Pilipinas Forum 24: Minimal Government Manifesto

I posted the Manifesto in PF yahoogroups in late March 2004, it attracted several comments until mid-April 2004 from friends and supporters. Here are the major comments. As usual with other PF series, get your fave drinks and snacks, this is 14 pages long.

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.
---------------------------------------------

In the beginning of human civilization, at primitive hunting societies, men learned to trade with each other. The animal hunters traded their excess animal catch with fish hunters for the latter's excess fish catch. Or traded with craftsmen for the latter's carpentry, musical instruments and other artistic services. Or traded with early farmers who practiced the early technologies of agriculture. Thus, men invented the MARKET for the exchange of goods and services, and it went well. There was no government then made up by full-time administrators and enforcers of mutually-agreed rules.

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?

Pilipinas Forum 22: Maynilad Water Rate Hike, 2001

This is an exchange in pilipinasforum@yahoogroups.com more than 10 years ago, sometime in April and June, 2001. I cannot find Part 1 of the exchanges, but this one is good. This is 10 pages long, so as usual, get your popcorn and fave drinks :-)
------

Maynilad Water Rate Hike, Part 2

April 2001

Since 1998, Manila Water (Ayala) has asked for an increase in water rates - before Maynilad did. Since I have been studying the water sector, someone from Bechtel, the Ayala partner, invited me to a discussion wherein he presented the company's plans, such as the Laiban dam. The construction of this dam did not push through because of the very high social cost involved. This guy wants me to help him promote the plan as well as the need for the water rate increase because of negative profits. I was told (by a very reliable source) that the Ayala's underbid at P2/cu.m because they want to make it hard for the Aboitiz to enter the market here in NCR. The Aboitiz gave them a hard time in Cebu.

My study where I estimated the full cost of water (= private cost + user or depletion cost + external cost) was cited. I explained to him that the estimate is for the 'economic value' of water and the revenue from charging the full-cost price should go to the owner of the resource, which is the State as indicated in the constitution. The water distributor or the concessionaire should only get the return from the distribution cost, and the user and external costs of water should go to the State or its representative - the government. Dr. Solon, a consultant of MWSS also opposed the granting of the request of Manila Water.

There is really a need to increase water rates in order to reflect the opportunity cost or the social cost from using a scarce resource. Underestimation of the value of natural resources has resulted in over-exploitation and depletion. Just look at our forests, fisheries, groundwater, etc. The lack of valuation of the impact of water pollution – an external cost - has resulted in the use of water bodies as a free dumping ground of wastes. One issue is who should get the revenues if the full-cost price is charged. One can also argue from the equity aspect. Most of the households connected to the Level III service or piped water supply are middle to upper class who can very well afford a higher water rate. Most of the poor (based on the household survey conducted in 1997/98) buy water from peddlers at much higher rates compared to the concessionaires' rates or form a queue to get water from public faucets (very high opportunity cost of time). Before the privatization, the average price of water was P10/cu.m. The issue then was not the price, but the quality of service.

Pilipinas Forum 21: On Ayn Rand and Keynes

This is among the philosophical discourses in pilipinasforum@yahoogroups nearly 8 years ago. Postings in the  PF are raw and written informally, but the content are generally serious. Unlike other PF series here, there are just a few exchanges here, and only more than 5 pages long. Enjoy.
---------

Ayn Rand and Keynes

January 8-10, 2003

Ayn Rand will generally disagree with a Keynesian approach of uplifting human welfare. A rice farmer and fisherman can pursue their individual interests (surplus of their produce they sell to the market) and they end up providing rice and fish in our dinner tables - - welfare for both producers and consumers. This short article below by Ayn Rand (I got from my other egroups) will elucidate this philosophy...

A seemingly perennial and prolonged (1998-2003 and counting...) budget deficit situation is anti-individualism, anti-market, anti- self-interest. Why? A government which can hardly distinguish which public services promote efficiency and which ones promote complacency, even laziness and monopoly, is being kept afloat by sustained borrowings. Its philosophy is: never mind today's debts, tomorrow's taxpayers will pay them.

Should we discourage, even scare, a large segment of the productive sectors of our society -- them tax-paying professionals, entrepreneurs, other skilled workers -- with high tax rates and complicated tax system in the future, so the inefficiencies of the past will be paid?

- Nonoy Oplas
-------

INTRODUCING OBJECTIVISM

By Ayn Rand

At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:

1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
2. Epistemology: Reason
3. Ethics: Self-interest
4. Politics: Capitalism

If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" or "Wishing won't make it so." 2. "You can't eat your cake and have it, too." 3. "Man is an end in himself." 4. "Give me liberty or give me death."

If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency — to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them — requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot — nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.

Pilipinas Forum 18: On Minimum Wage Law

Another long discourse and exchanges (13 pages) on legislated hike in minimum wage across the country, made more than 10 years ago in pilipinasforum@yahoogroups.com.

Related articles, readers may also check:
What determines wage?, May 26, 2006
Liberty and choice vs. Dictation and extortion, May 02, 2008
Econ for statists 8: Minimum wage law is wrong, July 07, 2011
Nanny state 5: Extending min wage law to foreign employers, July 09, 2011.
-----------

PILIPINAS FORUM
www.inq7.net/Viewpoints, July 11-15, 2001

ARE LEGISLATED MINIMUM WAGE HIKES JUSTIFIED?


Basically I'm against (1) legislated wage hikes, and (2) "needs of the family of 6" argument. For this purpose, let me focus on no. 2. The "needs of family of 6" argument as basis for high demand for min. wage is wrong because it rests on many wrong assumptions:

(1) It assumes that all workers are married, that there are no single/unmarried workers - which is not true. (2) It assumes that all married workers have 4 children on average, and that they're all dependent and are not working - which is not true always. (3) It assumes that there is only 1 breadwinner in the household, that the wife or one or 2 of the children who are already of working age have no jobs - again, not true always. And (4) It assumes that wage is a function of no. of dependent children, not productivity - again wrong either by common sense or theoretical standards.

Wrong assumptions can lead you to wrong conclusions. And wrong demands. If employers will also jump the gun on this faulty principle, then they will only hire single and unmarried workers, or those with only 1 or 2 children so that the "family of six" argument will not be used against them in the wage hike bargaining.

-Nonoy Oplas

The minimum wage hike refers to increasing the amount by which the law prescribes to be the least that an employer can pay his employee. Hence, as it is the least, we can safely assume that the beneficiaries of this increase would be the least of our working brethren as well. I totally agree that the basis for the legislated wage increase should be the needs for the family of six. However, in lieu of any other alternative I must tend to agree with the legislated wage hike.

No matter what statistics claim, the consumer price index has indeed risen dramatically for the last twelve years. How much can your peso buy now? Did the government try any anti-inflationary measures, any social programs aimed at increasing savings and decreasing family expenses? If the assumptions used for a legislative increase then I suggest that the basis for the legislative increase be solely the purchasing power of the peso. Simple and neat.

However, in lieu of anything else, a legislated wage increase must be given. The price of living in the Philippines has indeed gone quite unaffordable. There must be a break somewhere. If the government could not think of another relevant bail-out then what else is left. Knowing our government or Filipino administrations in general, well, its better to have a legislated wage hike.

-Mel Velasco

Pilipinas Forum 16: On Rice Trade Liberalization

Here's another long discussion (16 pages long!) from different people, on liberalizing rice trading in the Philippines, made in pilipinasforum yahoogroups. As usual, get your popcorn or other favorite snacks while reading the exchanges 10 years ago.
------

On Rice Trade Liberalization

August 2001

Theory: there is gain from trade. Trade allows people of countries who do not produce certain commodities cheaply, access to these products through imports; at the same time, trade allows people who efficiently & cheaply produce certain commodities to export these goods, giving them the foreign exchange revenue to finance their imports. Thus, countries' welfare increases.
NEDA favors early liberalization (convert present import quotas into tariffs, and later on, lower tariff rates) of rice trade since trade protection to the sector is time-bound. But DA wants to keep the quantitative restrictions (QRs) on rice.

Before, only the state-owned NFA imports rice from abroad. Starting this year, private traders will be allowed to import rice up to 20,000 MT. But they must pay a minimum "equalization fee" of P3,240/MT or P3.24/kilo for the March 2 auction, on top of the 50 percent tariff.

Current World Rice Prices. Prices as of end-February range at $190/ton for white Thai rice (5% broken, "class A") down to $150/ton (35% broken). At P48/$, this is equivalent to only P9,120/ton or P9.12/kilo for class A rice, and P7,200/ton or P7.20/kilo for lower class rice (vs. P14-P22/kilo local prices).

There is net gain from trade. The clear winners are the rice consumers, fisher folks and non-rice farmers, users of important agricultural inputs like machinery and fertilizers (the farmers themselves), among others. The losers are some Filipino rice farmers who cannot compete price-wise despite lower imported cost of agricultural inputs.
We need to hasten agricultural trade liberalization. Though the country still has 4 years to further prepare (aside from the last 6 years of preparation) for such liberalization, the perennial production deficit, and consistently high prices, of local grain and sugar, mandate that we should hasten the liberalization. The benefits generally outweigh the costs.

Rice "self-sufficiency" does not mean that we should grow all the rice that we need. Rather, we only need to ensure that rice will be made available at sufficient supply and cheap, stable prices for our consumers. This would imply a good combination of domestic production and importation. If we do our assignment well, meaning the efficient laying of important safety nets, particularly infrastructure and technology support system to our farmers, coupled with trade liberalization plan, we shall help improve our farmers' productivity and output.


-- Nonoy Oplas


Nonoy , et al,


I also strongly go for the liberalization of rice trade for the following reasons: (a) import quotas or quantitative restrictions (QR) only breed corruption, and politicking; and (b) shortages and steep local price (retail) of the stuff is imminent because its trading becomes speculative; this has happened time and time again. The unscrupulous traders and corrupt gov't officials benefit, while both the farmers and consumers suffer.


Instead of "self sufficiency," the policy and strategy should be "self-reliance" i.e. having the purchasing power. Thus the farmer may be assisted with alternative sources of income, and better infrastructure and management services. (Thanks for the facts and figures).


-- Roy P.


Pareng Nonoy and All,


I agree with the merits of rice trade liberalization, and I have to say as well that I am impressed by the neatness of the methodology used in quantifying the demand-supply gap.
Just some thoughts/views alongside the last paras of Pareng Nonoy's paper:


* Trade liberalization in general, as experienced in Latin countries (Chile, Argentina & Mexico?, 1994-1995) created some shocks esp. on the balance of payments. Often, econ analysts would suggest that long term policies like trade liberalization should be coupled with short term reforms to avoid the shocks. I hope that the government is doing some short term fine tuning as we edge towards the 10th year for rice trade lib.

* The rice trade lib should not be an excuse for government not to pursue efforts that would maximize yield of cultivated/irrigated rice lands. Land parcels are /should be classified according to best use. Those which are declared best suited for rice should be protected from conversion, and supported with infrastructure and support services to ensure productive efficiency. The demand-supply gap may be bridged by importation of cheaper rice, and the competitive price of imported rice should force local farms to be more efficient. But a widening gap through the years must not be relied more on bridging it with imports but more on achieving greater farm efficiencies. A slow adjustment to rice trade lib may kill "best-use" rice farms and force conversions. I'll make mention here the ill effects of the "impermanence syndrome". This is one of the primary killers of cultivated lands in Australia, and this syndrome has been the reaso behind major conversions in Laguna and Batangas.

Pilipinas Forum 14: Math, Infinity and Limit

Here is another mind-twisting thread in pilipinasforum yahoogroups made in early December 2001. There was no political discourse here. And that's my point in posting these exchanges in this blog: We need little or no politics (and government) if we wish to expand our individual imagination and knowledge of math, logic and their applications. So, enjoy the 10-pages long exchanges on the subject.

Related articles in this blog are (1) An ever-expanding universe, June 25, 2011. It's about a lecture by an American cosmologist in UP about the "Accelerated History of the Universe". Also, (2) Pilipinas Forum 12: Origin of Zero, Nothingness, Big Bang..., September 25, 2011
-------

I was able to meet an old friend and a new friend - both Math professors in UP. My old friend, Fidel Nemenzo got his PhD in Sophia U. in Japan, and his specialization is "number theory", reputedly the purest of all math subjects.

Fidel's friend, Ernie, is really fantastic, academically i.e.: Monbusho scholar (like Fidel), finished MS and PhD Math in 5 years with "A" grades equivalent. At Sohia U, he was among the "wonder kids" by solving difficult math problems whle his Japanese classmates could only shake their heads. Undergrad, he finished BS Math in UP - Summa cum laude, in 3 years! High school, he came from Phil. Science HS; elem. he came from an obscure elem. school in an obscure town in Iloilo province. They're so poor that their house has no floor, that PSHS has to pay for his bus to Iloilo, his plane fare to manila. Yet this guy has no self-pity, nor hatred of the rich. He doesn't even see himself joining the corporate world, just a plain academic for the rest of his career. At 27, he's among the youngest professors in UP Math dept.

Fidel is moving to his friend's house, that of Mark Encarnacion, who took a temporary leave from UP for some stints in the US. Mark is another interesting kid. He got a PhD in "Computer Algebra" (!) from an Austrian university. The last time I talked to Mark in UP, about 4 years ago, he said he's the "only person in this country" who has that degree. Mark's father is UPSE's long-time dean, our dean that time, Dr. Jose Encarnacion. The Dean passed away about 3 years ago; his major works are often published in foreign academic journals, enough to be nominated for a possible Nobel prize in Economics.

OK, why am I sharing this? To show that there are such wonderful people in this country but our media and political and business leaders don't seem to notice. Every year we know who are the topnotchers in the bar exams, who are the valedictorians and salutatorians of the PMA, courtesy of the front page stories in our broadsheets and tabloids. But never has it occurred as far as I can remember, that Phil. broadsheets have given front page treatment to returning Filipino scientist or engineer or mathematician with distinguished PhD degree or astonishing research abroad. Which reflects the values and biases of Philippine media: future Filipino politicians and generals are hoorraayy! Future Filipino Einsteins are nobodies.

Of course I hope I'm wrong in this impression.

-- Nonoy Oplas

Inspired by Nonoy's post a few days back on our very own mathematicians in PilipinasForum, I decided to pick up a book, for leisurely reading, entitled, "A Tour of the Calculus" by David Berlinski. I wanted to be reminded as to why I fell in love with Math at one time in my life...

Math & life... the math of life...

From the book, "Some things were Greek to the Greeks. In the fifth century B.C., Zeno the Eleatic argued that a man could never cross a room to bump his nose into the wall...in order to reach the wall he would have first to cross half the room and then half the remaining distance again, and then half the distance that yet remains...this process...can always be continued and can never be ended..."

In the elevator, I always bump into the chief of another investment bank whose offices are in the same building as ours. He once asked me, "Gina, when do you think we can see the light at the end of the tunnel? You know, that one which is not from another train?" I answered, "Tomorrow!". Everytime I see him, we would look and smile at each other and we would, in perfect duet (seemingly practiced), say, "Tomorrow!"

In another instance, an analyst queried me, "Have we reached the bottom yet? How low can the market get?" Armed with calculus, I said, "We can never reach the bottom. The bottom will be forever unknown."

"...The plain fact is that we are capable of compressing those infinite steps..." and actually bump our noses into the wall. The truth is, for some businesses in the country today, tomorrow may not come. And I, a Trekkie, will uncharacteristically pass, on this voyage of discovery to the bottom of the Philippine markets. So much for infinity and continuity and the harsh concept of the limit.*

In case you have not noticed yet :-), this post has nothing to do with serious Math. I am just having fun with the concepts. May I end with this:

"The integral enables you
To do what you need not do. [ :-) ]
The theorem that will make this plain
Is one designed to spare you pain..."

- Mathematicians' Doggerel (quoted from the same book; the smiley, mine)

-- Gina L.

Pilipinas Forum 8: On the Abu Sayyaf

(This is what I submitted to inq7.net on June 20, 2001, Pilipinas Forum's column.)

Exchanges on the Abu Sayyaf, 2001

Yes, my family and I were there. Yes, we were in the island resort when these 24 armed men docked at the main pier around 5:00 am today (May 27) in their tri-engined Volvo-Penta powered "kumpit". We were in the island resort when they forced open the bay cottages and took hostage 20 guests, 4 of the island resort's staff, and loaded the hostages on to their "kumpit". We were on the island resort when the kidnappers decided that these hostages were enough (Thank God!) and would slow down their "kumpit". We were THAT CLOSE to becoming kidnap victims and maybe just another lousy statistic.

Lawlessness. Wanton, brazen & audacious. It is real and it never sleeps. Think about that if only for a moment.

-Sam Aherrera

There are lawless elements in the society that are beyond hope and rehabilitation. The negative impact imposed by the kidnappers/bandits to ordinary citizens goes beyond the pecuniary and psychic costs. There's also the societal cost in terms of drop in tourist arrivals (a deathknell to the tourism industry actually) and lower foreign investments.

It should be noted, as an afterthought to the discussions on the poverty issue, that providing pro-poor programs, infra. sevices, etc. are necessary but not the sufficient conditions needed to spur the country's growth. Peace and order is the precondition to all of these growth strategies/programs. That means we should get rid of all these penguins, jokers, riddlers, luthors, banes, etc. Let the terrible swift sword of dark justice fall upon them!

-Glenn de Guzman

Pursue those *ssholes and shoot them. I don't believe in coddling them, not with 6-month extended negotiations, not with libyan ransom money (could have been money laundering for all we know, definitely was pabango money, at the very least), not with ceasefire policies. No more. These bullies should learn that hostage taking does not pay. Feel very very sorry for the victims and really I wouldn't know what to do if i were in their or their families' shoes. They deserve to be rescued, and safe and sound in their own homes. now, more then ever, i wish that those rambo-like characters were true to life and that they could go in to the bad guys' lair and blow their brains off and still manage tosave each and every one of the victims with minimal damage. sigh!

-Mayeen Magno

This kidnap for ransom business is becoming lucrative for these bandits. Thanks to ransom money paid for previous kidnappings, they now have the "capital" to launch long range operations. I just heard reports the Volvo-powered kumpits are almost twice as fast as our Navy vessels in the area. I hope this doesn't send the wrong signals to other armed groups that there is money in this exercise.

I just hope we in the forum are 100% united that these people hold no ideological pursuits whatsoever. I believe they are in fact destroying the reputation of Muslim Filipinos to the rest of the world. I wonder what the common sentiment is, including those of Muslim communities. This is important if we are to gain support of civilians to find the culprits. They may easily find coddlers if some people still believe in their false cause.

-GiLBerT Cunanan

Pilipinas Forum 3: Is Marxism Still Relevant?

These are the exchanges in pilipinasforum@yahoogroups that I edited, posted in inq7.net in March 12, 2001, 11 pages long. These discussions were made in February 2001.

--------

Is Marxism Still Relevant?

Popoy represented the largest organization with a definite ideology in calling for a socialist Philippines. When he and his group splintered from Joma Sison's CPP-NPA-NDF sometime in 1993, Popoy had at least 4 reasons for doing so:

(1) They reject the "semi-feudal, semi-colonial" mode of production analysis of Joma and the CPP. (2) Hence, they also reject the "national democracy" goal. (3) They reject the Maoist formulation that "the peasants (not workers) are the main army to change society" and that of "encircling the city from the countrysides", and (4) Corollarily, reject that "armed struggle is the primary form of struggle".

Instead, when Popoy and his team of underground people from the Metro Manila-Rizal Regional CPP Command, the explicit formulations are as follows:

1. The Philippines' mode of production is "predominantly capitalist".

2. Hence, the goal should be socialism, not "national democracy" ("national" meaning anti-colonial, "democracy" meaning anti-feudal).

3. The workers (don't own means of production, whether capital, factories, land, technology) are the main army to change things, and urban insurrection is the way to capture state power.

4. Other forms of struggle should be tapped to complement the armed urban struggle (Hence, Popoy and his group then advocated to participate in the 1986 snap elections, whereas Joma and the CPP called for its boycott).

Between the two, Popoy is more sophisticated ideologically than Joma Sison. I would even add that Popoy read and understand classic Marxism and Leninism literature better than Joma and his followers. The ideological debate and organizational rivalry between the 2 largest factions of the Philippine left has somehow worked for their mutual advantage and the workers in general. Just like big corporations benefiting from having fellow big competitors because they all strive to be more dynamic and innovative. How?

Organized workers have more options where they will be organizationally and ideologically affiliated. Before, it was only between the moderate TUCP and the radical KMU, plus other smaller independent labor federations. Popoy's BMP (bukluran ng manggagawang pilipino) represented a 3rd or 4th option for the workers. Just like businessmen and capitalists have options whether they'll be more active with PCCI or MBC or FPI or Rotary, etc.

Second, workers should be given the opportunity to be educated of the socialist alternative, and not just the nat-dem goal. The capitalists and politicians of this country for many years have veered away from the Adam Smith and David Ricardo type of capitalism, so they (the capitalists) gave workers a really bad kind and experience of capitalism. Perhaps approximating the capitalism of the Industrial Revolution in Europe. At the time when Marx called religion "the heart of the heartless world, the soul of the soulless conditions, it is the opium of the people." (though rabid anti-Marxists only quote the last line and omitted the first 2 lines).

Where to, Philippine left? Despite my sympathy and admiration for their hard dedication to politicize and mobilize people, especially the really poorer sectors of our society, I still cannot subscribe to their sentiment that we should immune or delink our economy from globalization and the world economy, that we should keep the protectionist veil and continue regulating many of our industries and the economy, that we should not privatize subsidy-dependent state corporations, etc.

Thus, since I believe that economic liberalization and not protectionism and regulation is the way, and the Philippine left (& the left elsewhere in the world) believe otherwise, I think the Philippine left will remain as a significant political voice in our society, but there's no way that it can seize state power to implement its protectionist advocacies.

--Nonoy Oplas




Nonoy, could you expound more on the leftist agenda? What exactly do they want? Go down the road of North Korea or Cuba? Do not the events in Russia and China discredit the case for Marxism, Leninism or Maoism as the case may be? I am guessing that their ideology was formulated in the 70's - do they account for sweeping changes in technology such as the internet? There are more Filipinos working abroad (5 million I think) versus those in Philippine Manufacturing (about 2 million I think) so what is their role in this workers rebellion.

How does that one go, "The path to hell is paved with good intentions" - socialism and communism do have their appeal but outside the Israeli Kibbutz I cannot see real sustainable successful models.

-- Victor A. Limlingan Jr.

CSOs and State 10: The Role of Civil Society

Sometime in mid-November 2001, I had a debate with Mr. Nicanor Perlas in the KOMPIL yahoogroups/ Mr Perlas was a known environmental and civil society organizations (CSOs) leader in the country then. He ran for President in the 2010 national elections as an independent, with no established political party to support him. He lost naturally, along with other candidates from small and non-established political parties.

The debate started with his critique of then NEDA Deputy Director General (DDG) Popo Lotilla over certain decisions of the Philippine Agenda (PA) 21. Since the focus of this paper is on the theoretical debate on the role of civil society, I removed discussions that focused on details of the debate then. I copy-pasted Mr. Perlas’ postings in pilipinasforum yahoogroups and that’s where a friend, Ozone Azanza was able to read and made counter-arguments against his points.

Here are the snipped exchanges:

--------

Dear Mr. Perlas,

You said,

the PCSD and PA21 take, head on, the challenge of globalization in the framing of its agenda, policies, and programs. In this way, the Philippines has a powerful alternative to the neo-liberal, radical free market approach of the World Bank, IMF, and WTO, an approach the NEDA is beholden to, an approach that is starting to collapse rapidly worldwide.

The beneficiary of liberal flows of capital and international NGO funds consider free market as "an approach collapsing rapidly worldwide.” 

In a number of papers and discussions, Mr. Perlas defines civil society as "an institution to challenge the totalitarianism of the state and the market". To which I don’t really buy. For me,

a. Markets - individual producers and traders, individual firms and consumers, from prehistoric times to the present - make the world go round.

b. State - an invention to correct market failures, address harmful "externalities", provide "public goods".

c. Civil society - an invention to correct state failures and inefficiencies, later lambast market's self-correcting mechanisms (such as de-monopolization of industries through deregulation & more competition).

Thus, I find the PCSD's composition - 16 from govt., 9 from civil society, 2 from labor (hence, 2 more for civil society), 2 from business - rather weird. The government bureaucrats and many self-styled civil society leaders outvoting business who provide jobs, who produce & trade the goods and services that give sustenance to the other 2 groups. And this set-up is almost "ideal, second to none", according to Mr. Perlas.

-Nonoy Oplas

I agree with you, Noy. There may really be some extreme positions that the civil society group of Mr. Perlas would want Deputy Director General (DDG) Popo Lotilla to endorse to the Office of the President. And of course, the good DDG would not be anybody's lap dog. As one of the only two real recognized experts in international law (the other would be Commie Haydee Yorac?) of course he would have to view things bearing the Philipines' various commitments in the international arena. The problem with SOME civil society groups/watchdogs is they act like kalesa horses. They can see well up ahead, but their peripheral visions are restricted. In a globalized market setting, nations can not be saddled by NIMBYism and other restrictive tendencies. The world is changing, and we have to change with it.

-Ozone Azanza