of budget pressure that usually drive governments to privatize and/or outsource. Ergo, Big Gov't is not a myth per se.
I am glad to note Nonoy particularly acknowledged that the Manifesto is not about Zero Government. Somehow, this MGM bridges me between Ayn Rand and Keynes. I hope Nonoy gets sufficient funding support to push forward the research/studies on where to make cuts, where to merge, where to privatize, etc.
Kudos, Noy. Mabuhay ka, at sana'y magkalat ka ng lahi mo, hehe.
-Ozone Azanza
Hi, Ozone, folks,
Well, as to government, yup, there's no zero gov't even in theory perhaps. But we can have one that may approach -- zero bureaucracy, for gov't may just be an arrangement for orderly livin' among humans when they come together. This is how I intepret Ayn Rand's attitude toward government.
She came in quite strong in her defense of capitalism, vs. socialism, rational self interest vs. altruism such that the former does not necessarily imply absence of government. She was more concerned, I think, about the observation that while the individual can achieve excellence, the system or institution or bureaucracy ... which are just man's creation, has the tendency to end up in mediocrity. She saw the tragedy of mediocrity ruling over excellence, if the individual does not watch out, and assert himself and his freedom -- but just allows himself to wallow in such mediocrity because of fear, need for conformity, indifference or just plain laziness.
Such, I think, was the underlying theme of particulary Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead.
-- RoyP.
Warm Greetings from Virginia, Nonoy! I may have been a silent observer of all the brilliant and dedicated minds from this site. If only what has been put here would be implemented, then---our country would really be on a more progressive state. Thanks and kudos to you Nonoy for your unselfish effort to share information. It truly makes my dull moments here in AMerica really upbeat!
After reading your MINIMAL GOVERNMENT MANIFESTO, I should like to add my one cent's worth (or centavo!) of my mind. I STRONGLY suggest that we inlude reducin the number of legislators, senators and congressmen. There should ONLY be ONE legislator per region; this would mean about 15 at the most, 20 legislators in a UNICAMERAL Congress. Pork barrel system should be absolutely abolished. There should be minimum physical, intellectual, age and moral qualifications for legislators just as in the executive and judicial branches. In short bawal ang tanga sa mambabatas.
Incidentally thank you for hooking me up in here ( when we met about 2 years ago at the PDE reunion). YOu are one rare breed. I also join the others who salute you! Thank you and warmest regards
-- Angel Luli
While it may seem desirable to cut the amount of legislators to the bone, reducing it to just 15-20 might just be a bit extreme considering the number of comittees that already exist to cover various areas for further legislation. We first need to find out just how many committees should justifiably exist, recommend that the excess committees be disbanded, and then allocate the maximum number of congressmen who can work on those committees.
Perhaps Nonoy or somebody can give us a list of the existing committees in both the Senate and the House of Representatives so we could compare and match them.
Just as we are trying to figure out how many executive departments and agencies should be merged or disbanded, we can also recommend the same process to be applied to the committees in both houses of Congress. There should be a way to prevent superfluous committees from mushrooming without control.
On another issue, there should be a way to stop Congressmen from arbitrarily creating new districts or cities based on such criteria as simple growth in revenues or local population. The adherence to a simple formula for the creation of chartered cities has led to a sudden upsurge in the creation of chartered cities that suddenly require two or more additional congressional districts. Thus as the number of districts increase, the number of congressmen also increase, since they are elected at one per district. The unwarrented reorganization or creation of congressional districts is already known by a disparaging term. It is called gerrymandering. Do we want our politicians to be able to continue with this perfidious practice?
- Selwyn
> 3.. A flat individual income tax rate of only 10 percent, versus the
>current 6 tiers, from 10 to 34 percent. A lower corporate income tax of 16
>percent of net income, versus the current 32 percent. Theoretically, we
>believe that income taxes can be abolished, and government can shift to
>consumption tax. You buy a car or house, you pay tax. You buy gasoline or
>hamburger, you pay tax. You buy clothes or shoes, you pay tax. But in
>consideration of the swelling public debt and perennial budget deficit, we
>settle for a 10 percent income tax flat rate.
The 10% figure is beautiful. it makes it easy for the taxpayer to compute his/er income tax. perhaps though a subsistence allowance is deducted and the rest is subjected to the 10%. As to corporate income tax, the rate may even be just 1% of gross revenue or net sales. So no more discretion among tax examiners. and hence much less corruption.
> 5.. Privatize a big portion of current public forest land. The
>government has terribly failed in protecting public forest land, currently
>constituting 50 percent of the country's total land area of 30 million
>hectares. Sell some of those public forest land, tax the new private
>landowners, while holding them accountable against activities that cause
>heavy environmental damage - rapid soil erosion, forest fires, uncontrolled
>mining tailings, etc.
it has become quite obvious, in many countries where the dominant forestry policy is private ownership of forest, the forests are much better protected. the owners don't go into over logging, much less illegal logging because they leave a legacy to the coming generations. the problem is bureaucrats are still hanged up on the hacienda phenomenon.
there's a good start on privatization: the ancestral land law allowing indigenous cultural minorities to title their areas. but this is just being given lip service.
> 7.. Liberalize further international trade. Trade protectionism benefits
>a few local producers and their workers but penalize the majority of the
>population. Savings by consumers from cheaper and/or better quality
>imported goods and services create additional demand on other goods and
>services, which create new business and employment opportunities which can
>more than offset business and employment displacement in the affected sectors.
Let's have minimal or zero tariffs on imports. so this removes the incentives for smuggling and corruption in customs. this way law enforcing agents can just concentrate on illegal goods like dangerous drugs, human cargo, etc.
local industries will howl. but i say: conduct another feasibility study of your business. if yours is viable only because of gov't and tariff protection -- then it is not really feasible at all. go find another business. why forbid the consumer to spend cost effectively for his/er hard earned money. there are already legislated measures against unfairly priced imports: anti-dumping duties, countervailing duties (for subsidized exports of foreign countries), and safeguard duties due to any upsurge or abnormal rise in imports.
- Roy
Dear friends,
thanks for the expression of support as well as laying more challenges—mainly to produce the numbers. let me cite some of them, below. after the comments, my short reply.
Yeah man!
---------
(1) from Selwyn A.
Congress should not have any right to tinker with the allocation of benefits or fund management of SSS since this is a private membership which doesn't use government funds. While government has the right to oversee that the funds do not get squandered or invested in dubious projects, it should stay out of legislatively imposing rules that get irrelevant over time. Let's tell Congressmen to stay away from such private funding institutions. Even the GSIS can be partially privatized or corporatized, in which the management can be farmed out to the private sector.
(2) from Gico D.
Noy, Count me in as a supporter of minimal government. It's the most logical path to development where people assume primary responsibility for living the kind of lives they value and have reason to value.
(3) from Ozone A.
I can see that the paper would have further impact when your group fleshes out the numbers, e.g. magnitude of people/employees that wil be displaced and how this "structural adjustment" on their part will be managed (i can imagine your group conceiving safety nets) to cushion the blow. A handle of estimated operational savings can also be a good object of further efforts.
...i could not think that cutting the income taxes to 10% could come early in the reform. Other thoughts came about, espcially in the transition stages. I see separatists making trouble as the AFP budget drops... I also see rent seekers and risk lovers venturing into kidnapping activities as police visibility and strength lessened during the transition. Unless of course some ways to usher in private-led police forces effectively is made possible. But there are dangers to that as well, for sure. I could see private police officers answerable to private owners for their jobs, and not to the public per se. There's the rub.
But by and large, i think this movement could go places because of the clarity of objectives and philosophies. As long as the movement is able to pinpoint where to exactly make cuts and where to grow more benefits, then it will succeed in really educating the unconverted and the unimpressed.
I agree with the pro-globalization stance, deregulation, liberalization of shipping, and air (?), and the privatization directions. I think your group could cite the WESM as a prime example in the power sector….
(4) from Lardy C.
Maganda ito, pare! Count me as a believer. I can't say much except I really think (and I posted this before) a uniform income tax rate of, say, 10%, might do wonders. Taxpayers will become more honest (sic) and voluntary. I also think all the current tax personnel should go.
Minimal government suggests maximum leadership. Kaya lang, pare, may kaba ako dyan. Sino naman kaya?
(5) from Roy P.
Count me as a sympathiser ... I just feel lazy and old for active membership (the way I eschew organized religion). I fancy myself as a rugged individualist. Cheers, hurrah for the individual. S/he is a live, pulsating, flesh and blood individual. S/he is not an abstraction, nor a generality, nor just a statistic. S/he is a person, not a thing.
I have not outgrown Ayn Rand ... the Virtues of Selfishness. In the move to set up the Minimal Gov't, we have first to destroy: the myth, the fallacy, the philosophy, morality -- basis of Big Government, which me thinks is to promote dependency, free-ridin' ... free-loadin' ... getting somethin' while sacrificing nothin'. Such actually is the politics also of Big Gov't.
-----------
On (1)
Yep Selwyn. The least that can be done is to deregulate private social security (now SSS monopoly) and govt. social security (now GSIS monopoly). It's government that creates monopoly and perpetuates inefficiency – like legislators and the President pressuring the administrators of these private-funded institutions where to put the money, whom to lend. Or those administrators can be whimsical in spending those private contributions; after all, contributors have no other alternative; their incomes are just automatically-deducted, like taxes.
On (2)
Yes Gico. The individual knows his/her real needs -- children's education and housing for some, travel and leisure for some, food and beer/tobacco for others. But government, Phil. govt. in particular, by taking away 1/3 of individual income tax if gross individual income is P500,000 or more per year, is a hold-upper and an arrogant spender. What's P500,000/year gross income these days? The 2/3 of your income left can only buy a second-hand car, and you won't eat for the rest of the year. What a life, courtesy of the Philippine government!
On (3)
The Manifesto is only a statement of principles, philosophies and direction. That's why it's only 4 pages long. The "meat and bones", "nuts and bolts", numbers and percentages, will come later
as we go deeper into this future mess for ourselves that we are entering into.
Nevertheless, the separatists, insurgents, terrorists, ordinary criminals, can always make trouble if they want to. And as we have pointed out in the Manifesto, we are NOT advocating a "Zero Government", and among the govt. roles that will be retained are:
(1) Administration of justice, of upholding basic human rights against threats to life and property. This include functions by the Department of Justice (DOJ), the police (PNP), the Judiciary (Supreme Court and lower courts).
(2) National defense against potential external aggression. The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) can be reoriented to focus on air and naval defense.
(3) Basic education (elementary and secondary) and health care for the poor. But these should better be done more by the LGUs and less by the national government.
(4) Infrastructure development where there is little or no private sector interest.
Re. federal services, we are amenable to stronger federal states and local govts., and lesser national govt. agencies and bureacracies. Lousy governance and delivery of public services in one province can make some of its residents to move to nearby provinces or federal states where governance is better. Personally, I am amenable to Bruce Hall's proposal of ultimately abolishing all Departments, and their functions to be handled by LGUs or federal units. For the meantime, we shall advocate merger of some Departments to minimize dislocation of natl. govt. employees.
Agree with the rest of your ideas and challenges.
On (4)
Thanks, Lardy. But minimal govt. will not imply (the President's/Malacanang's) maximum leadership. It implies maximum individual freedom.
On (5)
Thanks, Roy. We shall definitely enjoin more volunteers and lobbyists to help advance these advocacies. I'm as individualist as you are in pursuing my personal travels, personal happiness, personal privacy, while pursuing these political campaigns. Potential beneficiaries – f ixed income earners, entrepreneurs and job creators, should avoid being "free-riders" because the plentier the advocates, the noisier the campaigns, the more pressured will be the legislators and malacanang bureaucrats to let go many of those burdensome-to-our-pockets "public services".
On Ozone’s points, me thinks that even in rich countries where there is no budget deficit pressure, where welfare system is generally working, there is still suppression of their citizens' individual freedom. What if many citizens want to work only 8 months/year in their country, then spend 4 months/year travelling and staying abroad, in "exotic" countries. By taking away almost 1/2 of their individual income as witholding tax, their citizens' freedom to pursue foreign travels and living is already constricted.
Yes, we shall be shopping for funding to finance research papers that will provide the "nuts and bolts", the numbers and percentages of cost/benefits, of shrinking government. Pag may nakita kaming pera, will post those research challenges.
On Roy’s points, Yes Roy, mediocrity would most likely set in once you try to "collectivize", to "equalize conditions" for people. As I have posted earlier in "Inequality is good", why pursue MS or PhD, or work hard, when your condition is about the same as an unskilled and drunkard worker? Governments, by attempting to "equalize conditions" among their citizens, are encouraging laziness and a non-innovative culture. Government can only equalize opportunities, but not conditions. If people are buying BMW or Benz cars because they studied and worked harder than the rest of the citizens, so be it.
- nonoy
----------
See also:
Liberal vs. Libertarian, November 06, 2005
Comments to MG Manifesto, December 05, 2005
Comments (2) to MG Manifesto, January 05, 2006
Pilipinas Forum 1: Crime and Punishment, August 29, 2011
Pilipinas Forum 2: Exchanges on MRT, August 30, 2011
Pilipinas Forum 3: Is Marxism Still Relevant? August 30, 2011
Pilipinas Forum 4: GMOs are good, August 31, 2011
Pilipinas Forum 5: Edsa 3 Aftermath, September 01, 2011
Pilipinas Forum 6: Middle Class Exodus, September 02, 2011
Pilipinas Forum 7: 12th anniversary, September 04, 2011
Pilipinas Forum 8: On the Abu Sayyaf, September 11, 2011
Pilipinas Forum 9: Corruption's Deep Root, September 16, 2011
Pilipinas Forum 10: Migration and Singapore as a Social Contract, September 17, 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment