Demography 26, Once again on the RH law

Four years ago, I wrote this paper in interaksyon and shared it in my fb wall with this note, "People are assets, not liabilities. Government should focus on promulgating the rule of law, not in expanding bureaucracies and in population control." 

I never supported that bill (now  a law) of more government, state-sponsored population control. Condoms and pills lang, gobyerno pa.

Government is stretching out, further out. Gun control, drugs control, smoking control, alcohol control, fare control, rent control, price control, wage control, speed control, texting control, land ownership control, land conversion control, population control,...

So my opposition to that measure was nowhere on the morality issues raised by the church. It's mainly an opposition to further government expansion. Things that can be done by civil society and volunteerism like donating pills and condoms, gobyerno pa? Gawad Kalinga, Rotary Homes, other NGOs are able to build thousands of houses for the poor via civil society, volunteerism route, NOT legislation and national coercion.

The pro-RH guys and campaigners then were gloating that because they could trump and debunk the church arguments, the more government, more state-sponsored population control argument was correct. So when I argued my position -- zero regard for church position, zero sympathy for "more government" -- many of them could not anticipate and rebut my position. But then again, it's all politics. The legislators, the DOH, PopCom, LGUs, etc. were just happy that government has further expanded.

I hardly read the church position on the RH then because I felt I could not and would not use them. My argument has zero regard for church position, catholic or otherwise. Mainly about Big government vs. civil society volunteerism.

I am pro-divorce, pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-same sex marriage, pro-drugs legalization, pro-gambling legalization, pro-taxation of church properties and income, etc. The anti-RH stance was the only position that I happened to align with the church, and it was for a different reason. :-) 

Gawad Kalinga (GK) can build thousands of houses, more expensive than pills and condoms, via volunteerism. Why force the rest of the population to contribute to their "bright idea"? If an idea is bright, it does not need coercion, national coercion and arm-twisting to be implemented.

GK, Rotary Homes, etc. are successful, even with zero legislation, zero national coercion. I have visited some rotary homes projects, dozens if not hundreds in one RI District alone here. Money usually comes from abroad, rich Rotarians from rich countries, plus rich local Rotarians.

Those rich Rotarians from abroad would give money for housing for the poor here, to their fellow civil society leaders like local Rotarians. But NOT to the government when it builds housing for the poor. That is why a bright idea very often does NOT need legislation and national coercion. If done via legislation, 90-99% it is a stupid idea.

My Filipino friend in the US regularly donates to GK, yearly. He is updated by GK and so far, he is happy with the projects. He says that if he can confirm just one instance, not 2 or 3 but just one instance of corruption and stealing of his donation, he will automatically stop donating. See the system of reward and punishment via civil society? It is instant.

The same in rotary. One instance of corruption, of stealing donated money, those rotarians, their clubs, are blacklisted and implicitly shamed. Within months, not years. Goodbye to professional and business network, replaced by shame.

The pro-RH camp then  keep repeating the argument that there is no force, no coercion, "walang pilitan" employed and stated in the law.

Walang pilitan sa RH? Eh ayoko magbigay more tax money to the government for state-administered condoms and pills distribution, may choice ba ako? saan? where? Kaya nga legislation kasi pilitan eh. Sa ayaw at sa gusto mo, sumunod ka, bayad ka.

The activists are the usual government-bashers. They distrust government, which is understandable. They distrust government's implementation of education for the poor, housing for the poor, tractors for the poor, rice subsidy for the poor, MRT subsidy for the poor, etc. Fine. But why do ask for more government, like the state-administered condoms for the poor, suddenly they trust government. Neh?

A friend said that distribution and allocation of tax money is up to the Legislature and the Executive, ganon  daw talaga. If so, then these things are ok with them:

1. Government will put up a jeepney and bus corporations, subsidized and funded by taxpayers of course. People can take them or not, no coercion/walang pilitan naman eh. Sila taxpayers lang ang obligado magsubsidize kasi palaging lugi.

2. Government will put up a new state university in all provincial capitals on top of existing ones. Students can enroll there or not, walang pilitan naman eh. sila taxpayers lang ang obligado magbayad.

3. Government will put up a "carinderia ng bayan" in all 42k+ barangays and villages nationwide. People can eat there or not, walang pilitan naman eh. sila taxpayers lang obligado magbayad sa subsidy. Magaleeeng.

------------- 

See also:Demography 23: The UN, Depopulation and Climate, May 03, 2015 
Demography 24, The Maddison Project data, August 13, 2015 
Demography 25, Ageing societies, Japan's depopulation, December 29, 2015 
BWorld 53, Population and growth projections, April 09, 2016

Population Control 18: Billions of RH Services Even Without an RH law

This poster has been circulating in some friends’ facebook wall, like new but good friend, Butch Cabanban. I made this comment on Butch’s wall,

Ako naman Butch, Ethell, anti-RH but for zero religious reason, pure econ and pol philosophy lang. No one prohibits people from donating their own resources to distribute condoms, pills, etc. for free to the poor. Gawad Kalinga (GK) or Books for the Barrios (BftB) or Rotary Homes, etc. did not say that they needed a GK bill or BftB bill to become a law first before they will build a single house or distribute books to the poor. If people help, fine. If not, fine too. And maternal care, child care, is part of the DOH, UP PGH, AFP hospital, LGUs hospitals, PNP hospital, etc etc mandates, nothing new.

Someone has a "very bright" idea. That he will give a big portion of his wealth to people in calamities like victims of heavy flooding. But he needed a law first, say a "Calamity assistance law" with fines, penalties and imprisonment provision, for those who do not help during calamities, before he will help. That is one example of a lousy thinking, but that guy thinks his idea is "very bright" and must be imposed on everyone else in the country via a law from congress.

Then Butch’s friend Nathan commented,

No budget to support programs mean it will just fail. That money is called investment in a better future --- one that has less mouths to feed and more sustainable. Saying no money shd be spent for it is like not willing to put into roads and education. Pretty short -sighted.

By calling my idea “short sighted”, I returned the favor and made these counter-comments.

"No budget to support programs" is an idiotic statement. Even without an RH law, DOH has a budget of P42B in 2012, P52B in 2013 approved even before the RH bill became a law. A big portion of those billions of pesos are already in maternal and child care. Then there are billions of pesos more for PGH, AFP hospital, LGUs hospital, also for maternal and child care.

People are liabilities, thus there should be "less mouths to feed" is another stupid and short sighted statement. Those bus and taxi drivers, office workers and pub school teachers, yayas and drivers of the middle class and the rich, etc., many of them come from households with 5 or more children, they are "surplus" and hence, "unwanted children" because they come from "unwanted pregnancies." Yeah, those people should have never been born.Lousy and idiotic thinking.

Many people are ignorant of numbers and they just want to open their loud mouth because of emotionalism. The 2013 DOH budget of P52 B was approved in Dec 2012 or one year before the RH bill became a law, Dec. 2013. In that 2013 budget, DOH already included P2.539 billion for various RH services alone, of which P538 million is for FP supplies and contraceptives alone -- even without an RH law. 
http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2012/09/health-spending-6-dohs-proposed-2013.html

LGUs also have their own RH services in their respective provincial and city hospitals. PGH has RH services in its P2 billion annual budget -- even without an RH law.

No counter-argument from him. I also posted the first comment on other rabid RH campaigners like Tonton Contrereas of DLSU and Oscar Picazo of PIDS. Tonton replied,

The state has an obligation to spend for women's health because it is their bodies that are worn out just to reproduce future members of the labor force and to think that most of the work they do rearing these future workers are not being paid by the capitalist system. Put that in your equation Nonoy Oplas.

I replied,

"The state has an obligation to spend for women's health..." is off tangent as it assumes or implies that the state has NOT been spending on RH services. Wrong. Even without an RH law, the DOH, PGH, LGU hospitals, etc. have been spending on RH services already for many years.

Take the DOH 2013 BUDGET, approved in Dec. 2012 or one year before the RH bill became a law. Of the P52 B total budget, P2.539 billion alloted for various RH services alone, of which P538 million is for FP supplies and contraceptives alone -- even without an RH law.

http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2012/09/health-spending-6-dohs-proposed-2013.html

 And you mentioned the capitalist system, among my favorite topics J. Capitlaism gave us facebook, youtube, google, yahoo, twitter, samsung, apple, black berry, cars, buses, restaurants, hotels, private schools and universities. Capitlaism is a wonderful system, it creates revolutionary products and services that even socialists or other anti-capitalist groups so love and patronize. It gives jobs to people, and people feed their children. What looked like undernourished or underclothed children running in the streets will soon be the bus/taxi/office/familyi drivers, office workers, yayas for kids of people including the anti-capitalism ideologues, NGOs, media and academics alike.

That is why people are assets. More people, more assets. The real liabilities -- thieves, murderers, rapists, extortionists, kidnappers, land grabbers, etc. -- rich and poor, in private or public offices, government should get them. That is the main purpose of having government, to protect people from those criminals, especially the armed and organized ones.

----------

See also:
Population Control 14: Lessons from the Cybercrime Law, October 08, 2012
Population Control 15: Debate, Debate, on the RH Bill, December 03, 2012
Population Control 16: RH Bill as HR, Coercion as Choice, December 13, 2012 
Population Control 17: China's Depopulation and RH Law, March 03, 2013

Population Control 17: China's Depopulation and RH Law

* This is my second guest post in antipinoy.com, posted the other day.
-----------

China’s depopulation has begun. While it’s true that they still have a big number of younger workers, they also have a rising number of ageing people who need more healthcare, more pension and other retirement benefits. So the burden of taking care of the ageing people will really fall on the shoulders of the younger population.

The China communist government cannot simply  dispatch its hundreds of millions of bureaucrats, or robots, to take care of their oldies. 

A friend noted that the “inequalities in the distribution of the benefits of the fruits of its development will make China implode.” While this may be true, “more equitable” European societies are also slowly imploding. They sustain their forced equality only via endless borrowings, but those huge debts are now calling the kettle. For countries with declining working age population, there are three solutions: raise the retirement age from 60 to 65-70, more migrants, and/or more robots.

I read that in the US, there is no more retirement age, people choose when to stop working. This is good,  encourage people to stop being “employee forever” and become start up entrepreneurs and job creators themselves. While it is relatively easy to do this in the US, it is more difficult in in socialist China or some near-socialist European economies as government taxes and bureaucracies are high.

Is big population a liability to more economic growth?

The advocates of the recent RH law said YES, that is why they supported more government coercion — more taxes, more sex education, more forced but free services by OB professionals, etc. — to control the country’s population, especially that of the poor. The debate ended in favor of the lovers of more government coercion, but implementation is another issue.

The Malthusian alarmism of “we will have less land, less water, less food and even less radio spectrum bandwidth per person” as the population expands is wrong. There is zero limit or constraint to vertical space. Too many people die every year because there is too much rain water and flooding not because there is lack of it. And the main health concern now is more fat, more obese people than undernourished ones because there are lots of food and drinks. The number of cell phones and laptops are rising and yet internet speed is rising.

So the Malthusian population alarmism is pushed always by statists. Control inequality, control prices, control businesses, control population.

People are assets, not liabilities. The real liabilities — killers, rapists, thieves, land grabbers, carnappers, extortionists, etc. — both in the public and private sectors, that’s the proper role of government to control, to implement the rule of law. If the poor become construction workers or public market vendors or department store cashiers, so be it. They are working, they produce various goods and services. Government should not penalize and over-bureaucratize the poor if they become self reliant and independent.

Those construction workers, bus and taxi drivers, security guards of expensive buildings, malls, shops and villages, etc. – those useful people, they normally do not come from 1 or 2 children households, but from 4 or more children households. And the RH camp demonize the fast growth of the population of the poor.

Population control or population expansion, leave it to civil society and individuals. Government should step out of that concern. Instead, government should over-bureaucratize, over-regulate, over-control and over-penalize criminals ,whether rich or poor, whether in the private or government sectors.

Singapore, Japan, some European countries now are into government-sponsored population expansion, but there are not much takers. The governments for instance give allowance per child until 18 years old (Germany, etc.).

We are far from what China, Japan, HK, Sing, Taiwan, Europe, are experiencing of greying population. And that is precisely our strength — we have a high and young population, many of those aged people in Europe, Japan, etc. would be feeble or dead by now without the Filipino healthcare professionals assisting them. But the government and the bleeding hearts say that high population is wrong and hence, government-sponsored population control should proceed.

It would have been different if population control is done by civil society and individuals themselves — they buy those condoms, pills and injectibles themselves and distribute for free to the poor, put their money where their mouth is. But they did not. They went for national coercion and legislation, so that even people who do not believe their “bright idea” are now forced to finance their actually stupid idea.

Another friend noted that there are plenty of “jologs” among the poor, they just multiply fast then ask the government to take care of their kids. There is some truth to this, and many NGOs and the foreign aid/consultancy establishments hype up the problem, to get more public funding for their various “save the poor” contracts and projects.

But it is also true that many of the poor want to stand on their own and do not want to run to government and politicians whenever possible as they are simply being used by many corrupt politicians. Problem is that government gives them various bureaucracies if they start some micro entrepreneurship projects, so they go for unregistered, informal businesses, and are subject to harassment and extortion by the barangay, the police, and/or city hall bureaucrats.

There are more jologs in government than in the private sector. The most opportunistic, the shrewd and cunning among the population, are always attracted to politics and government. The honest ones do not need politics nor government position to help others, or to create jobs for other people.

One indicator if an idea is bright or stupid, is if it requires new legislation and coercion. If it does, then 90-100% it is a bad or even stupid idea.

For instance, some people want to help the poor have more food, so they simply develop their farms, or they put up carinderia and other cheap sources of food. They did not require a single lobbying, a single peso of tax money, to help the poor. This is one example of a good idea. In contrast, the RH law is an example of a bad idea.

----------------

See also:
Population Control 13: Excess People are Liabilities kuno, August 25, 2012
Population Control 14: Lessons from the Cybercrime Law, October 08, 2012
Population Control 15: Debate, Debate, on the RH Bill, December 03, 2012
Population Control 16: RH Bill as HR, Coercion as Choice, December 13, 2012

Rule of Law 18: Damaso and Carlos Celdran Conviction

Private property, property rights and their protection are the cornerstone of a free and economically dynamic society. If trust and sanctity of private property is assured, people can conduct businesses easily and peacefully. And the economy can grow rather fast as sources of economic instability are reduced if not eliminated.

 

If, however, other people can say, “his car is also my car; his house is also our house” and comes to use other people’s car by force, or enter other people’s house by force and take away anything that he likes, then society can easily degenerate into chaos and unrest.

Private occasion is an event for selected and invited guests by the host and event organizer. Strangers and uninvited people are not supposed to join that event unless they were given belated explicit permission by the host. Otherwise they can be shooed away or be forcibly dragged outside if they persist on staying.

The conviction of Carlos Celdran by a Manila Court of “offending religious feelings” can be analyzed taking the perspective of protecting private property. A lawyer friend explained that “the central element of guilt or crime is location and occasion.”

The immediate reaction by many "netizens" to the lower court's decision, Celdran camp, was rather OA. The hashtag #freecarlosceldran was quickly used. Celdran was not imprisoned, since the decision was issued last January 27 or 28 until now. So how does one free a freely walking, freely moving person? 

 

In a facebook wall of a friend Jim Libiran, who is also a friend of Carlos Celdran, Jim posted last January 30 about the latter’s case. I saw that Carlos himself joined the exchanges, so I posted this comment:

Hi Carlos, I have a question. Pwede naman gawin yan, hurl posters like DAMASO, Bishop Satanas, Obispo bobo, whatever. It's part of freedom of expression, so it's not being debated. The debate centered on what my lawyer friend called "location or occasion" in establishing guilt or crime. If you did it in Liwasan, Luneta, Plaza Miranda, Edsa, facebook, etc., I think there would be no legal debates. But you chose a specific location and occasion, the cathedral with an on-going religious activity. I assume you already knew you were courting some trouble by choosing such location and occasion, and you exactly got it. Don't you think you just got what you were asking for?

Carlos was kind enough to reply after a few minutes. He said that what he did was not just for fun, but to bring attention to the RH bill then and the CBCP power abuse. When the bill was passed into a law, he said that he exactly got what he wanted.

I followed this up with another comment:

I was referring to the legal case filed against you that was upheld by a Manila court, not the RH law. The issue now is about your conviction by that court, not the RH bill passed by Congress. From your reply, it is clear that you justify, no remorse, of what you did -- entering a private location (it's not a public place like Luneta or Quiapo Plaza) with private occasion (it's not a rally or street demo) uninvited in pursuit of your political advocacy. Some individuals, I think it was not the CBCP itself who filed the case, also thought it is their freedom of expression to haul you to court. The judge is the referee to decide whether the case filed by those individuals should be upheld or thrown away, and the judge ruled in favor of upholding it and hence, your conviction. This is what I meant -- you asked for trouble that day, you got it. Don't you think you deserve it? 

Carlos replied that he and nobody in the Philippines deserves that law nor the hypocritical religion. So I posted another comment:

So you can enter a private location with a private occasion uninvited and make a scene, the people attending that activity in Manila Cathedral deserve it. But when some of the people there think they have the freedom of expression to bring you to court for your action, it is not justified? I see double standard and absence of fairness in that statement. Earlier, I commented also in Jim's wall posting when he said that "If Celdran did the protest OUTSIDE of the Church, say in Plaza Roma, the whole symbolic action will miss the point. It was bringing politics into a church to protest, symbolically, Church meddling in politics." 

Let me restate my reply to him and address this to you now. Is it okey with you if someone will enter your office or your house (both are private properties, not public place), hold a placard denouncing you or your work, because it is their freedom of expression anyway. And you are not supposed to drag that person outside your office or house, and neither you are supposed to sue him. Is that Okey with you?

Asking that question because it is not ok with me, Thanks again.

He did not directly reply to it, only posted an article about him from a local online news. While I also did not support the RH bill then, now a law, I did not use or support the Church arguments as I have my own. My main opposition to the RH bill was that it is another legislation to further expand government, expand public spending, the various bureaucracies and the public debt. More RH services can be done via more private sector and civil society volunteerism, on top of the regular activities and spending of the Department of Health and various local government units.

So my support of the conviction ruling by the Manila Court is not exactly a sympathy with the CBCP and the Catholic Church. It is more of upholding private property and the privacy of individuals in a private occasion.

Manila Cathedral is private property of the church, not by the government or by any corporation,  NGO or individual. Although Celdran did not say anything while holding the placard “DAMASO” it was still an intrusion as it was an uninvited or unsolicited action. And when he was forcibly escorted outside so he can stop his drama, he started shouting and hence, created further unnecessary scene and disturbance to the church goers.

There were reports that he already apologized earlier for his action that day. It was not clear to whom he apologized. If he apologized to the judge, then it was the wrong audience as the judge is only hearing the merits or demerits of the case. If he apologized to the CBCP, then the latter should have forgiven him. But then it was not the CBCP that filed the case, it was some private individuals not part of the bishops’ hierarchy.

There are several lessons that we can learn from this case.

One, tolerance means respect for other people's belief, biases and dogma -- Catholic dogma, Islamic dogma, Buddhist dogma, cultural minorities’ dogma, etc. Do not smear their practices in their private places and private events. Bold and daring people may do it but they should face the consequences later.

Two, dragging other issues and complaints against the Church like pedophile priests and corrupt church leaders are immaterial to the current debate. The issue is whether the Court’s conviction of Celdran for his action that day is justified or not.

Three, bold and daring guys like Celdran are supposed to be ready for bold consequences of their actions. They should not argue that only them have the freedom of expression while those who felt offended by their actions have no freedom of expression to bring them to the court.  

Four, freedom comes with responsibility. As the famous Austrian economist and legal philosopher, Friedrich Hayek said, “People who are afraid of responsibility are afraid of freedom itself.”

Five, the rule of law must prevail. If Celdran and his supporters are not happy with the lower court’s decision, they can go to the Supreme Court. He must go to jail once his the bail-out period expires while his supporters wait for fast decision by the Supreme Court.

----------

See also:
Rule of Law 14: Appointing the New CJ of the Supreme Court, June 17, 2012
Rule of Law 15: RoL and Government Failure, August 16, 2012
Rule of Law 16: On the New SC Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, August 25, 2012
Rule of Law 17: Justice Without Discrimination, October 18, 2012