Pol. Ideology 65, Liberals and liberty, positive and negative freedom

Reposting  here a good article by a friend, published yesterday in a paper in Kuala Lumpur. Good discussion about liberal vs. illiberal, liberty vs. coercion, positive vs. negative  freedom.
------

http://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/columnists/thinking-liberally/2016/01/05/how-liberals-become-illiberal/

Negative freedom is the true way to respect choice, while positive freedom brings you closer to an illiberal coercive environment.

IT is heartening to see more liberals speaking up these days. Every time an illiberal idea is put to the public, you can almost rest assured that someone will fight back to defend their freedom and liberty to seek happiness in their own ways.

Liberty is the principle that founded this nation.

In fact, our Bapa Malaysia Tunku Abdul Rahman announced proudly in the Pro­clamation of Independence and Procla­mation of Malaysia that this nation shall “be forever a sovereign democratic and independent State founded upon the principles of liberty and justice and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of its people”.

Liberalism is indeed about liberty and freedom. But when we at Ideas hosted “The Liberalism 2015 Conference” back in September, the confusion about what libera­lism actually means was obvious.

We intentionally designed the conference to be a platform for stakeholders to discuss with each other what they thought about the philosophy.

By stakeholders I mean anyone with an interest in the topic, regardless of whether or not you agree with it.

We saw a beautiful interaction between the proponents and opponents of liberal ideas and, of course, we also saw how confused some people were about the topic.

One of the speakers made a succinct point about the confusion. Khalid Jaafar, a member of the Ideas Council, said that it was apparent some speakers were talking about anarchism, despite using the label liberalism.

They thought liberalism meant not having any laws, when that is actually anarchism. On the contrary, liberalism is about upholding the rule of law.

One way to understand the meaning of freedom in its classical sense is by using philosopher Isaiah Berlin’s description of positive and negative freedom.

It is impossible to give a full description of these two types of liberties in this short article. But to simplify, positive freedom is “freedom to” while negative freedom is “freedom from”.

If you take, for example, the fact that I cannot afford to send all my children to quality private schools, a government that believes in positive freedom will want to ensure I have the freedom to send my child to that school.

The government may tax everybody else and pass the money to me so that I can pay the fees. Or the government could put a cap on the school fees, coercing the school to reduce their fees for me.

On the other hand, if a government that believes in negative freedom wants to ensure I can afford that school, it will do so by removing the hurdles preventing me from being able to pay.

The fees might be expensive because the number of private schools is small and setting up more is too bureaucratic.

So the government will remove the bureaucracy and give more licences to create competition, which will in turn reduce the cost.

It gives me the freedom to choose that school by removing the barriers that prevent me from going there, not by coercing others to help me.

These two concepts are important to understand when talking about liberty because they can be competing ideas that are incompatible with one another.

Positive freedom coerces people into doing something they don’t want. You are coerced to pay tax to help me even though you might need the money more than me.

Negative freedom frees up the supply and avoids coercion, for example by giving more licences and reducing bureaucracy so that you are free from the limitations that held you back.

Those who believe in liberty in its classical sense believe in negative freedom and not positive freedom. Negative freedom is the true way to respect choice while positive freedom brings you closer to an illiberal coercive environment.

If we apply this to the hot issues that exist today, we will actually come to some very interesting policy challenges.

Take the desire to practise one’s religion. Let us take the desire by some Muslims to have hudud.

This is a challenging situation and I myself am still researching for the most acceptable policy solution.

But a liberal would respect the right of a person to practise his religion, including to have hudud imposed on him.

The challenge, however, is how to ensure the person can fulfil his religious obligations while at the same time ensure there is no coercion on others.

In this case, while I understand the concerns of those who oppose hudud, I also fear that the opponents may have become illibe­rals themselves by denying the right to have hudud.

Similarly, there is an increasing number of people these days who jump when they see signs of an “Islamised” society.

A liberal would respect and indeed defend the choices made by those who want to live life in what they deem as “Islamic”. Islamophobia is not at all liberal.

The policy problem, however, is when government coercive powers are used to impose a set of values on those who prefer not to live their lives according to those values.

How to decouple personal beliefs from illiberal government coercion in a country like Malaysia is one thing that I am still trying to figure out because it has to be done delicately.

But one thing I do know is that liberals respect choices. To paraphrase a popular saying, I may not agree with your belief but I will defend to death your right to believe in them.

If we are liberals, we should look for ways to accommodate the different beliefs and choices made by individuals for themselves.

We should not become illiberals ourselves by stopping others from living their lives the way they choose.

Wan Saiful Wan Jan is chief executive of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (www.ideas.org.my). The views expressed here are entirely the writer’s own.

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

See also: 

Pol. Ideology 60: Lecture in Nepal on Liberalism, Rule of Law, Civil Society, January 13, 2015 

Pol. Ideology 61: Raison d 'Etre of Government, January 30, 2015 

Pol. Ideology 62, Marx and Hayek on Property Rights, May 19, 2015 

Pol. Ideology 63, Alternative Economic System, May 25, 2015

Pol. Ideology 64, Big World Government or Smaller Countries and Governments? June 03, 2015

BWorld 13, SONA's liberalism, five years after

* This is my article yesterday in BusinessWorld's Special 27th Anniversary Report, coinciding with President Aquino's 6th and last State of the Nation Address (SONA).
----------

PRESIDENT Benigno S. C. Aquino III will deliver his 6th and last State of the Nation Address (SONA) today, and it is a relatively safe guess that its general outline will be a report of achievements over the past five years and what the administration intends to achieve in its final 11 months.

Reviewing the past five SONAs, 2010 to 2014, it appears that in his first SONA in 2010, the President wanted to affirm the liberal ideals of a limited and clean government, dynamic market, and principled civil society. The President is from the Liberal Party, not from a nationalist or socialist party and somehow, those ideals should be reflected in his policy formulations.

The succeeding SONA from 2012 to 2014 focused more on the various welfare and subsidy programs of the administration, especially the implementation of the conditional cash transfer program. Liberalism in theory is not focused on heavy state welfare and political populism as these are the realm of socialism and conservatism. Liberalism is about having rule of law, government as enabler, judge, and policeman of the people’s three basic rights and freedom -- right to private property, right to life against aggressors, and right to liberty against dictators and bullies.

Public-private partnerships (PPPs) were among the salient pronouncements and promises of the President’s first SONA 2010. In particular:

1. Expressways: “Some… want to build an expressway from Manila that will pass through Bulacan, Nueva Ecija, Nueva Vizcaya, until the end of Cagayan Valley, without the government having to spend a single peso.”

2. National defense. “Some... will rent the Navy headquarters on Roxas Boulevard and the Naval Station in Fort Bonifacio. They will take care of the funding necessary to transfer the Navy Headquarters to Camp Aguinaldo. Immediately, we will be given $100 million.”

3. Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT): “Projects will undergo quick and efficient processes…. a process that used to take as short as a year and as long as a decade will now only take six months.”

4. Business registration: “The never-ending horror story of registering business names, which used to take a minimum of four to eight hours depending on the day, will be cut down drastically to fifteen minutes. What used to be a check list of 36 documents will be shortened to a list of six, and the old eight-page application form will be whittled down to one page.”

Among the bills that Mr. Aquino sought from Congress were the Antitrust Law (“No monopolies, no cartels that kill competition”) and Whistleblower’s Bill “to eradicate the prevalent culture of fear and silence that has hounded our system. From 2009 to 2010 alone, cases which involved the participation of witnesses under the Witness Protection Program resulted in a ninety-five percent conviction.”

The four items above are consistent with liberalism, of lesser government intervention and more private enterprises involvement and dynamism. Also the two (and more) legislative measures.

After five years, from July 2010 to July 2015, were those four (and more) plans and promises fulfilled? Were those legislative proposals enacted into laws?

This writer interviewed Communications Secretary Herminio B. Coloma, Jr. of the Presidential Communications Operations Office about some of those issues. In particular, about #4, the business bureaucracies. Mr. Coloma said that after SONA 2010, “DTI buckled down to work immediately to simplify business registration procedures. The Philippine Economic Zone Authority also introduced minimum procedures in business registrations.”

The World Bank has been producing an important study, the Doing Business (DB) annual reports, on how easy or difficult it is to do business in different countries. Here is a summary on the Philippines. The fourth column is not part of the report, it is only added here for a comparison of positive changes or improvements, and reduction in bureaucracies; a negative figure means deterioration or increase in bureaucracies. (See chart) 

So it is true, after five years, the Philippines’ overall global ranking in “Ease of Doing Business” has improved by 49 notches. In particular, to start a new business, there is a reduction of 18 days and to get construction permits, there is a reduction of 109 days, after five years. These are good improvements.

Mr. Coloma also mentioned the Civil Service Commission’s (CSC) Citizen’s Satisfaction Center Seal of Excellence, wherein government offices are rated by the public through a Report Card Survey.

Apparently, Item #s 1 and 2 in SONA 2010, the expressway to Cagayan Valley and rental of Navy HQ in Roxas Boulevard, did not take off.

Item #3 on BOT seems to be on track as there are plenty of big PPP projects that are on-stream or being implemented. These include the North-South Railway Project, NLEx-SLEx Connector Road, and NAIA Development. PPP projects for approval include LRT Lines 4 and 6, and the Batangas-Manila (BatMan) 1 natural gas pipeline project.

The proposed Whistleblower’s Law is still pending in Congress, and it is hoped that it will become law before the end of Mr. Aquino’s term and of the current Congress.

We also asked Mr. Coloma why Mr. Aquino doesn’t seem too enthusiastic in the moves to amend the Constitution and remove economic restrictions like the prohibition or limitation of foreign investments in certain sectors and sub-sectors of the economy.

Mr. Coloma said “the President has adopted a hands-off stance so far, [is] not against it but reasonably open to it.” He added that the President is just being careful because Congress might interpret it differently and this might lead to a comprehensive amendment of the charter, not just the economic provisions.

Looking up to SONA 2015, what would be the outlook for the Palace in the next 11 months?

Mr. Coloma expressed the hope that certain priority bills would become law, like the Rationalization of Fiscal Incentives, the Tax Incentives Management and Transparency Act, and others. He also pointed out the continuing need for good governance, transparency, and institutional moorings.

It should be noted that there is more emphasis on “good governance” by the Palace as the political heat leading to the 2016 presidential election rises. The liberal ideals of limited government and, by extension, “less governance” has been muted.

The political opposition and militant civil society do not show any interest in limited government. On the contrary, they show voracious appetite for further expansion of government, provided that they are the ones occupying high government positions.

Between a liberal government with muted aspiration for more market competition and a political opposition with expressed desire for a more welfarist, more populist and interventionist government, the public have a choice.

If they wish to see a more dynamic, more competitive private enterprise, they should call for less governance. If they wish to try a welfarist, interventionist government system, the case of Greece and its huge debt and fiscally unstable economy should be a gentle reminder of the danger of this option.

-----------

See also: 

BWorld 9, Poitical populism vs. tax realism, July 05, 2015 

BWorld 10, Greece crisis, pension and rule of law, July 11, 2015 

BWorld 11, China's stockmarket and central planning, July 18, 2015 

BWorld 12, Investments, APEC and economic liberalization, July 25, 2015

Fat-Free Econ 17: SONA, the Budget and Debt, July 22, 2012

Fat Free Econ 55: The President's 5th SONA and Market-Oriented Reforms, August 01, 2014

The President's SONA, 2010, July 26, 2010
The President's SONA 2011, July 24, 2011
The President's SONA 2011, part 2, July 26, 2011

The President's SONA 2012, July 23, 2012

EFN Asia 46: A Young Korean's Reflections of Conference 2014 in Hong Kong

Here's a good reflection paper by a young participant from Seoul during the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia Conference 2014 in Hong Kong. This is posted yesterday, 09 February 2015, at the EFN Asia website. Reposting it here.

----------- 

Perspective from the Youth Alliance for the Future of Korea: EFN Asia conference 2014

By Ms Kwon Ji-Eun, staff,  The Young Alliance for the Future of Korea

… This year's topic of the annual conference was 'Liberalism: Promoting Growth, Reducing Inequality', and the members from developing Asian countries gather together to discuss the methodology to boost the economic growth and to decrease the social inequality. Although economics wasn't my major in the university, I was willing to give my best effort to engage myself in the discussion concerning 'Growth and Distribution' with the experts from many Asian countries.

Though, to some extent, the annual conference of EFN Asia required the participants to possess specific expertise in terms of its subject, the way of participation was fresh and distinguished from any conventional forums or international conferences. When one session finishes, any participants of the conference become either speakers or audiences freely walking around the conference room. While holding a cup of coffee on one hand, and snacks one the other hand, all the members involved in the conference conversed with each other, as if they had been old friends.

The most impressive programs were 'Asian Cafe' and 'Speed dating'. At first, 'Asian Cafe' is a program inspired by 'World Café', which encourages the participants to communicate in a relaxed atmosphere, so if someone presents their national economic situation and ideas to deal with the presumable problems, effective counterplans are sought through a discussion. Secondly, 'Speed dateing' was also a program, in which the participants exchange ideas about current economic issues with their partner and then they have a short discussion within one minute, yet they have to change the partner constantly. 

Choi Byung Il, President/CEO of Korea Economic Research Institute, took charge of the host for 'Asian Cafe' for Korea case study. He pointed out the vulnerability of domestic market and the unpreparedness for the coming aging society as the main problems of Korean Economy, and urged the modification of the economic fundamentals. Since all the participants might share the ideas regarding growth and distribution from the perspective of liberalism, lots of people agreed on his opinion. Especially, an opinion suggested by an Indian panel claiming that economic system without innovations is not only hard to sustain, but it can also cause a retrogression of free market economy appealed to the participants

Also, most of participants agree on the proposition that without growth, there's no distribution. After the two day's long conference, I naturally thought of South Korea. The discussion about free school meals has recently resumed. The relationship of growth and distribution is complementary, so it's hard to stress just one aspect. Nevertheless, the one thing obvious is that it's an absurd idea to insist only the importance of distribution without considering that of growth seriously. Korean economy is struggling with its frozen domestic market due to several unfavorable conditions such as international recession and weak yen, presumable economic risks from China. I doubt whether such situations are contemplated enough in the discussion concerning the free meals in schools. I came up with the people saying "don't be too stingy with foods for kids." It's really pity that the main point of the discourse is blurred by such a groundless, emotional opinion, when realistic thoughts and decisions are required. The experience in Hong Kong made me think of the relation between growth and distribution as well as the legitimacy of approach evaluating the reciprocity of those two values according to the political logic.

-----------

See also: 

EFN 42: Other Speakers in Conference 2014, November 04, 2014

EFN Asia 43: Day 1 of Conference 2014, November 06, 2014

EFN Asia 44: Day 2 of Conference 2014, November 10, 2014 

EFN Asia 45: Growth, Inequality and the Philippines, November 14, 2014

Pol. Ideology 60: Lecture in Nepal on Liberalism, Rule of Law, Civil Society

Back here in Kathmandu yesterday afternoon, after giving a talk before a group of university students in Pokhara, Nepal, about 30 minutes by plane from Kathmandu. The other speaker was Prof. Cris Lingle of the US, who also attended the 3rd Asia Liberty Forum last week, January 8-10, here in Kathmandu. Our trip to Pokhara was sponsored by Media 9 and Business 360 magazine.

The students have various academic backgrounds and are just interested to learn about freedom, markets, governments and business.

My presentation outline followed the 7 chapters of the book: (1) F. Hayek, liberty and rule of law, (2) Local government and civil society, (3) Liberalism, socialism and conservatism, (4) Raison d ‘etre of government, (5) Minarchy vs. anarchy, (6) Pork barrel scandal and liberalism, and (7) Concluding notes.

Cris spoke before me and he mentioned about liberty and permits, how the latter often impinge on the former. I rephrase this quote from Hayek, that in a free society, liberty dominates, everything is allowed except for a few prohibited acts (no killing, no  stealing, no abduction,...) whereas in a non-free society, in "liberties", all things are prohibited and disallowed except with permits -- from the government, clans, gangs, etc.

This is the basis for our advocacy, Minimal Government = Maximum Civil Society.

Lao Tzu came much earlier than  the classical liberal thinkers like Adam Smith, David Ricardo and John Locke, even earlier than Plato and Aristotle.

My Second Book: Liberalism, Rule of Law and Civil Society

My second book has been published, finally. It is an ebook freely available at http://fnf.org.ph/epub/

I copy-paste here these 3 short sections.

Table of Contents

Foreword

Introduction

Acknowledgments

Chapter 1: Friedrich Hayek, Liberty and Rule of Law

Chapter 2: Local Government and Civil Society

Chapter 3: Liberalism, Conservatism and Socialism

Chapter 4: Raison d' Etre of Government

Chapter 5: Anarchy vs. Minarchy

Chapter 6: Pork Barrel Sacndal and Liberalism

Chapter 7: Conclusion

Chapter 8: Afterthought: Nonoy Oplas and The Spirit of Aristotle

Foreword:

This book is special.

Firstly it is special, of course, because of its substance. This wasn’t written in a whim. Here culminate musings and ideas that were accumulated over many years of thinking, while the author was observing the goings-on in society with his usual sharp vision. And now, in one book, these thoughts erupt all at once, like a volcano.

Moreover, this book is special because of its author. Nonoy Oplas, one of the outstanding individuals who was awarded a Freedom Flame by FNF Philippines in 2013, is an original thinker if ever there was one, who gives his views no holds barred, and who is just as happy when he gets a standing ovation as when he gets booed off the stage – so long as he has made his audience consider, or preferably re-consider, any common theory and established practice. What Mr. Oplas enjoys most, is pointing out when the emperor wears no clothes. Such people are the lifeblood of democracy.

He is also one of the rare individuals who understands both the world pure, uncompromising radical thought, and the world of compromise that politicians inhabit. This makes him a fiendishly effective individual, for whom there is no higher value than the trust that he puts in the capacity of individuals to handle – and solve – the problems that they encounter on their journey through life. And these are values that we all need to be reminded of, from time to time.

Prepare to be challenged, in the pages that lie before you.

Jules Maaten,

Country Director

Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom Philippines

January 2014

Introduction

Power to the people.

Probably the most abused cliché on this side of the world, it had also proven to be a most dangerous idea for some. We have heard it preached to high heavens by those whose idea of “power” ultimately involves only their own, and had, for a time, succeeded in persuading people to abandon their own will to govern. Sadly, the temptation to believe that our only power and responsibility to ourselves and to society is that we are able to choose those who would govern us, then marvel at our ineptness to choose the right people.

The Filipino had seen it all, hoping at every painful turn, at every epic fail, that his conversation with history would not end. Because now he is learning to listen.

Liberalism, Rule of Law, and Civil Society more than aids in furthering this conversation, it intends to push the conversation up to a level of exchange that provokes everyone to ask the questions that really matter. What would it take for every Filipino to take responsibility for his country’s future? When will the talk about government and good governance ever come down from academic debate to the kitchen table?

Set in the backdrop of classic Liberalism as espoused by the works of Locke, Hayek, Von Mises, and Thatcher, Bienvenido “Nonoy” Oplas book shines the light of reason in the continuing debate on the very definition of modern civil society, in works that detail the enormous body of contemporary liberal thought that is global as it is uniquely Filipino.

A leading champion of minimal government, Nonoy rephrases and recasts the lingering question on the purpose of government and the duty of the governed, and traces the opulent roots of today’s problems with a probing eye for the unseen ties that bind, connect, and complicate the search for national redemption.

Liberalism, Rule of Law, and Civil Society is also more than a political treatise, as it documents the author’s personal journey from a cynic who had to “unlearn many things that polluted his understanding of civil society”, to being one of the leading scholars and advocates of liberal thought in the Philippines. It is indeed, an honour to have known the man as a friend, a classmate at the UP School of Economics, and a loyal alumni of the UP Economics Towards Consciousness. He is a gifted thinker, tireless in his search for solutions to his country’s woes.

The Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom Philippines had another veritable gem in their treasury of publications.

With this book, Nonoy’s call for “small government, small taxes, free market, personal responsibility” gets even bigger.

Ma. Gladys Cruz-Sta. Rita

President/CEO of National Power Corporation,

Author, Running a Bureaucracy (2008)

---------

* See also: 
My first book: Health Choices and Responsibilities, March 29, 2011
Health Choices and Responsibilities (full book)

Pol. Ideology 55: Jules Maaten's Lecture on Liberalism

A very informative lecture given by Jules Maaten last Tuesday night at our Rotary Club of Taguig Fort Bonifacio, along with RC Makati Pio del Pilar.

 Not many people were able to come though although they really wanted to hear Jules' talk. Like at least three from the Initiatives for Filipino Liberty (IFL) group, at least three from our club, and so on. So this blog post is for those who were not able to come and regular readers of this blog.

At the onset, Jules defined Liberalism as:

* It is the philosophy of liberty

* It is a philosophy of empowerment

* Origin in protecting the individual against institutions of power.

This quote from JS Mill, among the classical thinkers of liberal philosophy, is clear and direct.

Then Jules specified how the  philosophy is applied, Liberalism in Politics:

* Protection of individual rights

* Equality of all human beings under the law

* Balance and separation of powers

* Belief in liberal representative democracy

* Balance between majority rule and the rights of the minority

* Weary of (state) authority, but state is rights guarantor

* Limitation and decentralisation of government powers

* Separation of church and state

I like this quote from my favorite economist and philosopher, F. Hayek. Yes, allow people to decide things for themselves, to make mistakes, to excel.

Then he discussed what is Liberalism in Economics:

* Belief in free enterprise and free markets with many players

* Protection of private property

* Support for free trade

* Privatisation of services better provided by the private sector

* Competition, no private monopolies

* Role for state where market does not function (education, environment, culture, social policies)

* Don’t leave debts to future generations.

The last item is important. As Germany and many European and rich economies go deeper and deeper in public debt, with huge interest payment annually, the economic freedom and well being of the future generation is heavily compromised.

Lecture on Liberalism, German Politics and the FNF

This coming Tuesday, May 06, our club and the RC of Makati Pio del Pilar will have a joint meeting with a distinguished speaker, the Country Director of the FNF, and a former Member of the European Parliament (MEP), Jules Maaten.

There is good feedback about this "interesting topic" and hence, we hope many people, rotarians and non-rotarians, will come and listen to Jules.

A short background. All political foundations (Friedrich Naumann Foundation/FNF, Friedrich Ebert Foundation/FEF, Konrad Adenauer Foundation/KAF, Hans Seidel Foundation/HSF,...) are affiliated with German political parties. FNF is affiliated with the Free Democratic Party (FDP, liberals and democrats); FEF is affiliated with the social democrats and socialists; KAF is affiliated with the Christian Democrats, the party in power by Angela Merkel, and so on.

These political foundations get their funding from their political party affiliation in Germany. Thus, the bigger the votes achieved by the political party, the bigger is the funding of their political foundation. That makes KAF having lots of money.

The goal of those pol. foundations is to conduct political education worldwide related to their respective political philosophy. Thus, FNF is promoting liberalism and free market, FEF is promoting welfarism and implicit socialism.

German politics is important because Germany is the biggest economy in Europe. Thus, policies by the ruling party or coalition largely determine the direction of the German economy and foreign policy. Like how to deal with the public debt crisis of Portugal-Ireland-Greece-Spain (PIGS), the future of the Euro currency, the Ukraine-Russia conflict, and so on.

As usual, no registration fee, people will just pay for their own meals and drinks. Hope to see you there, Manila-based readers. Thanks.

--------

See also:

German Elections 2013: Big Defeat for the FDP, September 23, 2013

Pol. Ideology 51: Liberalism is Not Welfarism, September 17, 2013

Pol. Ideology 52: What is the Main Purpose of Government?, October 29, 2013 

EFN Asia 35: Rainer Adam and Economic Freedom in Asia, March 11, 2014

Freedom Flame Awards 3: The Magazine

I just discovered that our profile photos, recipients of the FNF's "Freedom Flame" awards last year, are in scribd, I am Free Report 2013. I saw the hard copy of the magazine earlier.

Yes, that's Dingdong Dantes and Marian Rivera on the cover. They joined the Freedom Run 2013, the same day where the Freedom Flame awards were given in the evening. The mascot is called "Fredo", championing freedom.

The 14 awardees, arranged alphabetically, 1st row: Abad is Congresswoman from Batanes, Aquino is Senator, Belmonte is House Speaker, Climaco is Mayor of Zamboanga City.

2nd row: Evangelista is a journalist, Garchitorena is formerly of Ayala Foundation, Gascon is UnderSecretary at the Office of the President, Guingona is with an NGO and the Actors Guild.

3rd row: Keh is with Kaya Natin Movement, Medina is with Ateneo Law Human Rights Center, me, and Padaca is Commissioner at the Commission on Elections (Comelec), also former Governor of Isabela province.

4th row: Pangilinan is former Senator, Sarmiento is a Congressman.

I was very lucky to be selected as one of the awardees last year. Well, each of us filled a particular role. Mine is more on propagating the philosophy of classical liberalism, of individual liberty, personal responsibility, rule of law, free trade and limited government. Less government is good government.

Thanks again to the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF) for that evening of recognition.
---------

See also:
Freedom Flame Awards 2013, November 13, 2013 
Freedom Flame Awards 2: More Photos, November 25, 2013

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

FNF Philippines and Liberal Challenges 2013-2016, June 14, 2013

IDEAS 5: Who is a Liberal? What is Limited Government?

This is a nice, well-written paper defining what is liberalism and libertarianism, who is a liberal, what is the rule of law, limited government, and free market capitalism. Written by a friend, the CEO of IDEAS in Malaysia, Wan Saiful Wan Jan. Posted today in their website, reposting here. This essay complements my previous papers under "Pol. Ideology" series in this blog.
------------

The word “liberal” has been bandied about quite a lot lately. Most of the time the term is criticised for something completely unrelated to what the word actually means. There are also many cases of people being labelled as liberals when they are not.

Clearing the confusion surrounding liberalism is not easy. But we have to start somewhere. So let me try.

The word ‘liberal’ has been abused so much that, in some cases, the meaning has been greatly distorted. In America, the word has been stolen by those who generally believe in greater state intervention (e.g. Obama’s Democratic Party). In Malaysia, some have been trying to associate liberalism with Pakatan Rakyat. Neither of these represents liberalism in the classical sense. In Malaysia, none of our mainstream political parties have a coherent philosophical foundation, while in the US, the Democrats are on the left.

Classical liberalism is usually used in Europe to describe a political philosophy that in the United States would be called libertarianism. Of course there are differences in the details, but for the purpose of this article, let us simplify the discussion and use liberalism and libertarianism interchangeably.

A libertarian’s most basic belief could be traced back to the Abrahamic and Greek idea of a “higher law”, a law by which everyone, including the ruling elites, could be judged. The advent of Islam strengthened this belief, and reinforced the idea that those in positions of power are not the ultimate source of authority. They too are subject to the law.

Libertarians believe in the “rule of law”, not the lack of rules and laws. Libertarianism is a call for everyone to be subject to the same set of rules, with no one being above the law. This is the best safeguard that we have against dictatorship and totalitarianism.

Rule of law calls for equality between the ruled and the ruler. Since the ruling elite holds the key to coercive power – such as the ability to legislate, and control of the armed forces and the police – it is very important that their powers are limited.

If the ruling elites have unlimited powers to legislate and dictate, we will quickly descend into the rule of men. Hence we need a “limited government”, which is another important principle of liberalism.

The government is an institution to which citizens delegate the authority to rule. It is this delegation that gives government its power. But the government is such a powerful institution that it can easily become a dangerous one, especially when it coerces citizens into obedience.

To prevent government coercion, the roles and powers of the government must be limited, usually through a written constitution that both enumerates and limits executive power with checks and balances.

This is an important point. The ruling elite exists because we the citizens empower them. The rakyat is the true master, and those in power are the servants. Not the other way round. We must do all that we can to prevent anyone in power from behaving like kings and this is why we must demand a limited government.

The concept of limited government implies the need to respect “individual liberty and responsibility”. Individuals are free to choose how they live their lives as long as they do no harm to others, and they must be responsible for what they do. The religious ones must be free to practice their religions, while those who are not must be free to be so too.

Islam tells Muslims to be among the most liberal in this sense. In the Golden Age of Islam, a Muslim leader Rubi’e bin Amir proudly told Persian General Rustom that Islam was sent to free mankind from servitude to other men so that they serve only God. Of course, the rise of a new generation of human gods in Islam (and in other religions) deserves a treatment on its own, but we must be careful to distinguish the principles from the practice.

Perhaps most importantly, the concept of individual liberty demands that those in power must not encroach into what is private to the individuals. The government should only step in when individuals do harm to others, but otherwise they should leave us alone. (See: The Liberty Manifesto)

It is well known that liberals support free markets. But many are confused about why this is so. Some accuse free marketeers as supporting inequality between the haves and the have-nots. And others confuse between the actions of capitalists and principles of capitalism.

Libertarians support the free market capitalism because it is the only system that respects human dignity. The free market is the only system that truly gives people choice and prevents cronyism. In a free market, businesses have to compete to please the rakyat, the consumers. But in a non-free market, businessmen can ignore the rakyat because all they need to do is to collude with politicians to gain favourable treatments and subsidies.

A non-free market system victimises the rakyat because it denies our freedom to choose. And more often than not, systems other than the free market result in the privatisation of profits and nationalisation of losses. All the cronyism, nepotism and corruption that we see around the world are almost always the result of collusions between politicians and businessmen, which can only happen when the economy is not free and this is exactly what the free market want to eradicate.

In short, and at a great risk of oversimplifying a complex issue, being a liberal or a libertarian means believing in the rule of law, limited government, individual liberty and responsibility, and the free market. (See: Philosophy of IDEAS)

The next time someone accuses liberalism of this and that, I urge you firstly judge whether that person knows what he is talking about or not. We need to spot those who more often than not talk nonsense, and expose them for their ignorance.

----------

See also:
Think tanks for liberty 1: IDEAS Malaysia, February 02, 2011
IDEAS 2: Wan Saiful Talk in Manila, September 9, September 07, 2013 
IDEAS 3: Wan Saiful's Presentation in Manila, September 11, 2013 
IDEAS 4: Photos of Wan Saiful's Talk on the Politics and Economy of Malaysia, September 12, 2013

IAF Seminar, Gummersbach, Germany, Part 2

This is the continuation of my earlier paper, IAF Seminar 2008, Gummersbach, Germany, posted in January 21, 2011. The course that I attended in THA, Gummersbach, Germany, was "Civil Society and Local Government" conducted I think, from October 26 to November 2, 2008. or almost five years ago. I feel nostalgic...

Our batch visited some government offices in Cologne, about one hour by car from Gummersbach. A local paper featured one story about such visit.

 One of those lecture-workshops. To my right was Asma Asfor from Palestine, to my left Isil Cakmac from Turkey.

My other batchmates from different countries. From left: Jingjing Cai from China, Pai from Indonesia, Xinggo Li also from China, Diego Conti from Brazil, Bastian Saputra from Indonesia, Brian Lariche of Malaysia, Asma Asfor from Palestine, Nora from Colombia (?), Marcelo from Venezuela, and Elsa from S. Africa.

Other batchmates from other countries.

We also have evening lectures, about 2x, excluding the welcome and farewell dinners of the 8-days seminar.

Fellowships in the evening. We have a quota of 1 free glass of beer per night per participant. Some batchmates don't drink, so they give their beer stub to us drinkers, so we can have two glasses on a night. The glasses are big anyway, so two bottles should be enough.

German Elections 2013: Big Defeat for the FDP

Last night, I joined some friends and staff of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF) in a WahlParty, watching the German elections live, at the German Club in Makati.

Big defeat for the German liberals, the Free Democratic Party (FDP). A brief analysis of the party defeat from a good German liberal thinker and my former teacher/facilitator at an IAF Seminar in Gummersbach in 2008, Arno Keller below. Posted in German, translated by Bing:

1. The world has not gone under.
2. Liberal values have lost none of their importance.
3. A political party could use Germany. After self-proclaimed "radical Liberals" and apparent liberal opportunists have systematically destroyed the Liberal core of the FDP, the debate on values in the FDP must run new, so that she can once again assume the role of a Liberal Party. Yes, and then also the FDP should recognize that systematic strategy development can actually help.

Chito Gascon was also there last night. His brief analysis:

results from elections in germany are coming in, and it appears to be historic in some key aspects... the conservatives gained more votes and will most certainly return her to the position of chancellor well on the way to being the longest serving woman leader of a major european country... AND, perhaps for the first time since after world war 2, the liberals who have thus far served in government longest as junior partner alternating with either the social democrats or conservatives, may (should the trend be validated) be finding themselves totally out of parliament... by far their worst result ever with them losing 2/3rds of their support compared from the last elections... time for some soul-searching, i hope they are able to bounce back... in the meantime, the conservatives will have a coalition partnership either with the social democrats or the greens or both these parties... the liberal voice will be missed in parliament this governing cycle...i applaud the democratic process... the people have spoken!

A disaster for the FDP yesterday, first time since WW2 and the party founding that they are out of the National Parliament, not a single seat, for failing to get the minimum 5 percent of the votes, they got only 4.8 percent.

Result of the exit poll is almost identical with the actual result. Photo from Spiegel International.

Wikipedia (accessed today) described the party 

The FDP, which strongly supports human rights, civil liberties, and internationalism, has shifted from the centre to the centre-right over time. Since the 1980s, the party has firmly pushed economic liberalism, and has aligned itself closely to the promotion of free markets and privatisation.

And here's a summary of its electoral performance, from its best-ever 2009 achievement to its worst result yesterday. Data from wiki.

It will be a big soul searching for the FDP and the European liberals. Should they push for more explicit free market policies? A Filipino friend and fellow IAF alumni in Gummersbach, Kareen Oloroso, mentioned last night that many Germans were angry at the liberal /FDP Foreign Minister's plan to cut German foreign aid. 

I agree with Arno's analysis above. Liberalism as a philosophy to advance individual freedom and limit the State's coercive power has not lost its value. German liberals in the government made something wrong that turned off many of their supporters.

Meanwhile, a surprising performance by the Alternative for Germany (AfD), an anti-Euro, back to Deutschhmark, other protest party. Formed only in February this year, they got 4.9% of the votes. It is possible that many previous votes for the FDP went to AfD.

While climate alarmist Greens Party was also among the losers, though not as bad as the FDP

http://notrickszone.com/2013/09/22/germanys-green-party-takes-a-beating-in-national-elections-climate-fear-no-longer-issues/
-------------

Update: I like these postings by two FNF guys:

From Jules Maaten:

A bitter election result for the German liberals. Yet if the party gives itself a couple of weeks to mourn, and doesn't engage in pointless wars-on-a-square-millimeter or in I-told-you-so intellectualism, there is plenty of modern liberal thinking power, competence and commitment to bounce back convincingly. Simply pull up your sleeves and get going. That will be so good for Germany and for international liberalism.

From Bjoern Wyrembek:

Time to go to work. Time to make it better. Time to stand for freedom, for equal opportunities, for tolerance, for rule of law, against corruption, for property rights, for personal responsibility and markets that are open to everyone. Time to prove that these core values will create a better society, are standing for development and better living conditions and secure what we achieve. We just got a public demand note to get rid of much dead weight. So let's do it and move on. Time to go to work.

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

See also: 

IAF Seminar 2008, Gummersbach, Germany, January 21, 2011

The German Club, Makati, September 23, 2013

Pol. Ideology 51: Liberalism is Not Welfarism

* This is my article yesterday in thelobbyist.biz.
----------

In the on-going pork barrel scandal and deliberation of the 2014 budget, many sectors are advocating that the money for legislators’ pork barrel or PDAF that has been abolished will be inserted back to the budget as additional funding of the different Departments for various welfare and subsidy programs to the poor.

They make this suggestion because they believe that slow but endless expansion of government spending and bureaucracies are fine so long as the poor benefit from it, and that the Liberal government of President Benigno Aquino has promised big anti-poverty programs by controlling corruption.

If the poor have indeed benefited from previous welfare and subsidy programs many years and decades ago, then poverty by now should be small and negligible. This is not the case. What various welfarist and subsidy programs have done many decades ago is to benefit the politicians and the various bureaucracies that receive ever-rising budget and regulatory, prohibition powers.

Many officials and members of the Liberal Party (LP) forget that they are supposed to advance the philosophy of liberalism in their service to the public, not the cousin of socialism which is endless subsidies and no time table welfarism.

In a recent, short book published by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF) Pakistan Office, Talking Sense: Liberalism, The Greatest Misunderstandings, author Jana Licht discussed the essence of liberalism. She wrote,

The word “liberalism” has its roots in the Latin words liber, which means “free”, and respectively liberalis, which means “concerning the freedom”; in short: it is all about freedom. Liberalism is a social and political movement with the freedom of the individual as its basic idea, aim and decision guideline….

The core of liberal philosophy is the individual whose freedom must be secured and defended. This should be the highest standard and most important norm of a liberal state. Liberals  do not refuse the state; on the contrary, the state is the guarantor of the freedom. The state and its political as well as economic order must be directed to the freedom of the individual, which is the basis of a humane society. Governmental power must end where the individual freedom is touched. The state is only allowed to come into action if the freedom of an individual is hurt. Its duties are limited to the achievement and the sustainment of freedom and law.

Thus, the main function of the State in a liberal government is to protect and expand individual freedom. Freedom against murderers and aggressors (right to life), freedom against thieves and destroyers of property (right to private property), and freedom against bullies and dictators (right to liberty and self expression).

By extension, individuals have the freedom to be hardworking and efficient, or be lazy and inefficient. They have the freedom to be self-reliant, ambitious and responsible, or be dependent, mediocre and irresponsible. Becoming thieves, land grabbers and kidnappers to compensate for their poverty due to laziness or irresponsibility are explicitly disallowed and will be dealt strongly by the State.

In a liberal society therefore, being industrious and self-reliant is rewarded by prosperity while being lazy and dependent is penalized by poverty. Welfarism and forced equality, giving endless and forever subsidies is not a core function of the State in a liberal government.

Jana Licht wrote further,

Freedom” cannot be thought without “responsibility”, the other important term of liberal philosophy. For liberals, freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. Freedom can only be lived by individuals who take responsibility for themselves and for their fellow men. And freedom can only be lived with responsibility, because the freedom of an individual is limited by the freedom of the others. A surplus of freedom always implies more self-responsibility. But this responsibility is not a burden. Liberals claim it, because self-responsibility opens the door for more possibilities to choose from. And this, in turn, is an essential aspect of freedom.

The economic order in a liberal state is based on free markets and private property. The idea of a liberal economy disapproves overflowing governmental regulation of the markets. This belief is justified by the idea of self-responsibility. Liberals are convinced that individuals are better in organising their economic life than any state authority, because they will always have more information about their individual needs and wants.

So while socialism and welfarism emphasized lots of “rights” – health is a right, education is a right, housing is a right, stable job is a right,… -- liberalism strongly and emphatically emphasize that for every right, there is a corresponding responsibility. Rights and freedom are closely interlinked with responsibility, they cannot be divorced from each other.

Thus, in a liberal society, health is a right and a responsibility; education is a right and a responsibility, and so on. What does this mean?

This means that people cannot over-drink, over-smoke, over-eat and over-sit and when they become sickly, they will rally and lobby that the government should give them free or highly subsidized healthcare. This means that students cannot be frequent flunkers and school repeaters because education is free anyway. This means that people can squat and occupy private lands for their housing and lobby that government should side with them.

This also means that high and multiple taxation of the people’s income and savings as codified into tax laws by the previous governments is wrong. Such high taxation and forced equality is penalizing the hard working and industrious people, while subsidizing the less or non-industrious people, and the various government bureaucracies that do the endless and forever subsidy distribution.

Many taxpayers are angry at the on-going pork barrel scandal, at the large-scale corruption in many government departments and agencies, at the inability of certain agencies like the Commission on Audit (COA) and Congress that are tasked by the Constitution  to check and disallow such wastes and corruption to happen.

It is time for the Liberal government to go back to its core function – to promulgate the rule of law. Punish the wrong doers after a due process, give justice to taxpayers by slowly reducing or abolishing certain taxes and fees that penalize hardwork and efficiency.

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

See also: 

Pol. Ideology 47: SONA Rallies, Socialism and Thomas van Beersum, July 24, 2013 

Pol. Ideology 48: Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Social Contract Theory, September 09, 2013 

Pol. Ideology 49: Machiavelli, The Prince, Liberality and Meanness, September 11, 2013 

Pol. Ideology 50: Plato, The Republic and Pork Barrel, September 14, 2013