Showing posts with label classical liberalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label classical liberalism. Show all posts

Sunday, July 08, 2018

Hayek, Mises and Classical Liberalism

Last month I gave a lecture at SFL-PH, small but engaged audienced.


Six sections: (1) Hayek, (2) Mises, (3) Classical liberals, (4) Pre-classical, (5) Modern liberals, and (6) Bonus. Hayek was a very prolific writer, produced many books and manuscripts from 1931 to 1980s. 


Likewise among his mentors, Mises was also a prolific writer.


Among the classical liberals, Adam Smith was a stand out. His prior work "Theory of Moral Sentiments" provided the philosophical and economic background to his more famous work, "The Wealth of Nations."


Other classical liberals were David Ricardo (labor theory of value, theory of comparative advantage, etc), John Locke (social contract theory, Treatise on Government, etc.), JS Mill, etc.

But more than 1,000 years before Adam Smith, perhaps the world's first liberal was an Asian, the philosopher from China.


The recent liberals, there are many of them now.


The full 36-slides presentation is posted in my slideshare account. Thank you.

Sunday, May 29, 2016

BWorld 60, Classical liberal, neoliberal and anti-liberal

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last May 25, 2016.


Political labels sometimes tend to create more confusion instead of clarifying things on philosophy and ideology. One reason for this is that certain advocates and campaigners of particular philosophies are themselves confused of what they are talking about, and yet they project to be the leaders and articulators of those political philosophies.

Take liberalism.

There are perhaps a dozen varieties of this philosophy, from the classical to social liberal to American liberal and so on. To help us differentiate and redefine some variants of liberalism and its anti-thesis, the table below will help show different values and definitions.

Classical liberalism was articulated and developed some 2-3 centuries ago, based from the writings of John Locke (“social contract” theory), Adam Smith (“invisible hand of the market”), David Ricardo (theory of comparative advantage), among others.

Neoliberalism was articulated around 1930s and revitalized in the 1980s, with former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and former US President Ronald Reagan as key personalities of that period. Their movement though was considered as rebirth of Conservatism, not liberalism.

A number of the general advocacies of classical liberalism are carried out by neoliberalism. Anti-liberalism has various shades too, like socialism, communism, and fascism (see table).


In the Philippines and other parts of Asia, the people are treated to a “taste” of classical and European liberalism through the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF), a German political foundation affiliated with the Free Democratic Party (FDP) in Germany.

The foundation conducts national and international political education related to its philosophy of freedom. I have attended some of FNF-Philippines’ public fora and seminars related to free trade, investments liberalization, and human rights protection. I have also attended the International Academy for Leadership (IAF) in Gummersbach, Germany in late 2008, on “Local Government and Civil Society.”

The German liberals’ definition of decentralization and subsidiarity is indeed radical: Things and functions that can be done by the local government need not be done or provided by the central or national government. And functions that can be done by civil society and various voluntary organizations and associations need not be done or provided by the local governments.

And that shows the ideological superiority of liberalism over other philosophies in the planet, especially over socialism and (classical) conservatism: The primacy given to individual freedom and personal/parental responsibility. The freedom to be hardworking and efficient and the freedom to be lazy and complacent.

FNF Philippines’ Country Director from 2010-2016, Jules Maaten, a former member of the EU Parliament, is leaving his post to become an FNF Regional Director in South Africa. Within those six years, Jules has befriended many Filipino politicians and media people, civil society leaders, think tank officials and academics.

Asked about his most memorable moments and events in the Philippines, Jules said it’s the Filipino people themselves. Warm, friendly, jolly, always singing, etc. He also remembers the Filipinos’ reception to the philosophy of freedom, including the huge participation in the annual “Freedom Run” led by the mascot “Fredo.” And things that he did not like somehow is the lack of real competition in Philippine politics and the economy and the lack of ideology-based political competition which, as it stands, is replaced by personality-based politics.

Jules’ predecessor, Siegfried Herzog, became a Regional Director for East and Southeast Asia, while Jules’ successor will be Wolfgang Heinze, a young, tall, and cool German liberal.

Meanwhile, the entry of the new administration in the Philippines for six years under incoming President Rodrigo Duterte seem to be more of a continuation of the liberal economic policies of the outgoing administration of President Benigno S. C. Aquino III. In some cases, the new administration promises to be more liberal, more investment-friendly than the current one because of the plan to remove the restrictions on foreign investments and allow 100% foreign equity ownership on more sectors of the economy except land ownership.

Anti-liberal policies on the other hand, like the nationalist and socialist measures in Venezuela has created more underdevelopment, more poverty among its people. Restricting if not killing innovation and price segmentation is a perfect formula to court economic disasters and social misery.

More economic freedom, individual liberty, diversity and spontaneity, innovation and market competition, less government intervention and taxation, will usher in more creativity among entrepreneurs and workers.

Government function should be focused on enforcing the rule of law and protection of the citizens’ three freedoms -- freedom from aggression, freedom to own private property, and freedom of self-expression.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the head of Minimal Government Thinkers, a SEANET Fellow and member of the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia. minimalgovernment@gmail.com
------------


Monday, March 21, 2016

BWorld 50, Adam Smith and Jovito Salonga

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last March 16, 2016.


Adam Smith (1723-1790) was a Scottish philosopher known for his treatise on “invisible hand” welfare effect of the market system. He was the author of two classic works, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) and The Wealth of Nations (1776).


Smith and David Ricardo, along with the earlier thinker John Locke, were considered the “Fathers” of classical liberal philosophy and political economy.

Jovito R. Salonga (1920-2016) was a top-caliber Filipino lawyer, legislator, statesman, and civil society leader. With a string of law degrees (Bachelor, Masters, Doctorate) from the University of the Philippines, Harvard Law School and Yale University, and string of top notch victory in three Senatorial elections (1965, 1971, 1987).


There are some similarities in the ideas and writings of Adam Smith and Senator Salonga, especially on the role and purpose of government.

In the famous work, The Wealth of Nations (1776), Book IV, Chapter IX, Adam Smith argued towards the end that individual freedom in pursuit of personal happiness and advancement should be respected, and government should be lean and minimal, its function is focused or limited to protect such individual freedom from violence (local or foreign) and injustice, and to secure public goods like infrastructures.

In Paragraph 51 of Chapter IX, Smith wrote,

“Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man, or order of men. The sovereign is completely discharged from a duty, in the attempting to perform which he must always be exposed to innumerable delusions, and for the proper performance of which no human wisdom or knowledge could ever be sufficient; the duty of superintending the industry of private people, and of directing it towards the employments most suitable to the interest of the society.

“According to the system of natural liberty, the sovereign has only three duties to attend to; three duties of great importance, indeed, but plain and intelligible to common understandings: first, the duty of protecting the society from violence and invasion of other independent societies; secondly, the duty of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice; and, thirdly, the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain...”

In a public lecture at UP Diliman on “Good Government,” July 3, 1962, Sen. Salonga argued that an important function of government is to guarantee a minimum standard of social without sacrificing individual freedom for personal advancement. He wrote,

“(T)he preservation of a minimal standard of order is basic in any organized society; without order, one cannot enjoy the essentials of life with some kind of assurance that someone will not deprive him by force of it. But too much stress on order may mean the dissipation of freedom -- the freedom to pursue our respective occupations, the freedom to trade and engage in business, the freedom to inquire and to know, the freedom to seek truth according to our best lights, the freedom to speak and to worship and to believe. Law, then, in a free society of tree men is a system of reconciliation -- the reconciliation of order with liberty, and it is for this reason that I defined law earlier as a system of ordered liberty, a system where there is security and where individual dignity and worth is recognized.

A Good Government, therefore, seeks to achieve order with freedom, security with human dignity. And at the very least, human dignity means a more equitable distribution of the basic values and goods of society wealth and power, knowledge and respect.”

On the rule of law and not rule of men, the good Senator wrote,

“It is often said that in a democracy the government is one of laws and not of men. The meaning is that the mighty and the weak should be under the law, with equal rights and equal protection. Justice is blind, without regard to whether one is poor or lowly. This is all fine and good, except for the fact that laws are made by men, interpreted by men, and administered by men. And as long as this is so, justice cannot be blind.”

When he retired from politics after he lost in the presidential elections in 1992, Sen. Salonga turned his sights on civil society work. In his Ramon Magsaysay Award Lecture, Aug.30, 2007, he wrote,

“After one term as a congressman and three terms as a senator, I retired from partisan politics in 1992 -- indeed I am no longer an active member of the Liberal Party, since my active involvement in civil society. I founded and organized Kilosbayan in 1993, mainly to arouse public interest and participation in important questions of public policy, in light of the right of the people to their own governance and on the basis of civilized norms of morality, justice, truth and ethics.

“On Recto Day, Feb. 8, 2000, ex-Secretary of Justice and ex-Ambassador Sedfrey A. OrdoƱez and I founded and organized Bantay Katarungan, an NGO, to help improve and modernize our system of justice in the Philippines, with the help of young students of idealism and competence from the best law schools in Metro Manila...”

The good senator was known for advancing the rule of law, of having a well-functioning administration of justice, and not for advancing populism and welfarism, entitlement and citizen-dependence on the state. He was the principal author of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Government Workers, the law defining plunder as a crime, many others.

That makes him a cut above the average or almost all current breed of politicians and legislators, even among many NGOs and civil society leaders.

There are many things, many social measures and actions that can be done by self-reliant citizens and independent civil society organizations and do not need legislation and national coercion. That is the implicit message of the Senator when he and his friends formed KilosBayan (Citizens Action) and Bantay Katarungan (Sentinel of Justice).

Adam Smith has re-ignited the ideals of citizen self-reliance, freedom and responsibility, and limited government focused on securing the rule of law, two and a half centuries ago. Senator Salonga supported those ideals half century ago. Thank you, Sir.

We still have to find that new breed of politicians in the country who can follow the intellectual persuasion and integrity stamina of the Senator. Politicians who are not using political populism and welfarism to bribe voters’ support and instead, highlight the important role of having the rule of law in protecting citizens self-reliance, entrepreneurship and innovation, their private property and their right to liberty and self-expression.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the head of Minimal Government Thinkers, a Fellow of the South East Asia Network for Development (SEANET), and a member of the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia. All three entities support the philosophy of classical liberalism in politics and economics. 
--------------

See also:
BWorld 47, Renewable energy and the illusion of merit order effect, March 06, 2016

BWorld 48, On unilateral trade liberalization, March 17, 2016

BWorld 49, John Locke and Jovito Salonga, March 18, 2016

Adam Smith's economic morals, August 28, 2009
Pol. Ideology 46: Misunderstanding Adam Smith, July 14, 2013
Pol. Ideology 48: Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Social Contract Theory, September 09, 2013
D.Ricardo, JS Mill, A.Smith and Bong Mendoza on Taxes, BIR vs. Doctors, March 14, 2014
Taxes, The Beatles and Adam Smith, January 26, 2015
Pol. Ideology 61: Raison d 'Etre of Government, January 30, 2015

Friday, March 18, 2016

BWorld 49, John Locke and Jovito Salonga

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last March 15, 2016.


When classical liberalism -- more individual freedom and personal responsibility, free trade, minimal government, and rule of law -- was formulated in Europe more than three centuries ago, the philosophy was caught by some Filipino intellectuals two centuries later. Not the entire philosophy but portions of it, like the people’s freedom of expression and assembly and freedom from (Spanish) colonialism.

Politically, portions of the philosophy were adopted by some Filipino politicians when they formed the Liberal Party after World War II, coming from the “liberal faction” of the dominant Nacionalista Party. Nationalism was the natural evolution of Philippine society after experiencing Spanish and American colonialism.


On March 10, 2016, the oldest living great statesman of the Liberal Party, former Senator Jovito “Jovy” R. Salonga (1920-2016) passed away. The man was so respected by many sectors of Philippine society mainly because of his intellectual prowess and excellent academic achievements: a law degree from the University of the Philippines (UP), Bar topnotcher in 1944 (tied with his friend and ally Jose W. Diokno), a Masters in Law from Harvard Law School, a Doctorate in Law from Yale University, and a Doctor of Laws Honoris Causa from UP.

Owing to these achievements plus his integrity, Salonga topped three elections as a senatorial bet despite his lack of huge resources: in pre-Martial Law 1965, in post-Plaza Miranda bombing in 1971, and post-Edsa Revolution in 1987, where he later became a Senate President.

Nearly three centuries before Sen. Salonga was born, the recognized “Father of (classical) Liberalism,” John Locke (1632-1704), an English philosopher and one of the great thinkers of the “social contract theory” was born.


There are some similarities in the ideas and writings of John Locke and Jovy Salonga on some topics. Two topics will be discussed here.

ROLE, PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT
In a major work, Two Treatises of Government (1680-1690), Book II, Chapter 9, “Of the Ends of Political Society and Government,” John Locke argued that the main purpose of creating a government was to protect private property and have a rule of law. He wrote: “The great and chief end, therefore, of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property; to which in the state of Nature there are many things wanting.

“Firstly, there wants an established, settled, known law, received and allowed by common consent to be the standard of right and wrong, and the common measure to decide all controversies between them.

“Secondly, in the state of Nature there wants a known and indifferent judge, with authority to determine all differences according to the established law.

“Thirdly, in the state of Nature there often wants power to back and support the sentence when right, and to give it due execution....

“For in the state of Nature to omit the liberty he has of innocent delights, a man has two powers...

“The first power -- viz., of doing whatsoever he thought fit for the preservation of himself and the rest of mankind, he gives up to be regulated by laws made by the society...

“Secondly, the power of punishing he wholly gives up, and engages his natural force, which he might before employ in the execution of the law of Nature, by his own single authority, as he thought fit, to assist the executive power of the society as the law thereof shall require.

On the rule of law and not rule of men, John Locke continued:

“And so, whoever has the legislative or supreme power of any commonwealth, is bound to govern by established standing laws, promulgated and known to the people, and not by extemporary decrees, by indifferent and upright judges, who are to decide controversies by those laws; and to employ the force of the community at home only in the execution of such laws, or abroad to prevent or redress foreign injuries and secure the community from inroads and invasion. And all this to be directed to no other end but the peace, safety, and public good of the people.”

Sen. Salonga wrote a similar argument.

In his lecture at UP Diliman on “Good Government,” July 3, 1962, he argued that a responsive government is more than honest and efficient administration, but more importantly, one that promotes and respects social order and individual liberty. He wrote:

“What is a good government? Is it necessarily a government where the mass of public servants are honest and efficient? To my mind, this is not enough for in Italy and Germany during the war years, the great many were honest and efficient. In fact, during the tragic days of Mussolini, the trains in Italy ran on time as never before. The Nazi concentration camp system in Germany was a model of hideous efficiency, It may well be that in Soviet Russia today, the bulk of public servants are honest, dedicated and efficient -- even more so than in many places in the free world.”

And so, when we talk about good government, we should be careful when we discuss it in the context of a free society of free people. In such a society, the law is more than just a set of rules and decrees; it is a system of ordered liberty.

Now, that would involve us, it would seem, in some kind of internal contradiction. Order and liberty are concepts that are apparently inconsistent, when you have nothing but order, you have the makings of a garrison state and may eventually achieve what has been correctly phrased as “the unanimity of the graveyard.” When you have nothing but liberty, so that everyone is free to do what he pleases, you have no more and no less than anarchy and chaos. The eventual result is the rule of the strong over the weak -- which means loss of liberty itself. One is just as bad as the other.

EDUCATION AND GOVERNMENT
In his book, Some Thoughts Concerning Education (1693), Sections 91 -- 100, John Locke suggested that good breeding of grace and politeness of the governor, the tutor and the pupil, wrote,

“To form a young gentleman as he should be, ’tis fit his governor should himself be well-bred, understanding the ways of carriage and measures of civility in all the variety of persons, times, and places; and keep his pupil, as much as his age requires, constantly to the observation of them.... Without good breeding his other accomplishments make him pass but for proud, conceited, vain, or foolish.

“Courage in an ill-bred man has the air and escapes not the opinion of brutality: Learning becomes pedantry; wit, buffoonery; plainness, rusticity; good nature, fawning.

“Wherefore it is necessary that this part should be the governor’s principal care, that an habitual gracefulness, and politeness in all his carriage, may be settled in his charge, as much as may be, before he goes out of his hands.... The tutor therefore ought in the first place to be well-bred: and a young gentleman, who gets this one qualification from his governor, sets out with great advantage.”

In his speech, “The Educated Man,” delivered at Silliman University, Dumaguete City, Aug. 28, 1964, Sen. Salonga argued that the educated man is one who has a well-bred and meaningful life. He wrote,

“The educated man lives this kind of a life, because he has opened the windows of his mind to great thoughts and ennobling ideas; because he is not imprisoned by the printed page, but chooses to make a relentless, rigorous analysis and evaluation of everything he reads; because he is less interested in the accumulation of degrees than in the stimulation of his mind and the cultivation of a generous spirit; because his interest is less in knowing who is right but more importantly, in discerning what is right and defending it with all the resources at his command; because he can express himself clearly and logically, with precision and grace; because he is not awed by authority, but is humble enough to recognize that his best judgment is imperfect and may well be tainted by error or pride; because he has a deep reverence for the inherent worth and dignity of every human being, as a creature of God; because he has a healthy sense of values, a breadth of outlook and the depth of compassion which a purposeful education generates; because whenever he talks about good government he is prepared and willing to sacrifice himself for it; and because he lives a life of relevance to the world in which we live, a sharing in the problems of his time and doing whatever he can with intelligence and fairness and understanding.”

Our public policies, laws, and legislators have long been corrupted by the convenience of populism and welfarism, which is a shortcut to bribe voters’ support and justify high and multiple taxes, fees, fines, mandatory contributions and other forms of government regulations and intervention.

The spirit of more personal and parental/guardian responsibility in raising and educating children has been corrupted by more government responsibility in this aspect of the people’s lives. Thus, a culture of state-dependence instead of self-reliance, a culture of entitlement, and social expectation instead of independent citizenship, have been molded in the minds of both parents and children.

John Locke has lighted the candle of more individual liberty and rule of law as primary function of government more than three centuries ago. Sen. Salonga has also shared the same ideals half a century ago.

Thank you, good Senator. The current generation of thinkers and individuals should take the challenge of being free, self-reliant citizens, not people seeking entitlements and dependent on the state.


Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the head of Minimal Government Thinkers, a Fellow of the South East Asia Network for Development (SEANET), and a member of the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia. All three entities believe in classical liberalism philosophy. minimalgovernment@gmail.com
-----------

See also:
BWorld 46, China's debt, central planning and central crashes, February 27, 2016

BWorld 47, Renewable energy and the illusion of merit order effect, March 06, 2016

BWorld 48, On unilateral trade liberalization, March 17, 2016

Pol. Ideology 48: Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Social Contract Theory, September 09, 2013
Pol. Ideology 63, Alternative Economic System, May 25, 2015

Monday, June 29, 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:

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Pol. Ideology 39: Thatcherism


The great, cool “Iron Lady” Margaret Thatcher, UK Prime Minister from 1979-1990, passed away yesterday. RIP, Margaret.

Let me start with a few quotes from this great leader. 
To cure the British disease with socialism was like trying to cure leukaemia with leeches. 
We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state. 
If my critics saw me walking over the Thames they would say it was because I couldn’t swim.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4878472/Margaret-Thatcher-in-quotes-Iron-Ladys-most-famous-phrases.html  
 
I came to office with one deliberate intent: to change Britain from a dependent to a self-reliant society -- from a give-it-to-me, to a do-it-yourself nation. A get-up-and-go, instead of a sit-back-and-wait-for-it Britain.  (February 1984) 
We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels.  (September 1988) 
Ronnie and I got to know each other at a time when we were both in Opposition, and when a good many people intended to keep us there. They failed, and the conservative 1980s were the result. But in a certain sense, we remained an opposition, we were never the establishment. As Ron once put it: the nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.' As usual, he was right.  (MT on Ronald Reagan, 2002)

Wikipedia defined Thatcherism as 
Thatcherism claims to promote low inflation, the small state and free markets through tight control of the money supply, privatisation and constraints on the labour movement. It is often compared with Reaganomics in the United States... Thatcher'sChancellor of the Exchequer from 1983 to 1989, listed the Thatcherite ideals as:
Free markets, financial discipline, firm control over public expenditure, tax cuts, nationalism, 'Victorian values' (of the Samuel Smiles self-help variety), privatisation and a dash of populism.
Cool ideology. Very much related to classic liberalism.

Yesterday, a friend in UK posted in her facebook wall that she understands the anger of some British citizens against Thatcher because she lived for several years in north Britain and she saw the economic destruction of communities and industries there under the Thatcher leadership. That until now, people there despise there, some even have parties celebrating her death. And that her husband was a young man in the 80s and can never forget the hardships they experienced during that time.

I replied that Thatcher cut welfarism and the strong labor unions’ political power, the succeeding UK governments reinstated and expanded welfarism. AfterWW2 up to the 70s, UK was almost socialist. Education, hospitalization, housing, transpo, pension, etc., all taken cared of by the state. And the state took almost everything from the people's pockets. Thatcher changed that. The Brits loved her, that's why she was elected and re-elected and re-elected, PM from 1979-90 (11 years).

The current PM David Cameroon made a brief assessment, “welfare system has lost its way”, http://www.interaksyon.com/article/58859/british-pm-says-welfare-system-has-lost-its-way.

My friend suggested that I should explain those things to the British people who suffered under her rule.

I replied that t's the British people's own PM who explained that to them. I'm no British to do that task. They elected, directly or indirectly, Cameroon and the latter has some bad news for them, that forever dependency on the state is wrong and the pain will be on them, as they are experiencing now.

Part of the interaksyon report that I posted above said,
The Conservative leader suggested that a system originally designed to protect the frail and be a "stopgap" was now backfiring.
"It was invented to help people escape poverty, but has trapped too many people in it. It was meant to be a stopgap in hard times, but has become a lifestyle choice for some. It was designed to bring us together, but is causing resentment," he said. 
"No one wants to work hard every day and see their hard-earned taxes being used to fund things they themselves cannot afford or keep generations dependent on welfare.
This is a powerful statement. But statists and welfarists argue that to tell people to assume more personal responsibility in their own lives is now wrong, that the nanny state should assume "more government responsibility" even if government resources are clearly insufficient and unsustainable to do so. Not good.

I don't live in UK, I don't pay taxes there. People who live in UK or British citizens abroad who glorify heavy welfarism and state nannyism can tell Cameroon or other political leaders there who now plan to cut welfarism and populism to stop that proposal. I write for those living in the Philippines and fellow Filipinos living abroad who bother to read this blog. From the lessons of welfarism and populism in  UK, France, Germany, the PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain), I can say that state nannyism is wrong and we Filipinos and other Asians should follow their model. If it is so right, those European governments should not be heavily in debt by now as their people are productive enough to pay all past debts mainly to expand and sustain heavy welfare spending.

The main saving grace of those European and North American governments why their economies have not imploded yet, is their rule of law culture. Entrepreneurs and investors, even if weakened by high and multiple taxes, regulations and prohibitions, they are strengthened however by the stability of policies, the respect of private property rights, the certainty of punishment for certain criminals and corrupt government officials.
--------------

See also:
Pol. Ideology 34: More on Anarchy or Minarchy, July 17, 2012
Pol. Ideology 36: On Capitalism, Akbayan, Drugs Legalization and Toqueville, October 10, 2012
Pol. Ideology 37: Collectivism, Conservatism and Liberalism, October 12, 2012 
Pol. Ideology 38: Branding Via Clans, Not Philosophy, April 05, 2013