Less government means good governance

I posted this quote in my fb wall more than 4 years ago, the merits of small or limited government. And two weeks ago, I attended the EPDP forum on energy efficiency at UPSE. Good initiative, good and articulate speaker. But since they (he and his coalition) want another legislation, another law that will give special privileges to them but are not given to other sectors (income tax holiday, subsidies,...), I questioned their proposal and warned that more government intervention and favoritism would lead to more distortion, more problems.

Here's another example that less government, more civil society and private individuals' action can create welfare for society. 

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/586523/news/regions/bridge-built-for-students-who-used-to-swim-across-the-river-in-rizal

I also posted this quote in my fb wall 4+ years ago. Good reminder for many people who think that their "bright ideas" need to be legislated and enforced by coercion nationwide.

When an idea needs new legislation, 90-99% it is a lousy or even stupid idea that is why it needs nationwide coercion. There are a few useful legislation though, like revising or abolishing old laws on coercion. Example would be revising and cutting the personal income tax from 32% to say 20% or 10% flat rate.

Good quote shared by a friend, Reuel H.

"In [America], we embrace the myth that we are still a democracy when we know that we are not a democracy, that we are not free, that the government does not serve us but subjugates us. Although we give lip service to the notion of freedom, we know that the government is no longer the servant of the people but, at last, has become the people's master. The ultimate enemy of any people is not the hate groups that fester within, but a government itself that has lost its respect for the individual. The ultimate enemy of democracy is not the drug dealer or the crooked politician or the crazed skinhead. The ultimate enemy is the brutal despot that has become so powerful that it can murder its citizens with impunity." -- Gerry Spence, "From Freedom to Slavery," 1993.

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

See also:

Pol. Ideology 66, On institutions, constitutional monarchy and liberal parliamentary democracy, May 10, 2016 

Pol. Ideology 67, Socialism and Venezuela, June 08, 2016 

Pol. Ideology 68, On factions and diversity in society, thoughts of James Madison, October 10, 2016

Liberty in Singapore, Speech by Rainer Heufers in 2013

Reposting this from the International Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL), a nice speech by Rainer Heufers during the ISIL World Conference 2013 in Lauseanne.
----------

... Right now Singapore is where I have been based for the last two years. I created my company there and now that I am coming from Singapore, I always get the response, “Oh Singapore, great country isn’t it?” I am always a little surprised how often I hear that and where I hear that. So I started to wonder, do we have a case of Libertarian Orientalism actually?

Who are among the admirers of Singapore?

President Saakashvili of Georgia is very much one. When you go there, they often talk about the Singapore model. You go on and you find that the Communist Party of China really likes the Singapore model.

Well if you are in Africa, there is a big fan of Singapore over there. It is, Prime Minister Luc Adolph Tiao of Burkina Faso. And then there are the Libertarians and you wonder, whoa, how does it all go together? You look at this little website: GettingOutofAmerica.com that says that for those of the Libertarian persuasion, this tiny city-state has long represented their idea of a free market Valhalla. Whoa, big terms!

So I was really wondering how’s it all possible, and I am here to ask you what do you make out of it? You will have to give me the answers when we have the discussion later.

What libertarians see mostly are a couple of impressive facts. This is just ranking in the world, GDP per capita, 3rd out of 187 nations. Economic Freedom Ranking is 2nd out of 144. Global Competiveness Ranking is 2nd out of 144. Ease of Doing Business 1st of 185, and I don’t think libertarians look much at the Human Development Index, but if you have a quick peek at it, it would also be impressive at 18th out of 187. So that is really impressive and that makes a lot of governments look at Singapore.

See that’s what I am talking about. First of all I must say a lot of people really don’t know where Singapore actually is, so I don’t know whether everybody here knows where it is, there it is. That tiny little spot inside the yellow circle and on any reasonable map you have to circle it, otherwise it is really too small. Some images that I want to share, this is actually there at the tip of Malaysia of the Malaysians Peninsula that little island is an island actually. The merlion used to be the symbol of the city-state, now it’s really more the three towers. The Marina Bay Sands with that swimming pool on top of the roof like an arch on top and the Singapore Airlines. To those that fly a lot in the society of Singapore, I like to say it’s the preferred choice.

Okay let’s now take the bridge between Singapore and the libertarian principles. What are the libertarian principles? Quickly I believe, no, I am quoting here three principles,

1. Individual rights: that we have the right to live the life that we want to live, the way we want to live it, individually.

2. Spontaneous Order: where basically things and institutions and processes and procedures arrange themselves in a spontaneous way.

3. Limited Government: thirdly of course there needs to be a limited government.

I am quoting here from a speech that David Boaz once gave. I like these kinds of simplified things it helps a lot. So three simple principles: individual rights, spontaneous order, and limited government, I don’t think in this audience I need to explain on any of that.

And I thought okay then, let’s do a libertarian checklist looking at Singapore, how does it score?

Individual rights

Well first of all, there is no freedom of expression. Even giving this speech here I must admit, when you have a permanent residency in Singapore, you must think twice about what you say. It’s strange, but it is. You have to be careful. This is what a minister has to say, “it is important for us to ensure that Singaporeans read the right thing”. The ‘right thing’, that’s a typical statement from the government in Singapore. We want to make sure that people consume the right kind of information. He said that to the BBC.

Now, in June, they came up with a new idea. Any website that reports about Singapore and which has more than 50,000 unique visitors needs to pay a performance bond which is a $50,000 (dollar) license or in U. S. dollars a thirty nine thousand dollar ($39,000) license to be allowed to do so. This basically kills the most critical and underfunded websites that do report independently about Singaporean politics.

Not surprising then that the Freedom House would rank Singapore as only partly free, scoring 4 out of 7 on average. This basically means political rights and civil liberties are not guaranteed, especially the press in the country is not free. The newspaper there is a joke. It’s really great if you need to wrap fish or if you want clean your windows, but for anything else it’s really not really worthwhile. This you can say in Singapore because everybody thinks so.

Then there is no sex in the city or more precisely no gay sex in the city. This has been criminalized according to the laws that mutually consenting adult men cannot have sex with each other. Oral sex was prohibited and everybody was wondering which position of police would actually be in charge of checking on that? Though there was a very big demand for that job, but now they legalized it in 2007.

Actually Singapore is liberalizing because the people are fed up with this kind of government. There are changes that are happening now in Singapore as you can see now for example a gay movement the pink dot movement. This year and 2013 they had a massive uproar of people who all wore pink. You can’t make statements like you can’t wear pink and sit in a park. So that’s the pink dot movement and they were very successful this year. People are just fed up with being told what to say, what to think and what to do. The political position, well they had a lot of choices between prison and bankruptcy.

Singapore went so far that the government actually had an appointed member of opposition in the parliament because they thought that it’s quite bad the image if it’s all government. We need some opposition, so they appointed a member of the parliament to be the opposition. People thought it was also not a good idea. So, that has also changed because you can see now rallies of the opposition party which unfortunately is the workers party, have massive out pour again and if you go by the electoral vote it’s quite close for the government to actually lose power. Good outlook, so things are changing. The strong man he isn’t there anymore. Well, he is there, but he is not in power anymore. It is his son and his son is softer than Daddy.

Okay, so looking at our libertarian check list on individual rights; not really, on this one Singapore definitely failed. You can’t call that a libertarian system, oppressing individual rights, and I am only giving you some examples. I can’t give you the entire talk about everything in Singapore.

Spontaneous Order

Then, let’s all look at spontaneous order. Of, course the first thing you think about in spontaneous order is can everyone engage in business? Can you create a company, can you do business, etc. You saw already that Singapore is ranking very well in this report and this is truly the case. Singapore ranks number one in the world in this report and already in the first indicator in starting a business. It says it takes three procedures and three days to start a company.

This is actually not quite right. I started my own company. It takes about three hours. It’s amazing, I mean you can just create you can spend your day creating companies because it’s so easy. It’s really no problem so, that is truly amazing. The only thing that takes a little while is your bank then to check whether you’re actually worthy of having a bank account. You know the usual of what the banks do it takes what about two days or something, that is the little thing that you’re waiting for to open your corporate bank account.

I am also starting a business at the moment in Indonesia and I can tell you it takes longer and it costs a lot of money. But not in Singapore that one is fantastic. So that speaks a lot for spontaneous order to have this, starting a business like this. Then if you look at the top right, the one in red, trading across borders, ranks one. So free trade definitely that’s the hallmark of Singapore and that’s why we see Singapore I think the way we look at it like a libertarian Valhalla.

Free trade is really what Singapore is all about internationally. However, I am always trying to find a hair in the soup. Here is one about enforcing contracts. Suddenly out of brilliant performance enforcing contracts isn’t as good, its only ranking 12th because it takes a lot of procedures and 150 days to enforce your contract so there seems to be something not as brilliant, but in terms of starting a business and trading across borders, Singapore definitely, excellent performance.

What I have tried to do, is I tried to look now modestly at the Economic freedom of the world report to give you some figures from the freedom to trade report. Here is where freedom to trade international as you can see Singapore in 2010 ranks 2 with a score of 8.86, so basically that underlines the same thing; free international trade, Singapore with an absolutely brilliant performance. This goes really to the philosophy and the rationale of the country.

Pol. Ideology 53: Zero Government, Zero Taxes, Then What?

Zero government, zero taxes, then what?

This is a question posed by a physician friend, DiVa, in one facebook group, the “University of the Philippines Libertarians”. There was no direct reply from the person being asked.  I responded with the following.

Hi Divs, I'm a minarchist and never a fan of anarchy or zero government. Your questions are straightforward -- zero govt, zero tax, now what will you do if you are the person that the community looks up to? 

Coercion and taxation is inevitable. You abolish any form of government today, you create one tomorrow. Why?

I support the citizens' right to bear and own guns, for their own protection, for a hobby,  other reasons. Getting a gun is ok, allowed, with only one condition – a person must belongs to a gun club. There may be many gun clubs in the area, so there is choice where and whom to join. The purpose of requiring people to join a gun club is to instill discipline and accountability.

A shoots B because he got drunk, or B's videoke is too loud too often, or B has been spreading rumor about A’s wife and so on. Then A flees. Who will haunt him? Not a government police or army, but his gun club mates, the people who know him well, know where he lives, works, takes vacation, know his other friends, etc. The prospect of his own gun cub mates haunting him if he does something stupid will instill discipline among gun owners. 

Now a gun club, a voluntary organization, must have some by-laws, system of reward and punishment within, like kicking out members who do not pay their annual dues, or who spread rumors and cause disunity among members, etc. So there are (a) elected officials with term limits, (b) support staff doing full time work for big gun clubs, call them appointed bureaucrats as club officers are busy with their work or business, and (c) mandatory, forcible collection of dues and other fees. Non-payment of which will merit some penalties like being kicked out of the club.

See the pattern? The minimum characteristics of a government, points (a) to (c) are already there. A gun club is a “micro government”.

Now suppose person A from gun club 1 (A1) shoots and seriously wounds or kills person X from gun club 2 (X2). From the investigations, club 1 says A1 is correct in his action as a form of “self defense” while club 2 says X2 is innocent as he did not provoke a fight and A1 should be prosecuted. Gun clubs 1 and 2 are ready to shoot each other to defend and protect A1 and X2 respectively. Wild west type of shooting? No way.

Hundreds of gun clubs will put up a federation of clubs, say average of 100 clubs per federaton, and clubs 1 and 2 belong to Federation Y. Officers of Y will be the judges or referees in this dispute between 2 gun clubs and settle the dispute peacefully so that they don’t shoot each other in endless vengeance of “ubusan ng lahi”.

Now each federation again will have (a) elected officials with term limits from among the officials of different gun clubs, (b) appointed staff or bureaucrats who will provide full time admin and secretariat work for the elected officers , and (c) require annual dues on top of club dues that must be paid by force and coercion to sustain (b) and logistical support and even modest honorarium for (a) as they go around each club to sustain camaraderie and harmony.

Again, the three minimum components of government, points (a) to (c) are present, and we might call it “small size government”, a federation of micro-governments.

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

Business 360 12: Optimum Size of Government

* This is my article for B360, a monthly business magazine in Kathmandu, Nepal, October 2013 issue.
-------------

Most of the discontent and disharmony of people within and among countries around the world can be traced to the size and degree of invention and regulations of government. Some people want government to be as extensive as possible, approaching a socialist economy, some want no government at all.

Too much government means too many taxes and fees to sustain a big army of government officials and personnel, and also sustain an enormous number of people who will be waiting for various subsidies and welfare that the government will give or promise. Citizens will also have to comply with too many regulations and restrictions.

Thus, many people want a certain government size that is neither too big nor too small and allow government to perform its main functions, especially those related to protecting the citizens’ right to life against murderers and aggressors, right to private property against thieves and destroyers of property, and right to liberty against bullies and dictators.

The question of what is an optimal, most efficient, midway between maximum and minimum government size, has been discussed possibly since government was first invented.

The Lion Rock Institute, Hong Kong’s first and only free market think tank, will hold its second “Reading Club Salon 2013” this coming October 19, 2013, in Hong Kong. The theme of this year’s round table discussion will be “What is Democracy?” The theme last year in Reading Club Salon 2012 was about Populism and Welfarism.

Among the reading materials for the participants of this extensive and focused discussion is a book by Dr. James Buchanan, The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy [1962].

Chapter eight of the book, “The Costs of Decision-Making”, tackles this subject. It is an attempt by the author to construct a theory of an optimum size of the collective unit or government, subject to constitutional determinations. His theory is that “The group should be extended so long as the expected costs of the spillover effects from excluded jurisdictions exceed the expected incremental costs of decision-making resulting from adding the excluded jurisdictions.”

This means that government can expand as long as the externality of an activity is larger than the internal costs to people if such activity is shouldered by their individual or small units.

An externality can be positive (say killing mosquitoes in many villages to control malaria, dengue and other diseases) or negative (say air pollution). The presence of an externality does not justify automatic government intervention. Job creation and entrepreneurship has positive externality as people will have stable source of income, criminality is reduced, but it does not mean that the State should put up thousands of government corporations nationwide.

Buchanan suggested State decentralization to reduce basic cost functions to individuals. He wrote,

The decentralization of collective activity allows both of the basic-costs functions to be reduced; in effect, it introduces elements into the political process that are not unlike those found in the operating of competitive markets. 

Both the decentralization and size factors suggest that, where possible, collective activity should be organized in small rather than large political units. Organization in large units may be justified only by the overwhelming importance of the externality that remains after localized and decentralized collectivization.

This is a sensible suggestion to allow some degree of local government competition. Local governments are not the same, there are differences among them not only in natural resources but also in public policies. Such differences are the basis for competition among them and people and private enterprises choose the local governments that give them better treatment while collecting not too high taxes and fees.

While this scenario is worth supporting, liberalism's concept of expanding civil society is a superior alternative. If things can be done by civil society, then do not give that function to local government, and much less to the national or central government.

So, what is the optimum size of government?

One that is small enough and not cause unnecessary regulatory burdens and costly taxes and fees, but big enough to enforce the rule of law. To provide security and peace of mind to people that their lives, their private property, and  their dignity and freedom of expression and mobility are respected and protected against aggression and forced expropriation.

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

See also:Business 360 9: Free Trade and Economic Prosperity, July 03, 2013 
Business 360 10: Foreign Aid as Band Aid Solution, August 11, 2013 
Business 360 11: Avoiding Middle Income Trap, September 19, 2013

Lion Rock 7: Reading Club Salon 2013, Hong Kong, September 17, 2013 

Lion Rock 8: On Opposition, Factions and James Madison, October 01, 2013 

Lion Rock 9: Federalism, Decentralization and George Clinton, October 07, 2013

Pork Barrel 4: Ten Q&A on the Pork Scandal

A friend from the foreign media asked me some questions about the current pork barrel scandal. This is an expanded version (more Qs, more As) of what I sent to him. The posters, I just added here as I support their calls.

1. How is pork barrel made? What is the process to get the money?

--> Legislators, Congressmen and Senators, identify priority projects for their district (District Congressmen) or anywhere in the country (Party List Congressmen, Senators) and the implementing agencies in the Executive branch. Such project identification and funding is incorporated in the annual budget bill that become a budget law called the General Appropriations Act (GAA). So in theory, the legislators do not even touch the money as it goes from DBM (releases the money as stipulated in the GAA) to the specific agencies (receive the money, implement the identified projects). 

2. Where does the money come from? How much money is involved annually?

--> From the budget, via the GAA, funded from various sources: (a) taxes, (b) regulatory fees, (c) privatization proceeds (if any), and (d) borrowings. Congress appropriates the money, how much will go to what agency. DBM releases the money to the implementing agencies (DPWH, DepEd, DOH, DSWD, etc.). What for, as usual to "fight poverty" (even if some poverty is government- or self-inflicted) and other forms of bleeding heart goals.

On average, P70M/year for each Congressman/woman, both District and Party List, and P200M/year for each Senator. But those in the opposition would often get less while those in the administration tend to get more. That’s around P27 billion a year total for both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

3. Who are supposed to check and monitor project implementation or non-implementation?

à The Commission on Audit (COA) and the various Congressional Oversight Committees plus Appropriations hearing. COA is created by the Constitution, not by legislation and its main function is to audit all government agencies to make sure they follow the rules stipulated in spending laws. If any agency violates, COA audit reports are basis for any corruption charges to be filed against the Ombudsman or the regular courts.

4. How is corruption and possible robbery committed, say in the current pork barrel scandal?

--> The corrupt legislators would instruct the DBM and the implementing agencies to give the money to an NGO or private firm as sub-contractor for project implementation, like the JLN Corporation. As one supposedly insider of the JLN firm said, Ms. Napoles would give 70 percent of the entire amount for non-existent projects to the legislators. Napoles would get the balance, about 30 percent and give the “for the boys” share to various agencies that are partners in crime – implementing agencies, LGUs if any, and COA if any. Some reports said Ms. Napoles and team would only get 15 percent net, meaning “for the boys” would get the other 15 percent.

5. How did the scandal come to light? Should we assume that the misallocation of funds is much broader than the politicians currently in the hot seat?

--> From what I read, there was a fight within the JLN camp. Ms. Napoles detained one of her staff, the penalized talked, the story was picked up by media as the leads and info were juicy and some paper trails were shown, then it exploded. 

Yes, the scam is much broader than the existing P10 billion Napoles scandal, total for many years. Meaning there are other operators and fixers whose names and identities are still not divulged as there are no internal whistle blowers yet. Many legislators have their own share of sin and corruption in this pork barrel issue.

6.  What can be done about it?

--> The prevailing mood among the articulate groups in the public is to call for the abolition of pork barrel of legislators so that they can concentrate on legislation and fiscalizing the Executive branch. Other groups justify pork barrel as they themselves benefited from it in the past, meaning the money was not stolen. They just want more transparency how much were spent for whom and on what projects.

7. Can pork barrel be abolished?

à No. If pork barrel was not invented yesterday, then it will be invented today. And if current pork barrel is abolished today, they will invent a new scheme tomorrow. Why?

Total budget of P2 trillion this year and nearly P2.3 trillion next year, legislators will deliberate on such a huge money, approve or reduce the budget of some agencies, and they will have zero "share" from such huge money? That is impossible.

The Office of the President (OP) has the  biggest pork barrel of all. Only about half of the nearly P2.3 trillion budget next year is under new appropriations, the other half is under programmed and automatic appropriations, like interest payment for the public debt, internal revenue allotment (IRA) for LGUs, special funds for government corporations, hospitals, universities, etc. While the former can be scrutinized by Congress if they wish to, the latter is hardly scrutinized. The OP and DBM have great leeway how to allocate and spend such money.

8. Can legislators pork barrel then be considered as compromise by the Executive branch so its budget request will be approved without much debate and questions?

à Yes. Both the Executive and Legislative branches are happy as they both get their own shares of pork barrel. Whether they will use the money productively or waste/steal it is another question.

9. Can an American-style system where a representative can only allocate money to a project in his district through specific provisions in a budget bill that is then voted on by the full Congress, be adopted? 

--> Yes, that is how it should be done here, at least in theory. The difference would surface in (a) how it is implemented (if implementing agencies and/or LGUs are more corrupt), (b) how it is monitored and audited (if COA people are corrupt) and (c) giving government money to “non-government” organizations (NGOs).

It is hard to single out people and certain legislators as it is a dance not only by two people but by three, four or more players.

10. If pork barrel cannot be eradicated as it will simply be reinvented, what are the other alternatives to reduce if not control corruption in government?

à Our bias in Minimal Government Thinkers, Inc. is to limit government size, the bureaucracies and their regulatory and taxing powers. Or at least control further expansion of government. The main function of government, its raison d’etre or reason for existence, is to protect the citizens’ right to life (against aggressors), right to private property (against thieves) and right to liberty and freedom of expression (against bullies). All other government functions are either secondary or unnecessary. This is where shrinkage of government bureaucracies and spending should occur. Where there is less money to steal, less stealing will happen. 

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

See also: 

Welfarism 15: Abolishing Pork Barrel, February 04, 2012
Pork Barrel: The Janet Napoles - Legislators' Scam, August 04, 2013 
Pork Barrel 2: Napoles, Legislature and Executive Branches Corruption, August 05, 2013 
Pork Barrel 3: The Silent Idealists, the GFO-NGOs, August 10, 2013

Pol Ideology 44: Another Debate With an Anarchist

Another debate with an anarchist in facebook. It started in one thread where I was discussing the stem cell therapy scandal in the Philippines, and I suggested that the DOH and FDA should focus more on promulgating the rule of law. Then the debate shifted to “abolish government” as suggested by Shakaru. I wanted that thread to focus on stem cell controversy, so I started a new fb status just on the debate on limited vs. zero government.

This is seven pages long. 3.600+ words. Enjoy with your fave drinks :-)

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

(Copied from a previous thread….)

Shakaru Macht But wherever you look at it, government is always anti-business... The mere fact that they take away a portion of income from the producers (through taxes!) is a great testament to this...

Nonoy Oplas Shakaru, your point is one-sided. True that most taxes are unnecessary and extortionary. But if some armed men will go to your shop and demand that you give them big extortion money otherwise they will burn your shop or abduct your kids and rape the girls among them, one will run to the government -- police, the court, etc. to seek protection from such aggression by bullies. If you don't believe the police, then you must also bring your own army of armed men to protect your shop, and you will soon be shooting each other until you are dirt poor if not dead. We need rule of law, transparent justice system.
Zero government and zero taxes are impossible and diiotic.

Shakaru Macht Well, while I admit my solution is unrealistic - at least in the near future, the way towards a free-market anarchy - the one that gives you laboratories and the professionals you mentioned since people would demand for it - is just there... Just let the people do their own thing, provided they don't hurt others...

Nonoy Oplas  We can debate about anarchism and its impracticality in another thread. Stay on the role of government health regulators, DOH and FDA. You remove FDA from the picture, anyone can put up a drugstore and sell chicken innards or dog intestines, etc. as cheap and effective treatment against many types of diseases, with good and flashy marketing and packaging. Some sick people believe the ads, they buy, they get sick even more, if not die. Someone must be accountable and go to jails, if not be hanged. Who can their families sue? A non-existent government regulator, the drugstore, the seller of innards and intestines, or the government abolitionists? Most likely the abolitionists will wash hands in this case and put the blame on anyone else. Just one impracticality of an anarchist position.

Shakaru Macht Well, then tell me, isn't it your very own government that's guilty of this... "Pay your income tax or we'll put you in jail" sounds so much like extortion...

And as for defense, there are basically three ways to provide it:
1. Provide your own self-defense...
2. Form a voluntary association dedicated for defense (e.g. militias)...
3. Shop and pay for your defense...
Take note that none of these are mutually exclusive... In fact, in a free market, all these three will co-exist!!!

So instead of forcibly making me avail of the services of a certain army that acts like a gangster if you don't pay and honor them, why don't you let people provide, associate and pay for their own defense???

Shakaru Macht Okay, let's start!

Anarchy is only possible if and only if there is a free market... When we mean a free market, such a thing is merely regulated by natural and moral law (I sound redundant here!) and not by legislation and regulation from above courtesy of your expanding government... In fact, that free market will provide all of us with defense (the defense contractors, the anti-burglar alarms, martial arts, guns etc.)...

However, I agree with you that we must engage with government (better term is "engage against government")... We must hijack the seat of power ourselves - by whatever means necessary, even if it means bloodshed (as a desperate last resort) - to save the peoples in this land from the theft, extortion and slavery...

Minarchism is only a via media towards anarchy!!!