Bong Mendoza's Political Poetry

Below are three of the various short poems and septons by a friend, Dr. Amado “Bong” Mendoza of the UP Political Science Department. Posted yesterday and today, reposting them here with his permission. My short comments after each poem.

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

(1) self-rule, anarchy and leadership

there is without doubt
greater demand for
than supply of good leaders

for leaders, what's the recipe?
mix vision and charisma?
courage and resolve?

no equilibrium in sight
we should eventually learn
to lead ourselves.

Right Bong, but anarchy to mean "zero authority" and "zero government" is a pipe dream, a fiction. I like the example of many village associations. They provide roads/drainage/flood control construction and maintenance, garbage collection, street lighting, security, fire truck/control, village park and multipurpose hall, etc. They have elected officials with term limits, have appointed or hired staff and bureaucrats. They have their own internal revenues like the annual dues, car sticker fees, household ID fees, etc. It is one classic case of self-government, minarchy, and it is working. People who are not satisfied with how the village fund and security is being managed, can move out and go to another village, or plot to change the leadership of the village.

(2) why do we obey so-called leaders?
t'is the key question in political philosophy

They're elected, they're the best
men of virtu
slaves not to fortuna's
shifting fickle tides

Karl Marx said they owned us
Robert Michels declared
They do what we can't do, daily, 24/7!

(I acknowledge my intellectual debts to Aristotle, John Locke, Niccolò Machiavelli, Karl Marx, and Robert Michels.) 

We obey so-called leaders because we are forced to do so. There are laws, armed forces and prison system by the state that forced us to obey them. True democracy should mean the least coercion. Someone thinks he's got a very bright idea. In a democracy with least coercion, he should be able to finance it without coercion, and not forcing me and you to finance his bright idea. The fact there it needs coercion and legislation means that 99 percent, it is a stupid idea.

(3) what's a CAP?
collective action problem
there's one when people
do not help each other
constitute a community

why this behavior?
we do compete or cooperate
the stronger instinct seems to be
consistent with our best lights.

bakit di magtulungan?
mga tao sa lipunan
sadya bang
mas malakas
pagnanais na
isulong ang sarili
isulong ang interes?

kailangang magtulungan
para mabuo, ating pamayanan.

(c) 2014 Amado M. Mendoza, Jr.

Collective action is often hidden, especially from the eyes of central planners. Some people focus on producing or spreading knowledge, they do not produce a single kilo of food. Some people produce food, they contribute little or nothing in producing knowledge. They exchange somewhere, the knowledge producers have food, the food producers have knowledge for them and their kids. There is collective action there, and it benefits humanity.

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.

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!!!

Pol. Ideology 41: Engage Government or Not; Minarchy or Anarchy

A friend in facebook, David Shellenberger, is among the advocates of anarchy or "zero authority" or "no ruler" or simply zero government. He maintains a blog, http://www.daveshellenberger.com/.

The libertarian or classical liberal philosophy is mainly divided between the advocates of anarchy and minarchy. The latter advocates "limited/minimal government". I belong to the latter philosophy. I believe there is one important function for government, and that is to promulgate the rule of law when non-government and civil society form of arbitration fails.

Today, David posted a news article with this note,  "With corporate taxes below EU and OECD averages and a raft of recent regulation changes, Sweden has gone from being considered a tax hell to a tax haven."

I commented on his note and below is our exchange. Posting this with his permission, thanks David.

----------

Nonoy Oplas Hi David, how do you reconcile supporting low taxes with abolition of government? cheers.

David E. Shellenberger Hi Nonoy. I favor a tax rate of zero.

Nonoy Oplas I know, I also support the abolition of income tax but I can tolerate a consumption tax to support limited government. In your case, you support zero government, right?

David E. Shellenberger Right. And I consider taxation theft.

Nonoy Oplas Right, so why did you bother to post a news on low-tax when it is still means low-theft?

David E. Shellenberger Nonoy, I'd prefer to post an article about a country having abolished the government. Pending that good news, the story at least shows that lower taxes are better than higher taxes. As the article notes, the US has the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world.

Once you come over to the bright side of anarchism, let's free the Phillipines.

Nonoy Oplas In my experience, just to keep government stay its size as big as last year is already very hard. Wishing for minarchy is almost impossible but there is hope. Wishing for anarchy is... well, , like wishing anarchists to love socialism, so far out 

David E. Shellenberger I speak to the ideal. My view is that, when folk advocate for minarchism, they offer false legitimacy to the state.

Nonoy Oplas The same feeling I get. When people advocate for anarchism, they never engage government in any policy dialogue (why would one dialogue with an institution that he wants to be abolished), government keeps expanding each year. They are great allies of state expansion.

David E. Shellenberger Nonoy, engaging the government to ask it to get smaller is like speaking with the mafia and asking it to downsize. Government is like slavery. We shouldn't accommodate it--just get rid of it.

Saying that anarchists are allies of state expansion is like blaming abolitionists for slavery.

Nonoy Oplas You're wrong David. In 2009, there was drug price control policy here. Some politicians and socialists were jumping with joy. All the local players, multinational and innovator pharma, even small drugstores, complained. Anyway, the populists wanted to expand the list of medicines for price control. There were several dialogues and discussions. The plan to expand the list was killed. If the plan is to boycott dialogue with government, the list of government-controlled medicine prices, the power of govt, should be larger by now. That is why a dialogue with govt is necessary, you just wish is to stay at its size, if not become smaller whenever possible. To argue for zero accommodation, zero engagement with government, is formula for government to keep expanding without limit.

David E. Shellenberger Nonoy, there is the occasional improvement. But to expect government--which is a criminal enterprise, to accommodate the public interest is a mistake. Efforts are better directed towards educating people that government is illegitimate and should be abolished.

Nonoy, you're welcome to quote me. I write for the public. Here are resources: http://www.daveshellenberger.com/?s=anarchy.

Recent article by Robert Higgs:

http://blog.independent.org/2013/05/30/classical-liberalisms-impossible-dream/.

Classical Liberalism’s Impossible Dream by Robert Higgs

blog.independent.org

I can understand why someone might embrace classical liberalism. I did so myself...See More

Nonoy Oplas Good luck to wishing for government abolition. Thanks for the permission to quote.
Here's my latest debate with some health socialists here. They want more and more government intervention. I am a member of the advisory Council to hear these kinds of concerns and lobbying, I shoot down their "more intervention please" lobbying, they keep silent after, http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2013/06/drug-price-control-32-policeman-of.html

Pol. Ideology 34: More on Anarchy or Minarchy

One of the regular readers of this blog is Mr. Micky Fernandez, http://mickyandrani.blogspot.in/, an American expat in India. After reading my brief debate with Marc Abela last week, Pol. Ideology 33: Anarchy or Minarchy, he posted this frank and well-argued paper today in his blog. I wanted to drop a comment in his paper but I cannot see the "comments" button, so I will write it after his paper. Here goes.
----------

http://mickyandrani.blogspot.in/2012/07/to-nonoy-oplas-of-funwithgovernmentblog.html

To Nonoy Oplas of FunWithGovernment.blogspot.in

... I must confess that I have not been reading your recent posts at funwithgovernment. blogspot.in. I have been writing a lot and you have been writing a lot. Every day, two or three of your posts come into my blog's Reading List. I can not possibly keep up with all that you have written. However, this post did catch my eye.

As I may have written at a few other places, and on a few other occasions, and especially at this post, I vacillate between Anarchism and Minarchism. I believe in the truth of the U.S. Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men [or all people, to use the now more accurate word] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator [or simply endowed] with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

and feel that Minarchism can best support the investigatory body (police, sherriffs, detectives and the like) and tribunals (courts, arbitrators, mediators and the like) which are necessary in any and all civilized societies for the remediation of any infractions of rights. However, I am open to a fully Anarcho-Capitalist solution. I have read, watched and listened to many of the works of Stefan Molyneux (1, 2), especially Practical Anarchy. I shall write to him in the near future, asking him to clarify some things, in the hope that I can be more accepting of his ideas.

Although I appreciate and admire Anarchism (Wow! Such alliteration!) and Minarchism, I tend to not appreciate nor admire Anarchists and Minarchists.

I dislike Anarchists' (and Marc Abela's) now-tired argument that "if you can get rid of 90% of government then why not get rid of 100% of it?" However, Anarchism is not about government; it is about rulers, specifically the absence of violent enforcers of diktats. It is true that if you get rid of political rulers then 99.9% of government will simply dissolve, like the Wicked Witch in the Wizard of Oz after water was thrown onto her. Any remaining entity like the Department of Motor Vehicles in the United States would need to become efficient to continue to justify its existence. The idea behind the DMV is that only people who are properly trained to be good drivers are allowed to become drivers. In reality, people who drive while under the influence of alcohol and drugs (legal or otherwise), people who commit road-rage, people who commit hit-and-run and vehicular manslaughter, people who have debilitating illnesses causing them to become poor drivers are still allowed to drive. For this, I do think that an Anarcho-Capitalist solution is desirable, although I am still uncertain how A-C can properly and efficiently replace (and preferably improve upon) the above-stated investigatory body and tribunals.

I find frightening, however, Statists' (and yours, Nonoy) belief that Anarchism is "idealistic". If every shred of evidence showed that government agents are unproductive at best and counter-productive at worst; if every shred of evidence showed that Democracy is TOTM (Tyranny of the Majority); if every shred of evidence showed that for every 1000 pesos taken away from you in taxes and government fees you get no more than 5 pesos worth of benefits; if every shred of evidence shows that politicians lie (How can you tell when a politician is lying? His/Her mouth is moving.) and have absolutely no concern for the welfare of the inhabitants; if every shred of evidence shows government agents kill unarmed civilians first and then ask questions later; if every shred of evidence shows that governments are corrupt, either for money or for power/control, then is it not idealistic to think that a society with such rulers and government would be beneficial to civilians?

Anarchism is not idealistic, it is realistic. You do not need a ruler to tell you when or where to sleep. You do not need a ruler to tell you what, where, when and how to drink or eat. You do not need a ruler to tell you where, when, how to travel. You do not need a ruler to tell you what to buy or sell. You do not need a ruler to tell you what to write in your blog. Just because a ruler wants to tell you what to do does not negate your innate ability to do what you want to do at every moment of every day of your life.

Pol. Ideology 33: Anarchy or Minarchy

From wiki, anarchy means "'absence of a leader', "without rulers"), has more than one definition. In the United States, the term "anarchy" typically is used to refer to a society without a publicly enforced government or violently enforced political authority.... Proponents of anarchism (known as "anarchists") advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical voluntary associations."

"Minarchism (also known as minimal statism) is a libertarian capitalist political philosophy. It is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it maintains that the state is necessary and that its only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud... Minarchists argue that the state has no authority to use its monopoly on force to interfere with free transactions between people, and see the state's sole responsibility as ensuring that contracts between private individuals and property are protected, through a system of law courts and enforcement. Minarchists generally believe a laissez faire approach to the economy is most likely to lead to economic prosperity."

Last July 09, 2012, I posted this photo in my facebook wall with a brief note, "Funny but true, or scary and true." Then a friend based in Tokyo, Marc Abela, made a comment, then we had the following exchanges below, from July 09 to 11 this week. Posting the exchanges with his permission.
-----------

Marc Abela ‎"Metaphorically a "Trojan Horse" has come to mean any trick or stratagem that causes a target to invite a foe into a securely protected bastion or space. It is also associated with "malware" computer programs presented as useful or harmless to induce the user to install and run them."
-Wikipedia  :)

Nonoy Oplas Thanks Marc. I think the Obamacare can be considered as a Trojan horse in the definition you gave. People will reject if they will see an explicit tax law, but they will open up if it's a health insurance law, not fully realizing the various new taxes or raising of existing tax rates, introduced by the Obamacare.

Marc Abela In all fairness, one could probably push your great comment and extend it to the effect that all (all) taxes (in history?) have all been presented with exactly the same angle, i.e. as a Trojan horse... Most politicians aren't really that smart, but all of them are smart enough to know not to tell their people "I will tax you more - simply because I hope to get more money for myself"... :)
Ultimately, I guess the Greek have really invented it all, then haven't they, from Democracy to the Odyssey, they've obviously pretty much prepared everything... :)

Nonoy Oplas But taxes as mandatory contribution to the govt are also done similarly even in voluntary organizations. You join a rotary club or golf or tennis or running club, you also pay the mandatory dues, there are also elected officials there, have by-laws . So taxes or mandatory payment are trade off of belonging to an organization, voluntary or government. A few and small taxes are seen by many people as plain taxes, not the typical Trojan horse.

Marc Abela Well... I tend to disagree (if I may) a little bit there.
For in fact, if a tax is (in any amount) voluntary, then it is not a tax... A tax is and has got to be 100% "you pay us whether you like the service or not - or we throw you in a cage, and if you refuse the cage, we kill you". Sorry for being a bit blunt - keeping things vague never really helps... :)

So yeah, everything else, joining organizations, fees @ tennis clubs, etc - if nobody throws you in a box if you refuse to join the activity and open your wallet, then it all fits (entirely) OUTSIDE the scope of taxes. Mixing both "taxes" and "voluntary organization imposed fees" would be like mixing say a straight clear "rape" with saying "I was raped - but I got to freely select the person who raped me, I got to decide how much they raped me, and I said stop when I had enough". One can't have it both ways, if we're the one deciding how things move, then it's not a rape (/tax). If a king or a government bills you money in exchanges for services yet to be determined in some remote future or for goods very vaguely defined or clearly absent (and if you don't surrender your money - you end up in a box) then it's a tax. If not - then everything else is pure normal/private business with all the coercion that comes with it, you want to eat in my restaurant you have to pay up front for reservation, you want to buy an iPod you have to pay a deposit, you want to watch my movie you pay cash before the thing starts, you want to join my club it's X dollars a month, you want to live the building I just built it will cost you Y per month just for condo fees, etc etc...
(let me know if you disagree...)

Nonoy Oplas Yes, sort of disagreement. If we agree with the definition that something that is "mandatory payment", "obligatory contribution" otherwise there are penalties, say throwing you out of an organization or putting you in a box, then there is similarity with govt tax coercion and voluntary orgs' contribution coercion. The difference of course is that one may not belong to any voluntary organization while one has to pay a tax to the govt, but the above works on the premise that people opt to belong to one organization in one way or another.

Marc Abela Interesting... See, I personally always make a very clear (100% thick) line between:
1. Bills which I am forced to pay for clear "goods & services" that I "need/want/hope/have" to use
2. Bills which I am forced to pay, just because, well... "because" :)
I've noticed that when people start using dotted-lined definitions, discussions tend to move sideways more than they should...