BWorld 9, Poitical populism vs. tax realism

* This is my article in BWorld last July 2.

Political populism vs. tax realism

THE 2016 general elections are just 10 months away. It is natural that people are discussing who should lead this country of 103 million people by that time. And more often than not, political and economic ideologies determine, whether explicitly or implicitly, people’s criteria in choosing and supporting their candidate/s.

The Philippines has a personality-oriented politics, not philosophy- or ideology-oriented. This is also true of other countries, to be sure. Political parties have come and gone, and others are moribund, depending on whether the key party figure remains visible and influential. Either way, candidates are easily swayed by the populist aspirations and welfarist demands of many voters.

During the two-party system that dominated Philippine politics until the Marcos dictatorship beginning in the 1970s, an ideological line, in hindsight, was supposed to distinguish the Nacionalista Party (NP) and the breakaway Liberal Party (LP). The Nacionalistas were supposed to be nationalists and trade protectionists, more state-oriented; and the Liberals were supposed to be globalists and free traders, more market-oriented. Yet both parties were ruled by the same elite, and the line that was supposed to distinguish them was blurred further by turncoatism. Two Liberals among the roster of presidents in the postwar Third Republic ran under the rival banner of the Nacionalistas and went on to uphold the supposed ideology of the Liberals. And then as now, as the presidency had always demonstrated, Philippine politics was and remains personality-driven.

Post-Marcos politics gave way to the multiparty system in effect until today, with other parties, other advocacies, giving voice to past attempts in the two-party system to present an alternative politics. Yet all these parties must accord with the practicalities of political survival by forming coalitions -- including the ruling coalition led by the LP and including its odd ally, the NP.

The foremost consideration for survival is the pulse of the electorate, and thus the mentality and behavior of politicians may generally be deemed a reflection of the mentality and behavior of the voters, as influenced further by the mainstream media and various advocacy groups. If voters think politicians are opportunistic and corrupt, politicians too -- without articulating it, of course -- think voters are just as opportunistic and corrupt. Many politicians feel there is high pressure from the voters for an entitlement and welfarist set of policies. These voters and pressure groups (including non-voters like those below 18 years old) feel that they are entitled to be given free healthcare, free education, free or highly-subsidized housing, credit, tractors, burial, etc.

It is always easy and populist to blame politicians who, in turn, take advantage of populism and the entitlement mentality by supporting high and multiple taxes, or pushing for a further increase in those taxes, so they will have additional revenues to fund various types of subsidies, including corporate welfare for crony firms.

Such political populism and welfarism coupled with corruption are costly to the taxpayers. While the politicians and governments of other countries, our neighboring countries, in particular, have their own brand of populism, their taxes are not as high as those in the Philippines.

In the 10 countries who make up the ASEAN, for instance, the Philippines has the highest corporate income tax rate, the highest withholding tax for resident aliens, and the highest VAT. It has the second highest personal income tax rate in the region.

Notice that Vietnam is rather aggressive in cutting its tax rates, coupled with liberalizing their economy to more investors, local and multinational. That is a good formula to broaden the tax base and possibly realize even bigger tax revenues.

If Philippine politicians and presidentiables cannot escape following political populism, then this should be complemented by tax realism -- people and businesses dislike high and multiple taxes, so the tax base becomes narrow, the temptation/incidence of tax avoidance rises, and overall tax collection becomes smaller than its potential.

Consider also that after almost one-third of people’s monthly incomes has been taken by the government, there are other mandatory and forced contributions to government-owned social security agencies (SSS, GSIS, PhilHealth, Pag-IBIG, etc.). And from the take-home pay (net of personal income tax and mandatory contributions), government further collects many other taxes and fees -- VAT for almost everything on consumer items, vehicle registration tax for cars, franchise tax for businesses, real-property tax, etc.

And that is one criticism of the ruling LP, that it is not acting liberal enough. Many of its adopted and implemented policies are far from liberal and closer to the populist and welfarist philosophy, while eschewing tax realism too.

Another example that the LP diverges from (classical) liberal philosophy of more freedom for the citizens and limited government is the proposed Cavite-Laguna Expressway (CALAX) -- about which Dr. Raul Fabella noted in an article that “the bid parameter should have been the lowest toll charge rather than highest premium payment to the government.”

Thus, future CALAX users should pay lower toll fees (more savings in their pockets) and not pay more because of the higher payment to the current government.

Tax competition among ASEAN member-countries is happening and winners, very often, are those who offer low tax rates and carry out tax regulations that are easy to remember and manage.

Presidentiables and political parties should consider campaigning and advocating for drastic cuts in both corporate and personal income tax, withholding tax, VAT, and other types of taxes.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the head of Minimal Government Thinkers, a Manila-based think tank that advocates classical liberal ideas, and a fellow of the South East Asia Network for Development (SEANET), a regional center that advocates economic freedom in the region.

-----------

See also: 

BWorld 5, Transportation Bureaucracy and Uber, June 16, 2015 

BWorld 6, Biotechnology, Innovation and the Philippines, June 19, 2015 

BWorld 7, Free Trade vs.Protectionism via Non-Tariff Measures, June 26, 2015  

BWorld 8, Manila's Traffic and Transport Woes, June 27, 215

AEC 14, SEANET-ABAC Meeting, IDEAS-OBG Partnership, June 24, 2015

Election 15, On Inclusive, Principled, Competent and Humble Presidentiables

My former Prof. in undergrad Political Science subject in UP Diliman in the 80s, Dr. Segundo "Doy" Romero, asked yesterday in his fb wall, "Is Mar Roxas inclusive, principled, competent, and humble as appropriate to the Philippine Presidency?"

He then defined those four concepts.

1. “Inclusive” means you, the candidate, is committed to the quality of life of, by, and for the whole Filipino people. Inclusive development means enabling the poor, the vulnerable, the marginalized, and the disadvantaged to develop faster than the rest of society.

2. “Principled” comes from a consistent code of behavior (“sa isip, sa salita, at sa gawa”) that, faced with a series of dilemmas, enables you to choose the higher interest of nation over sectarian or narrow interests.

3. “Competent” comes from doing the right things right – good technical and administrative results being consistently produced to match good intentions. This includes extending your reach beyond your grasp through teamwork and technology.

4. “Humility” is when self-praise is unnecessary; it comes from public acknowledgment that you are inclusive, principled, and competent.

I commented and gave a direct answer, No.

But in fairness to Mar Roxas, other Presidentiables like VP Jojjo Binay, former President Erap Estrada, Sen. Alan Cayetano, Sen. Bongbong Marcos, other presidentiables, will also have a NO answer, at least for me.

Sen. Grace Poe may have humility; and competence, am not sure. 

With the current system of personality-oriented, not philosophy or ideology-oriented politics in the PH, no candidate can be really principled. Where the populist and welfarist idea prevails, Presidentiables and other politicians will be swayed by populism too. If majority of voters want more subsidies, more welfare, more entitlement programs, never mind that taxes are high and public debt is rising yearly because of annual deficit, with or without a crisis, most or all Presidentiables will be swayed towards populism.

Being a free marketer and believer of classical liberalism (not US liberalism or other variants), the closest political party in this ideology in the PH is the Liberal Party. The LP is also affiliated with Liberal International (LI), based in Europe. European liberalism is closer to classical liberalism.

My beef or complain about the LP is that it is not acting liberal enough. Many of Its policies adopted and implemented is far from being liberal but closer to the populist and welfarist philosophy. Notice how socialists like Walden Bello. Joel Rocamora, Ronald Llamas and other officers of BISIG-Akbayan found it easy to be in partnership with the LP. Either the latter group are confused socialists or the LP are confused liberals.

Sir Doy asked, "Is it possible to assess the utility of political parties in terms of the outcomes they envision and actually achieve for the people and nation over a period of time...?"

Maybe Yes. One problem is that all political parties here say the same thing -- "good governance", "anti-corruption," or "the current administration is corrupt, we can clean government", etc. And personality-based political parties are born. PROMDI party by Lito Osmena, REPORMA party by Rene de Villa, Aksyon Democratiko by Raul Roco, PRP by Miriam, PMP by Erap, Lakas by FVR and JDV, etc. When those leaders are gone or lie low, the party is gone or become less visible too.

We cannot expect much differences among political parties and leading candidates. The visible difference perhaps is that one candidate is more vulgar in its plunder and robbery (like Jojo Binay, based on various pending and filed cases against him and his family) while the others are less vulgar.

Very often, the mentality of the politicians is a reflection of the mentality and behavior of the voters, the public, mainstream media and NGOs. From some politicians that I talked to, they often say, "so many people clamor for it", referring to the entitlement and welfarism mentality. Many voters  feel they are entitled to be given free healthcare, free education, free housing, free or highly subsidized credit, tractors, burial, etc.

The people's values, in short, are corrupt. Many people will not admit it of course that they have corrupt minds and entitlement values. It is always easy to blame the politicians. And somehow true, the politicians take advantage of populism and entitlement mentality. How else can one justify that the government confiscates almost 1/3 of people's monthly income, and from the take home pay, government further collects many other taxes and fees (VAT on consumer items, vehicle registration tax for their cars, real property tax for their house and lot and farm, franchise tax for their business, etc.).

-----------

See also:

Market Reforms in the 2016 Elections, May 25, 2015

Election 11, Dr. Doy Romero on Binay, Roxas and Grace Poe, June 01, 2015 

Election 12, JV Bautista and Toilet Politics, June 05, 2015 

Election 13, Bernard Ong's Analysis, June 21, 2015 

Election 14, The Middle Earth of PH Politics, by Doy Romero, June 24, 2015

Pol. Ideology 26: Socialists in a Liberal Government

Socialism and liberalism are political ideologies that are poles apart. The former is advocating more or big government, little or no free market, and state ownership of all means of production, little role for private property ownership. The latter is working on the opposite side, advocating less government and a lean state, free trade and free market, more private property ownership, from personal items to means of production. Many other ideologies fall in between.

A few weeks ago, there were many news reports and commentaries about the Presidential Adviser on Political Affairs, Mr. Ronald Llamas, about his big purchase of fake DVDs. A few months before that, his SUV driven by his bodyguards while he was abroad was caught by the police as having long firearms and it created some scandal for Ronald. In the DVD purchase case, the issue was that a high government official is patronizing pirated products when the government is campaigning against piracy and should be protecting intellectual property rights (IPR) like the copyright of movies.

I do not want to go into details about those news reports and other commentaries, but I commented on a friend's facebook wall about the issue. My take is not so much about the pirated DVDs and IPR, I've written a lot about that subject, just search "On Intellectual Property Abolition" series in this blog.

Here is what my friend, Bonn, wrote:

I share (almost) the same argument and sentiment about the character and politics of Ronald Llamas.

I'm, however, saddened and worried about how supposedly critical media outfits, social observers, reformers, and even some in the progressive community have been easily drawn into the anti-reform propaganda and plot created by spin doctors. Hyping up, exaggerating, and spin-doctoring this recent DVD issue and the AK47 incident are obviously orchestrated by anti-reformers whose main objective is to remove Llamas, who is definitely a formidable force in the ongoing process and project for governance reforms and social change.

Pol. Ideology 20: Liberalism and the Squatters

(This is my article today in thelobbyist.biz with original title, Squatters, land reform and liberalism)

Squatting or settling illegally on land that people do not own or lease, is violation of private property rights. Land reform and forced land redistribution without timetable, is another violation of private property rights. Liberalism is the philosophy that focuses on individual liberty, rule of law and private property rights.

Early last week, there was a news report, Aquino plans massive relocation of squatters. It reported that:

President Beigno Aquino III said late Saturday more than half a million squatter families in Metro Manila will be relocated and receive two hectares of farm land each under his administration’s program on illegal settlers.

He said the government had identified some 1.5 million hectares of farm land that could be distributed to an initial 560,000 squatter families in Metro Manila in a bid to decongest the capital and improve agricultural production nationwide.



 “The Department of Agriculture and the Department of Environment inventory shows we can lend, lease or give two hectares of land per indigent family provided they cultivate agricultural crops, develop, and earn from the land they will live on.

“If they fail to stick to these conditions, the land will be taken from them.”

If this plan will push through, there are several negative implications.

One, it pays to become an illegal settler. By living on other people’s private land, you will be rewarded with land up to two hectares that can become yours. Even ordinary employees cannot afford to buy such huge area of land.

Two, for agribusinessmen and women, the threat of forced land redistribution with no timetable will remain. From former President Cory Aquino’s CARP law of 1998 that was supposed to end in 1998, it was extended to 2008, and further extended to 2013. Looks like it will be re-extended to 2018, or longer. The number of squatters nationwide is rising, not declining. So more private lands will be subjected to forced land redistribution in the next few years to be given to the squatters.

Three, not all squatters are former farmers or have the heart in farming. What can happen is that upon getting the land title or similar proof of ownership or lease, some squatter beneficiaries can sell or transfer the right to use such land to other people, get the money and squat again in other cities, then hope that the existing and the next administrations will give them new subsidies and entitlements.

Four, the spend and spend, borrow and borrow and later, tax and tax policy will continue. Giving away land for free or at highly subsidized price, then provision of various farm and marketing support to land beneficiaries, is a costly and expensive program.

And five, liberalism and (classic) liberal philosophy that are supposed to be implemented by the President and his team who come from the Liberty Party, will be sidelined further, if not forgotten.

One of the big burdens and baggage of the Philippine economy and society is the lack of strict promulgation of the rule of law, of securing private property rights like land. Many people and businessmen will be hesitant to develop certain lands into long-term agribusiness projects because the “land reform with no timetable” will be haunting them for several years more to come.

Liberalism is supposed to be the main philosophy and guiding principle by the current administration that will help shape public policy. But as things unfold, real liberalism is being pushed to the margins while statism and near-socialist policies take center stage.

Let us hope that there will be awakening in the minds of key LP leaders. That LP stands for liberalism and individual liberty, not statism or socialism.
-------

On "No taxes, No Government"


This is among the common misconception, honest or deliberate. that some people, academics and consultants, NGO leaders included, would portray someone who advocates minimal and limited government. Personally, I have NEVER advocated that, and I do not believe in anarchy or zero government.

Government is necessary, I wrote several times, on certain functions. I believe in BIG government -- to run after killers, murderers, thieves, rapists, terrorists, bombers, kidnappers, carnappers, land-grabbers, other criminals, especially the organized and well-armed gangs.

Thus, we need taxes to finance government to perform such function, to promulgate the rule of law, to protect private property rights, and citizens' right to life against aggression. 


But we need no taxes for government to over-regulate entrepreneurship and job creation. We need no taxes to create and expand various bureaucracies that do nothing but make the life of job creators more difficult and more miserable.

"No taxes, no government, no subsidies" is a classic paranoid reply by many people who do not understand or appreciate the philosophy of more personal responsibility, more individual freedom, limited government and free markets.

Someone redefined the excise tax as a tax on goods where "the source is scarce or expensive". This is wrong. If this is correct, then the government should also slap medicines, medical equipment, construction and housing materials, others with excise tax. These are "necessary product/s, but we do not produce it out of thin air."
-----------

See also
Pol. Ideology 14: Liberalism, Democratism and Coercion, January 18, 2010
Pol. Ideology 15: Socialism, Conservatism and Liberalism, March 08, 2010

Pol. Ideology 16: Liberalism and Social Opportunity, July 29, 2010

Pol. Ideology 17: The LP and the Philippine President, November 03, 2010

Pol. Ideology 18: John Lennon and Liberty, Purpose of the Law, December 15, 2010

Pol. Ideology 19: What is the Role of Government?, March 08, 2011

Pol. Ideology 17: The LP and the Philippine President

In a facebook status by one of my friends, she observed how a number of top officials of the current administration under President Benigno S. Aquino III (BSA3) seem too juvenile and arrogant in their work.

I commented in her fb status my personal observation: where is the Liberal Party (LP)? BSA3 ran on a liberal platform, not socialist or nationalist or pure populist platform. Thus, the liberal agenda as defined in their campaign program and promises should prevail in this administration's agenda. Not the specific agenda and personal interests of people that BSA3 employed outside the party.

Many of the officials appointed by the President, I observe, are non-party members. They are not part of (LP) party ideology and party discipline. Although I also observe that LP's practice of what is "liberal economics, liberal politics" is also not so distinctive. Their liberalism is focused too much on promises of "good governance/anti-corruption" platform.

When I voted last May, I held on the party philosophy. I don't believe in socialism, I dont believe in nationalism and anti-globalization, I don't believe in pure populism. I believe in liberalism, especially the classic liberal (not american liberal or neo-neo-liberal label) philosopy, emphasizing individual liberty, more personal responsibility.

All political parties in the last elections campaigned hard on anti-corruption platform, so it is difficult to differentiate one from the other, except the personalities and standard bearers of the party. The LP and BSA3 should go back to their liberal agenda during the campaign.

I just checked the LP website, I like their "Liberal Vision":

The freedom of every individual is at the core of our beliefs. Liberals aims to build a society in which individual men and women are entitled to pursue their aims, develop their talents and fulfill their potential free from arbitrary interference, and are able to exercise real power over the institutions that govern their lives. The necessary condition for the creation of an environment in which individuals can genuinely prosper and to maximize their potential is by enabling them to take and use political power.

We believe that the power of the individual is best expressed and secured within communities. Communities help people not just to realize their rights, but to recognize their responsibilities to others and to broaden the common good. This is the necessary social framework without which individuals cannot truly flourish. The empowerment of individuals therefore also requires empowering the communities to which they belong.

source: http://www.liberalparty.ph/platform/vision.htm

Definition like this makes me a fan of liberalism as an ideology. It is a beautiful ideology. Focus on individual freedom. Individual rights, personal responsibility. As opposed to forced and collective freedom, collective rights, that tend to step or disregard individual freedom.

Go liberal, LP and BSA3.

It is your promise. It is your commitment. You are duty-bound to stick to it.

* Six months ago, I wrote this related paper,

Party-building vs. Personality-building

April 26, 2010

(This is my article for the "People's Brigada News", April 21, 2010)

A friend articulately wrote an article, "Why _____ is the Best for Philippine Democracy and Development?" Among his main arguments are:

1. Candidate’s program is the "politics for God and country".
2. His promise of "Walang Korapsyon"
3. His ability to mobilize the spirit of volunteerism.
4. His 7E's platform for democracy and development (Eradicate bad governance, Energize the economy, Empower the people, other motherhood calls).

In the upcoming Presidential elections, there are at least 4 candidates from small political parties. While they all have something useful to contribute to Philippine politics as they expand the choices for the voters, there is something problematic with their insistence to run for President.

The purpose of elections is to allow the most organized political party or coalition to capture political power, nothing less than that. So some politicians sell their souls (and their family members' souls) to the devil, just to capture political power. Other politicians use charisma, emotions, political pedigree, etc., to achieve the same objective.

My main critique of politicians from small political parties running for President, is that they are weak, if not lousy, in political party building. They focused on personality-building, highlighting the personal achievements, beliefs and advocacies of their “standard-bearer.”

The main vehicle to capture political power is through a political party. The party offers a particular political and social philosophy or ideology to the voters and the public. Another party offers a different, if not opposing, political and social philosophy. A winning or victorious party or coalition should implement what it promised to the voters. Its victory can be seen as a reflection of the dominant political philosophy embraced by the voters.

If the political party is not strong and big enough, it should build an alliance or coalition with other smaller political parties that share the same political philosophy on major concerns, so that the coalition will win and capture political power.

The politicians from small parties did little to develop a broad-based political party from the grassroots between 2004 and 2010. They just shot up from somewhere a few months before the elections and offer themselves as the "best" leader with no sufficient leadership to show in actual political party-building or coalition-building. They cannot even coalesce and unite among themselves, none of them would give way to support the other principled-but- small groups. They all want to be proclaimed the "best", or the "most honest" or what have you, presidential candidate.

The process of party-building, rather than personality-building, is also a good measurement of how transparent and how accountable the politicians of a particular party are. Those with dictatorial tendencies or those who do not stick to the party philosophy and ideology would see their political party thinning out and breaking apart soon.

My personal bias is to vote for a presidential candidate or political party who will promise or plan to have a smaller government, smaller and fewer taxes, allow bigger role for personal responsibility, individual liberty and market competition. Since I cannot find such political party now, and I am lazy to put up my own political party or work with other individuals to push such advocacies at the political party level, then I will go for candidates and a political party that approximates my personal bias and philosophy. I will vote for candidates who have the least record of heavy state intervention, those who enacted the fewest laws, regulations and prohibitions. This option is a hundred times better than offering myself or some friends to the public as the "best" or "most honest" or "savior" or what have you adjectives.

A citizens’ movement for bigger personal responsibility, lesser government responsibility in exchange for fewer and smaller taxes, regulations and prohibitions, should start now and the coming months. The pressure to politicians during campaign period would push them to become more welfarists and subsidy-giving, with the implicit and inevitable consequence of retaining the existing high and multiple taxes, fees and charges. Or raising taxes later on.

Such citizens’ movement need not be centralized. In fact, it is better that such movement will be decentralized to allow greater leeway and dynamism for individuals and groups that advocate the philosophy for greater personal responsibility and greater individual freedom. Party-building can start from such initiatives. Personality-building should be minimized. The idea should prevail over the personality. Ideas can last for years and centuries while personalities can last for only a few years or decades.

---------

See also:

Pol. Ideology 11: Liberalism, Democratism & Authoritarianism, January 04, 2009

Pol. Ideology 12: Lao Tzu, Cooperative Individualism, February 07, 2009

Pol. Ideology 13: Liberty and Liberty Forum, the LP, March 19, 2009
Pol. Ideology 14: Liberalism and Democratism, January 18, 2010
Pol. Ideology 15: Socialism, Conservatism and Liberalism, March 08, 2010

Pol. Ideology 16: Liberalism and Social Opportunity, July 29, 2010

Pol. Ideology 16: Liberalism and Social Opportunity

A friend asked me if there is anyone in the new administration of President Aquino who can include some of MG advocacies, while the situation is still "fluid".

I said that if politicians in the Liberal Party -- the ruling political party now -- really understand and appreciate the liberal philosophy, as in classic liberal, not US "liberal" or Pinoy liberal or the left's favorite sloganeering, "neo-liberal", then there is no need to "put" someone in the administration to remind the President to stick to the party's principles and ideology.

In brief:

A liberal is not and will never be a socialist nor ultra-nationalist. A liberal is a lover of economic and political liberalization, of diversity. A socialist and nationalist, on the other hand, is a lover of monopoly, of monotony.

I was actually disappointed how some Filipino liberal politicians would mouth socialist advocacies, like price control. Remember former Sen. Mar Roxas' drug price control moves last year. Or some moves by their partymates to support oil re-regulation legislation.

Now the President seems to be more liberal than most LP politicians and party-leaders. It's good. I don't remember the party advocating to drastically slash and reduce the endless business regulations that kill entrepreneurship for some, that discourage free market capitalism in the country. But the President explicitly and loudy advocated for it. That is why I wrote "The President's SONA 2010" about bureaucracies in business.

But more than "influencing" the administration, the bigger challenge for free marketers and believers of classic liberal philosophy, is influencing the public, in slugging out in public debates, the many socialists, millions of them in this country.

Who are these socialists, by the way? Most would not admit that they are socialist and communist, but their advocacies are 99 percent similar to the explicit socialists.

These are the people who think that "education is a right", "healthcare is a right", "housing is a right", "pension is a right", "agri credit is a right", "water is a right", "high paying job is a right", "unemployment allowance is a right".

For them, everything is a right, an entitlement from the state. For them, there is little or no room for personal and parental responsibility. Most or everything should be government responsibility.

My longer argument about this is posted below, "More statist than the state".

Another friend, Lardy, commented:

Only the government can create or promote an even-playing field for all citizens (including legal entities). It is not just my belief, but it is THE government's obligation to do so.

However, this obligation should not be misconstrued as 'enforcement of equality', which has tinge of socialism in it. Rather, I would expect that government ensures that everyone has an equal opportunity to do good in life, to pursue his happiness, etc.

Truth be told, the private sector, left to its devices, cannot create this equality of opportunity.

Lardy is right. There is one important function of government that I believe, and I would say that there should be BIG government in implementing it: to protect the citizens right to life, right to private property, and right to liberty and self expression.

The promulgation of the rule of law -- the law against killing and shooting, law against stealing and plunder, law against kidnapping and carnapping, law against censorship and harassment, etc. -- is a very important function of the government.

And for me, this is the single biggest function of government to ensure the equality of opportunity for all people.

Juan is a hard-working and ambitious person, even if he did not reach college. He is a mechanic by day time, and sells balut/chicharon/ peanuts in the evening, comes home late at night. It won't be long and Juan will become a start up formal entrepreneur, on his way to wealth and being rich. Government's job is to protect Juan and his family from street muggers, thieves, snatchers, "akyat-bahay" gangs, and protect his wife and daughter/s from rapists. Juan has great peace of mind, he works hard, his savings and investment is respected and protected by the state.

Pedro who is less hard-working but very articulate speaker and writer on "rights of citizens", also works to convince the state to confiscate more and more income and savings of Juan so that the state will have plenty of money to "fight poverty", along with the MDG soldiers of the UN.

If the state will stick to its primary function of protecting the citizens' right to life and right to private property, the state should not become an instrument for income confiscation and wealth redistribution.

All people should be encouraged to be hard-working and ambitious. For those less ambitious people, they should be encouraged to respect the wealth of other people, to be non-envious of the fruits of hard work of other people.

How about taking care of the really poor, those who became poor because of natural circumstances -- their community was wiped out by a strong flash flood or volcanic eruption or earthquake or tsunami. Or impoverished by a bitter and prolonged clan war or civil war.

Personally, I haven't heard of any very rich man/woman in this country or in the world, who is not involved in any charity organization or foundation. One reason is that there is deep happiness that those people feel and derive when they give away a part of their wealth voluntarily, without coercion by anybody. Another reason is that very rich people would be approached by their friends, acquaintances, former or current staff, to be involved in some charitable causes.

There is one "politically incorrect" outcome of free market capitalism though: high inequality among people. But such inequality and its growing gap is a prduct of endless potentials, endless ambition and high work efficiency, of some people. The super-efficient will soon become very very rich, and this widens their gap with the middle class and the poor.

Then there are certain groups of people who really have no ambition in life except to party and be happy everyday. They may work hard but they also party hard everyday, with little or negative savings. When emergencies emerge, they have no savings, so they borrow. Such initial indebtedness will soon become monster debt if they will not mend their ways.
------

See also:

Pol. Ideology 10: Joe Stiglitz and the Market, December 16, 2008

Pol. Ideology 11: Liberalism, Democratism & Authoritarianism, January 04, 2009

Pol. Ideology 12: Lao Tzu, Cooperative Individualism, February 07, 2009

Pol. Ideology 13: Liberty and Liberty Forum, the LP, March 19, 2009
Pol. Ideology 14: Liberalism and Democratism, January 18, 2010
Pol. Ideology 15: Socialism, Conservatism and Liberalism, March 08, 2010

Pol. Ideology 13: Liberty and Liberty Forum, the LP

Liberty is a philosophical concept often associated or deemed synonymous with freedom, democracy and sovereignty. But while freedom can be a close synonym of liberty, democracy and sovereignty may not be. This is because liberty has two wide connotations: collective liberty and individual liberty. Democracy (the will of the majority) and sovereignty (freedom from foreign colonialism or domination) therefore, connotes more of collective (national, regional, community) liberty and cannot be a substitute for individual liberty.

This distinction is very important because most -- if not all -- public policies and institutional or organizational tools and rules that oppress or harass the individual, are done in the name of the collective, in the spirit of “country/nation first before self” or “community first before the individual”.

There is one case though, when collective liberty can be equivalent to or synonymous with individual liberty: when the collective is done or aggregated in a voluntary way, and not forcibly imposed. Examples of voluntary collectivism are civic organizations, sports clubs, neighborhood associations, among others. Here, individuals join voluntarily, or were invited and sponsored by their close friends or associates, and individuals have the option or freedom to get out of such collective. And the voluntary organization or collective can possibly die when it no longer enjoys the support of its members. This is also the essence of “civil society”.

When a collective is done forcibly, ie, individuals are mandated or coerced to belong to a collective, this is considered “forced collectivism” and cannot be considered as synonymous with individual liberty. The single biggest example of forced collectivism is Government (local or national). There are plenty of public policies that assert or impose forced collectivism, foremost of which are the various taxes and regulations, restrictions and prohibitions unless those regulated will first secure the approval and signatures of the regulators.

In many lectures, symposia and conferences on economics, business and politics, the primacy of individual liberty and the dangers of imposed collectivism are hardly mentioned, or none at all. The mere absence of this reminder or distinction already reflects the triumph of forced collectivism in the minds of the public.

Thus, if one finds a symposium or conference where the primacy of individual liberty is often mentioned, if not made a central theme of the activity, one is considered very lucky.

The annual “Atlas Liberty Forum” by the Atlas Economic Research Foundation (www.atlasnetwork.org) can be considered as one of those very few conferences around the world were individual liberty and the importance of free market is a constant central theme. Some panel discussions that mention collective liberty refer to the voluntary collectivism strand.

When I and a few friends in Manila formed “Minimal Government” around February 2004, we knew that we were free marketers, we knew that we believed in “minimal government = minimal taxes = minimal bureaucracy”, but we did not realize much the distinction between individual and collective liberty, we did not know much about the free market and liberty movement around the world, we barely knew any free market-oriented think tank or institute outside of the Philippines.

These all changed, almost abruptly, when Atlas offered me an international fellowship in April 2004. There were several activities for an international fellow, one of which was attend the “Atlas Liberty Forum”. It was the 4th liberty forum and held in Chicago. That was my first “baptism” of what a liberty forum looks like, and a wide world of free market-oriented independent think tanks from many countries and continents around the world slowly unfolded before my eyes.

The forum and various panel discussions were very helpful and educational, but the most important aspect of the activity that I later realized, was the “liberty networking”. First, my roommate in the hotel would turn out to be among my closest friends in the liberty movement, Mr. Barun Mitra, founder and Director of Liberty Institute in Delhi, India. Second, a number of new friends and allies that I met there five years ago, especially those from Asia, I would meet in other succeeding international and regional conferences and meetings; or at least correspond regularly by email. And third, collaborative work and campaigns among ally think tanks would soon be initiated and sustained.

(With JTR President Mr. You, and Atlas President Alex Chafuen, Atlanta, 2008)

My second attendance of the Atlas Liberty Forum was in Atlanta, Georgia, April 2008. This time, I was a confident participant who knew a number of other international and American participants and speakers. And this time, my interest was more on the panel discussions on fund-raising, though the discussions on liberty issues, like the panel on “Promoting freedom in difficult countries”, were also very informative.

Any serious liberty-oriented think tank or political movement needs substantial financial resources, for obvious reason. But a more specific reason not known to many people, is that more serious free marketers do not solicit or accept any government money (local, national or inter-governmental/multilateral) or funding from any political party, to keep and sustain their full independence from governments and political parties. Whereas most think tanks and political groups, including many NGOs and civil society organizations (CSOs) get substantial funding from governments, inter-governmental or multilateral institutions, and political parties.

Thus, fundraising is a recurrent topic in every annual Atlas Liberty Forum. This coming Liberty Forum will be held in Los Angeles, California, April 24-26 of this year.

Participants of this forum, as well as symposia, training and conferences by allied think tanks and institutes, are constantly reminded, explicitly or implicitly, that they are fighting for a society, they are envisioning a world, where the individual is not taken for granted or oppressed, in the pursuit of collective freedom and economic development.
---------

My recent short paper on liberty and liberalism,

Liberal Tradition and the Liberal Party

A relatively known political strategist and blogger discussed the question, "What's the matter with Mar?" to refer to the low popularity as a Presidential candidate in the Presidential elections next year of Liberal Party President, Sen. Mar Roxas. The author, Mr. Lito Banayo (http://litobanayo.blogspot.com/2009/02/whats-matter-with-mar.html), asked, "How come he ranks low, even behind his fellow senator Ping Lacson, who has not bothered to move around the country nor advertise his wares yet?"

I think Mar and the LP need to reassert the classical liberal agenda. The primacy of individual liberty, the limits and some dangers of (forcible) collective liberty like nationalism, protectionism and property rights confiscation.

This is because almost ALL political parties in this country, big and small, are warped in the semi-socialist slogan, "country/collective over the individual". Isn't the progress and growth of society ultimately measured by the freedom and progress of the individual?

There are many negative implications of forcing collective liberty over the individual: the individual should not become very rich, he cannot be allowed to become super-rich, his income, his cars, his house/s and properties, his company, his savings, his travels, his consumption, his estate to his children and grandchildren, etc. need to be over-taxed and over-regulated. And the "guardians" of the collective -- the government and its thick army of politicians and bureaucrats -- will get the confiscated incomes and savings to force equality in society, even to the point of rewarding and subsidizing the lazy and irresponsible -- after putting huge share of such resources for the salaries and perks of the "guardians".

This is not to say that LP and Mar should strictly embrace that classical liberal philosophical tradition, but anything closer to that tradition, and away from the populist, collectivist, if not confiscatory mindset, will make Mar and the LP unique. Too many businessmen and entrepreneurs want a break from the choking bureaucracies, taxes and fees that all administrations in the past, regardless of their political parties, have instituted and/or maintained. This group of entrepreneurs will be a huge army of supporters and allies for the party.

---------

See also:

Pol. Ideology 1: Minimal Government Manifesto, October 18, 2005

Pol. Ideology 2: Evolution of Market and State, October 25, 2005

Pol. Ideology 3: Liberal vs. Libertarian, November 06, 2005

Pol. Ideology 4: Comments to Minimal Government Manifesto,  December 05, 2005

Pol. Ideology 5: Have Movements for Liberty Progressed? June 26, 2006

Pol. Ideology 6: Quotes from Adam Smith, February 04, 2007
Pol. Ideology 7: Individualism, Entitlement and Freedom, April 30, 2007
Pol. Ideology 8: Ideas on Liberty, September 15, 2007
Pol. Ideology 9: Liberty and Choice, Atlanta and HK Conferences, June 09, 2008
Pol. Ideology 10: Joe Stiglitz and the Market, December 16, 2008

Pol. Ideology 11: Liberalism, Democratism & Authoritarianism, January 04, 2009

Pol. Ideology 12: Lao Tzu, Cooperative Individualism, February 07, 2009