If one has to assess the performance or non-performance
of a government or administration, what is the better parameter, how much it has
done, subsidized, regulated, etc. or how little it has done or intervened?
Some of the "pro" comments:
1. He took out wangwangs on the road. he curbed
corruption.
2. He brought peace to Mindanao?
3. The creation of the GOCC Commission tasked to
privatize, abolish, merge, the duplicating, non-performing corporations,
offices of the huge bureaucracy.
4. Jailing of three senators and former lawmakers.. never
done before
5. The PERCEPTION of an honest and transparent government
in the international community,
6. Napaalis niya si Corona.
And the “anti” comments:
1. He curbed corruption because he wants all corruption
to go straight to the palace. See what happens to LTO plates.
2. He gave each congessman and senator so much in lump
sum appropriations under PDAF and DAP
3. He was able to avert an armed confrontation in the
West Philippine Sea against an armed invader.
4. He gave the bird to the Catholic Church by getting
congress to pass the RH Bill.
5. I see wangwangs everywhere
6. Zero infrastructure in 5 years/ LRT/ MRT in ruins.
Most people would use how much subsidies and welfarism, how
much regulation and interventionism, how much taxation of the rich or top 1%, etc as
their parameter. So less welfarism and subsidies means bad government.
I take the 2nd parameter. The worst thing that a
government or administration can do to its people is that it does and
intervenes so much. So a government that does not intervene too much, which
"does little" is actually a good thing. When a government requires
you need a permit to renovate your CR or change the color of your roof before
you move, even if there is zero corruption involved, you will hate that
government.
My beef is that PNoy Aquino is not liberal enough, he is not
non-interventionist enough. Lots of past interventionism and bureaucratism are
not removed yet.
In a free, (classical) liberal society, everything is
allowed except for a few prohibitions. LIke no killing/murder, no stealing or
destruction of others' property, no abduction/kidnapping, no rape/trafficking,
etc. The rest is allowed. Have alcohol and drugs, sex, open shops left and
right, etc. so long as no one is hurt or harmed.
In an unfree society, everything is NOT allowed,
prohibited, unless one gets a permit from the government. Thus, one cannot
drive his own car, cannot open and start a business, cannot repair his house or
office, cannot sell something, etc. unless he/she gets a permit.
It is not so much the degree of welfarism and subsidies
given away, but the degree of freedom that people enjoy, including the freedom
to be hard working and freedom to be lazy, that should be given more weight in
assessing a government.
So if one is a lover of huge welfare, beautiful
infrastructures, then he/she can love China and its communist government, love
PM Xi Jinping. They give lots of free housing, free university education,
beautiful roads and airports, etc.
But if one is a lover of freedom, he will hate China and
any commie or one-party government. No fb and youtube, no twitter and gmail,
etc.
How about Singapore? It allows fb and youtube, twitter
and gmail, etc., have lots of beautiful infra like roads and huge airport.
Nice, except that you can never ever criticize the government with those social
media. Their government gives heaven on earth, it should not be criticized.
See also:
Fat Free Econ 55: The President's 5th SONA and Market-Oriented Reforms, August 01, 2014
Citizen Watch 3: Political and Economic Reforms After SONA 2014, September 06, 2014
Fat Free Econ 55: The President's 5th SONA and Market-Oriented Reforms, August 01, 2014
Citizen Watch 3: Political and Economic Reforms After SONA 2014, September 06, 2014
Pol. Ideology 60: Lecture in Nepal on Liberalism, Rule of Law, Civil Society, January 13, 2015
Pol. Ideology 61: Raison d 'Etre of Government, January 30, 2015
Pol. Ideology 61: Raison d 'Etre of Government, January 30, 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment