Pol. Ideology 46: Misunderstanding Adam Smith

Last Monday, July 08, I posted Pol. Ideology 45: Left Intellectualism Means Abandonment of Socialism in my facebook wall. It attracted another round of long discourse. Thanks to fellow UP ETCer (younger batch) Mel, Mike, Shakaru, for that long exchange from July 08-10, 2013.

While the debate still focuses on whether we should have a BIG or small/limited government, one source of confusion is a misunderstanding of some quotes from  Adam Smith’s book, The Wealth of Nations.

This is 12 pages long, 6,100+ words, so grab a can of your favorite drinks and enjoy.

Mel Lorenzo Accad Interesting sir! I'm reading it

 cc: Sir Gerry, May I know your comment on this? 

Sir Nonoy, how sure are you that you have defined socialism accurately? as pointed out by sir Gerry in one of my previous posts. What are your sources po para naman maiwasan natin ang strawman arguments. 

Nonoy Oplas It's there. "Things should be socialized always -- education, healthcare, housing, pension, transpo, agri, etc. Including your own pockets, savings, they should be socialized. Diversity and inequality, spontaneity and innovation, should be restricted if not controlled whenever possible. Things should be harmonized, standardized, uniformized, monotonized, in order to prevent inequality, massive and scary inequality."

Mel Lorenzo Accad Sir Nonoy, here are my comments (I also posted them in the main blog):

"Let me be clear with my assumptions:
1. Every political rule is a "dictatorship" in one way or another.
-Example, democracy is dictatorship of the majority over the minority, capitalism is dictatorship of those who are economically-abled over those who are not economically-abled, socialism is the dictatorship of the "people" over all (I really hope that I defined them very well so as to avoid strawman arguments. I hate strawman arguments, BTW)

2. So if we say that socialism is machine that creates dictatorship, what then can we call capitalism?

3. I believe that capitalism and socialism have advantages and disadvantages (we should only be aware of their SIDE EFFECTS and how do we minimize them).

4. Capitalism has created so wide inequality to the extent that everyone has differing in their competitiveness, hence there's a long run possibility of rise of monopolies (even those that are not natural monopoly due to technological advantages).

5. Final question, what then are these side effects of every political rules that we should be aware of? How should we minimize them? WHAT IS OUR COMMON GOAL AT THE END OF THE DAY?

6. I don't have the monopoly of truth. There are grave consequences of assuming that we have monopoly of truth.

(COOL HEADS, WARM HEARTS)"

Nonoy Oplas Thanks Mel. First of all, I think you should start blogging. Just copy-paste those that you already posted in fb, they are long blog articles already.

To your points:
1. Yes, All forms of pol rule is dictatorship and coercion. The free market philosophy, the minarchy libertarin especially does not rule out lhaving coercion in our lives, hence the advocacy for "limited government" vs the "zero government" position of libertarian anarchy.

2. Free market capitalism is based on voluntary exchange. I sell you tomatoes at this price. If you like them, you pay and go home. If you don't like them, you just walk away and find another seller. Then I go to another buyer and offer my tomatoes. Zero coercion in a voluntary exchange set up.

3. Yes they do. It depends on what you wish to achieve. If you want to respect diversity and spontaneity, free market capitalism is the way because under capitalism, diversity is not allowed. YOu cannot be very efficient then be very rich, the state will confiscate your extra income, your extra cash, your extra car, extra land.

4. Free people are not equal, and equal people are not free. There is no limit to what the super-efficient, super-hard working, super-ambitious people can achieve. Meanwhile, some people have zero ambition, just have a party as often as possible, get subsidies from siblings or from the state. As time passes by, the inequality between these two extremes widen. Some in the middle class join the super rich later. Inequality is necessary if you want a free society.

5. Common goal at the end of the day is -- individual liberty. Individual responsibility. One's stupidity and irresponsibility should not be blamed to anyone else. One's efficiency and fruits of hard work should not be confiscated to be given to everyone else.

6. The only absolute truth in this life are change, death and government/taxes.

FNF Philippines and Liberal Challenges 2013-2016

Yesterday, exactly one month from the May 13, 2013 elections, the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF) Manila office held a good conference, "Liberal Challenges 2013-2016" held at C3 Events Place in Greenhills, San Juan City, Metro Manila. Participants were some local executives (Mayors, Governors) and Congressmen/women of the Liberal Party (LP) who won in the elections last month, plus sectoral groups affiliated with LP (women, labor, youth, etc.). Some alumni of the International Academy for Leadership (IAF) in Gummersbach, Germany like me were also invited.

Below, Jules Maaten, the Resident Representative or Country Director of FNF Philippines gave the opening remarks, mainly his observation and assessment as FNF official and a foreigner observer (foreigners cannot vote in the Philippines even if they are long time residents and taxpayers in the country). Jules himself was a politician, a former Member of Parliament (MP) of the European Union. He said that despite "national pastime"  of skepticism of the performance of President "PNoy" Aquino, there has been marked improvement in the governance and public administration in the country, and recent fast economic growth is among the results of such improvement.

The panel speakers were (from left): LP's VP for Women Vicky Garchitorena, Batanes Rep. Djna Abad, Iloilo City Mayor Jed Mabilog, and Zamboanga City Mayor Beng Climaco. Journalist and Rappler Editor Marites Vitug was the moderator. 

Vicky talked about the role of civil society and NGO leaders in fiscalizing government, Congw. Dina talked about the important legislation passed in the last Congress and the priority bills, in her mind, that must be enacted in the next three years. Mayor Jed talked about the liberal reforms they introduced in Iloilo City, like reducing the period to get a business permit from City Hall, from the previous 10 months down to three months, down to 15 working days, down to three days, and finally down to just 30 minutes. We clapped on this good news.

Mayor Beng talked about how she and her team managed to beat the wide machinery of the Jalosjos clan. She is an articulate and fluent speaker lady.

I brought four friends of Minimal Government Thinkers. From left: Mike Perez, Dr. Jed Inciong (a physician, also with MG Board), Harry Santos and Carla Ezequiel. There could have been more who wanted to join us, but at least two were on provincial trips.

The venue was nice. It was my first time to see C3 Events Place. It was raining hard yesterday though, with heavy flooding in many streets in Metro Manila. One reason perhaps why some guests were not able to come. Food was great. Lots of them. Also an open bar, but I contented myself with two cans of beer, did not sip either white or red wine.

The speakers, moderator, Jules and my friend, Gladys Cruz-Sta Rita, in red dress holding flowers. Fredo, the FNF mascot for Freedom, gave Gladys those flowers. She was the LP Director General and was in the thick of the electoral campaigns. She's my friend, my batchmate at UP School of Economics, and we belong to the same student organization, the UP Economics Towards Consciousness (UP ETC). Before joining the LP, she was the longest-serving Provincial Administrator in the whole country, for 17 years I think, serving three different Governors of the big province of Bulacan.

Mike is among the hard core libertarians but he was happy to hear the good news on reducing the bureaucracy as shared by Mayor Jed Mabilog. Mike is also a fellow Ilongo from Negros Occidental. I told Mayor Jed that my wife and her family are from Iloilo City.

Before going home, we had a group photo with Jules and Lito Arlegui, second from left. Lito is the Regional Program Officer of the Council for Asian Liberals and Democrats (CALD). CALD is among the major programs of FNF in Asia, members are politicians and political parties. The Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia is another major project of FNF, members are free market leaning think tanks, NGOs and academics. MG Thinkers is an active member of EFN Asia.

I am a liberal, a classic liberal to be precise, or "libertarian" as often used. Between two wings of libertarianism, anarchy (zero authority, zero government) and minarchy (small and limited government), I obviously belong to the latter. There are certain policies of the LP that I do not agree with, like the drug price control policy as initiated by LP President and former Senator Mar Roxas; playing with populism and expanded welfarism. But there are also certain policies that I support, like the move towards free trade and reducing business bureaucracies.

My loyalty is to the ideology of liberalism -- individual liberty, personal freedom, personal responsibility, free market and competition, rule of law, tolerance and human rights. For me it is the most superior ideology in the planet. Many people may not be aware of the essence of liberalism, that is why they are enamored with populism and socialism. Some simply just love the racket of socialism -- they can centrally plan, regulate and regulate even micro concerns, they can tell and bully ordinary people how they should behave and run their own lives, and they can tax and tax all they want -- habits of insecure and dictatorial-leaning people.

I am happy that the FNF is around to advance the ideology of liberalism and individual freedom. The move by the FNF Board in Germany to put "Fur die Freiheit" or "For Freedom" in big letters, several times bigger than the letters of Friedrich Naumann Foundation itself, was a good move. Emphasize Freedom, emphasize liberty, individual liberty.
---------------

See also:
FNF Freedom Run 2011, November 28, 2011 
Pol. Ideology 23: 25 Years of Liberalism in the Philippines, December 07, 2011 
Free Trade 23: FNF on Free Trade Agreements, February 10, 2012

On IPR Abolition 18: Patent, Copyright and Jeffrey Tucker

Reposting below the exchange I had this morning in facebook. With permission from Mike Perez, Stephen Cutler and Dong Abay. A bit long, more than 2,300 words, 5 pages, enjoy.
----------

"If patents for inventions were part of the free market, to make and sustain them would not require legislation, constitutions, bureaucracies, filings, armies of attorneys, and years of litigation." -- Jeffrey Tucker, https://www.fee.org/the_freeman/arena/intellectual-property-rights

Intellectual Property Rights : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education

www.fee.org

Nonoy Oplas This is simplistic thinking. One, physical assets like cars, houses, shoes, laptops, etc. are part of the free market, and they require legislation, constitution, bureaucracies.. And so IPRs are also part of the free market, they are property rights that need respect and enforcement.

Two, private property rights can be enforced by the private sector or civil society, with or without govt penalties. If thieves and shoplifters are caught inside a mall, they are apprehended by private security guards, they can be photographed and their faces plastered in the mall in a wall of shame, other schemes. That is private punishment against violation of private property rights.

The same way, thieves of IPRs like patent, trademark and copyright can be penalized by an industry association, a civil society org. If someone sells burgers wrapped with fake McDo or Burger King wrappers and trademark, and the consumers get good poisoning, who will they sue -- (a) the orig McDo/BK, (b) the IPR thieves like those sellers, or (c) IPR abolitionists like Jeff Tucker? Obviously (a) and (c) will not accept responsibility so (b) must be prosecuted for misleading the public and consumers. If people get food poisoning after consuming food from the orig McDo/BK store, then they can be held accountable. But these companies take care of their trademark so carefully, they can assure the public of 0.00% possibility of food poisoning as they know the consequences of damaged brand and trademark.

IPR abolitionists like Tucker are just simplistic minded.

Joshua Gallardo Roa Woww you had stipulated it clearly....thank you for this info Nonoy Oplas

Nonoy Oplas There was a case of a local burger shop named “Mang Donalds” with logo somehow similar to MacDonald. The latter did not like this, so it sued the former over trademark issue, the former later closed shop, resurfaced as another food shop with a more unique name and encountered no legal issues, prospered. IPR forces people to be more unique, more innovative and creative. IPR abolition favors the lazy, un-imaginative and plain copycatters, http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2011/09/on-intellectual-property-abolition-part_20.html

Stephen P. Cutler Nice work, Nonoy. These kinds of discussions keep us, as a nation, stronger. So many of us are intellectually lazy and just accept the ideas of others without question. Or we make personal attacks against the proponent of the idea,and fail to point out the weakness of that idea. THAT should be the focus. Thanks, again.