CSOs and State 18: Civil Society as Lobbyists for More Government? Cigarette Warning Bill

There are moves again to have a new law, mandating and forcing tobacco manufacturers to put warning signs in their cigarette packs like "Smoking Kills".

While I believe that tobacco use is harmful for one's body, while I have no affection for tobacco companies, I do not believe that we need a new law on this.

Notice that in many things in health care and other sectors, people keep asking for new laws, or amending old laws to make the regulations and restrictions more strict. The more that people ask from government, the latter will give more than what they need. like more pork barrel for legislators, more cyber spying law, more mandatory contributions, more taxes.

Notice in particular: health insurance monopoly, gobyerno. Drugs pricing and mandatory discount, gobyerno. Condoms and pills, gobyerno. Sin tax, gobyerno. food labelling, gobyerno. Cigarette warning, gobyerno. Civil society is unimaginative, they see no meaningful role for themselves except to lobby for more government legislation, regulation and coercion?

Some if not many of the "heroes" and "champions" of the RH law, sin tax law, PhilHealth expansion law, both in Congress and Senate, are among the scoundrels and big time thieves in the pork barrel scandal. Now the civil society organizations (CSOs) that pushed hard these bills into laws are now indebted ("utang na loob") to these legislators. It will be a bit awkward for them to demonize these corruption-tainted legislators on the pork barrel robbery and plunder issue.

Another round of political indebtedness, lobbying and pleasing these legislators so they will pass another law, from cigarette warning to more CCT, etc. The role of civil society has been heavily downgraded to plain lobbyists for more government intervention and coercion. Baligtad dapat, it should be the reverse. Civil society is towards more citizen empowerment and self-reliance, not more dependence on government.

A friend commented, “Will civil society empowerment encourage and compel cigarette firms to put these pictures on their packs? “

No, you do not expect cigarette manufacturers to put those "smoking kills" warning in their products voluntarily. The same way that some of those KTV and other girlie bars will disallow prostitution inside their premises voluntarily, even if there are explicit laws, national and local, that prohibit prostitution. The same way that certain importers do not engage in smuggling voluntarily, even if there are explicit laws that prohibit and explicitly penalize smuggling. The same way that some LGUs and police tolerate jueteng and other "illegal gambling", or tolerate "illegal drugs" even if there are explicit laws that prohibit those games and drugs.

Aren't people disappointed enough with "more government" that there are many prohibitions already in society and yet those prohibitions are implicitly tolerated, or were dealt with kids gloves, in exchange for large-scale bribes and corruption? Prostitution, jueteng, drugs, gun running, smuggling, plunder, massacres, political murders.

Civil society should better go to the public directly, produce information materials and explain clearly via posters, cartoons, comics, lectures, etc. that smoking is bad, that heavy smoking kills.

Now if people still keep smoking after being informed, what can you do? They own their body, their lives, let them do what they want with their body. Should government + civil society put lots of spies to discourage and penalize people if they smoke, if they over-drink, if they over-drugs, if they over-eat and over-sit, as all of these lead to bad health outcomes? Not good.

More and more, we are moving to a society of more regulations, more prohibitions and bans, more central planning thinking, more corruption and robbery, more public disappointment. There are many unsolved murders, rapes, abduction, robbery. Government becomes less concerned with them as government is busy implementing new prohibitions -- you cannot drive your own car on certain days of the week, you cannot drive your motorcycle without helmet or with helmet but has no DTI sticker, you cannot put up a bake shop or barber shop unless you get permits from the barangay to sanitation office to the Mayor to BIR, you cannot hire a nanny unless you also give or pay for her SSS, PagIBIG, PhilHealth, and so on.

We should go the reverse. Less prohibitions in society, less role for legislators and need for new legislation, less taxes and pork barrel. Let there be more civil society, less uncivil society that relies on coercion and force, the government. Do we need a new law that will penalize people if they do not give any assistance to victims of heavy flooding, storm surges/tsunami, volcanic eruptions, other natural disasters? Last time I checked, volunteerism and fast civil society response to such calamities was alive and kicking, even if there is no law, not even a bill in congress, that penalize people for being "unhelpful."

ALL legislations are coercion and in effect, prohibitions. In this case, it is prohibited, it is banned, it is not allowed, to sell any cigarette, nga-nga, tabako, etc. with manufactured packaging to be sold unless there is explicit warnings that "tobacco kills", "tobacco is harmful to your body", or graphic photos, etc. There are penalties in the law for violating such prohibitions and bans.

If civil society is seen as citizens movement towards self-reliance and self-empowerment, away from dependence from the state and politicians, civil society leaders can initiate projects without legislation. Like those fast mobilization to help victims of heavy flooding and other calamities even without any law mandating and coercing people to help.

And those legislators and scoundrels involved in corruption and plunder, as much as possible, civil society should ignore and isolate them. Instead of writing to them warm letters like"Dear Hnorable Senator ____, Please support our bill providing this, subsidizing that..."

While we care for the people, we shoud stop deluding ourselves that more government prohibitions will solve many social ills. Too often, more prohibitions create more opportunities for extortion and corruption, more problems than solutions. That is how more people are disappointed with government, they expect a lot, they are disappointed a lot. CSOs should shift the focus of expectation, from government aka uncivil society to civil society, to people themselves.

The less that we need legislators, the less that we need new legislations or new laws, the easier for us to demand drastically shrinking the Legislature, whether a bicameral Congress or unicameral Parliament. But that will not happen if in most social and economic concerns, people demand "Congress should pass a law on ___". They become unwitting lobbyists for more legislators, and many politicians love that. They feel their high importance, there is high demand for their presence, they receive lots of "Dear Honorable Senator/Congressman/woman ____, please support our bill to regulate and prohibit X, to subsidize and expanding spending on Y, to raise taxes and fees to finance X and Y,..."

The role of civil society is to enable people to become more self reliant, more responsible for themselves, their households and communities. To become less dependent on uncivil society that relies on coercion, government.

--------

See also:
CSOs and State 13: Technology, Omidyar Network and Governments, May 14, 2012

CSOs and State 14: Lady Gaga and the Intolerant Religious Groups, May 21, 2012

CSOs and State 15: Old Debate on Competition and Markets, June 15, 2012 
CSOs and State 16: The Integrity Initiative, December 17, 2012 
CSOs and State 17: UP Pahinungod and Typhoon Victims in Mindanao, December 31, 2012

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

Pol. Ideology 29: Raison d 'Etre of Government

In my UPSE alumni association yahoogroups, the back cover of a new book written by a fellow UPSE alumni, Dr. Armando "Mandy" Armas Jr., Impeachment Quagmire: Is the JPE Senate Court Legitimate? was posted.

I commented on it, and another alumni, Gary Makasiar, posted several questions. Here is our exchane, from May 17 to 20, 2012. Posting this with implicit permission from Gary as he has given me such privilege in our previous exchanges.
----------

I like Mandy Armas' point on

Justice is of higher law than of national defense and the economy... The raison d'etre of the State is to render "No injustice to anyone.

This is the essence of the rule of law. I agree with Mandy that this is the main function of government -- promulgate the rule of law -- plus protect private property rights and civil rights (freedom of expression, freedom from aggression) of the people. All other functions like to give endless subsidies and welfare, to run state universities (like UP), govt hospitals, casino and sweepstakes, other govt corporations, to "save the planet" are secondary if not non-essential functions of government. But I digress.

On the corona trial, I personally believe that CJ Corona is corrupt, he should have resigned early on. Or he should have not accepted the offer of being a CJ during the last few weeks of the Gloria government. But government being an institution of coercion, is full of hypocrisy, both the accused and the accusers actually have dirt on their faces. Just to simplify the matter, the impeachment proceedings I think, are going along the rule of law, the law as stipulated in the 1987 constitution....

-- Nonoy

Noy, we may have to make a distinction between two activities. It is one thing for the State to apply and enforce the Law equally or equitably on everyone. That surely sounds like it meets the ;no injustice to anyone' principle. Though even here, not all states are able to comply impeccably.

It is quite another thing for the State to adopt only fair and equitable laws so that there is 'no injustice to anyone'. Here, many states seem to fail miserably. Even representative governments. Especially states where lobbies are legally recognized.

So which activity were you referring to as the state's main function?

-- Gary

Welfarism 15: Abolishing Pork Barrel

The main justification -- or alibi and excuse -- for the pork barrel by the President, legislators and even local government executives, is that these elected officials can directly identify projects that provide welfare to their people and political supporters.

In September 2004, Minimal Government Movement (we wanted to start a political free market movement, not just a free market think tank then) issued this statement ( 5 1/2 pages long) and distributed to our friends and network. This is a result of internal discussions and revisions among MG supporters then via the MG yahoogroups. Lots of ideas then that remain valid until today, and the next elections are just 15 months away.
---------

Why Legislators' and the President’s Pork Barrel Should be Abolished

 The Role of Government.

The job of government is to improve the citizens' and taxpayers' well being, not the politicians and bureaucrats' well-being. Government should help its citizens with lower taxes and efficient and corruption-free services. Burdening its citizens with inefficient and corruption-tainted services should not be accepted nor tolerated.

Thus, government can help the citizens in two important ways: First, by optimizing the services that it delivers to the people, by making the citizens satisfied and not suspicious, happy and not hesitant and revolting, in paying their taxes. Second, by cutting the taxes that it collects from the citizens in exchange for reduction of corruption-tainted services that it delivers.

When there is widespread suspicion by citizens of the quality of services that they receive in return for the various taxes that is collected from them, government leaders, assuming they have the decency and intelligence to recognize this, should go for the second option.

The Role of Legislators.

Legislators are called as such because their main task is to legislate and  formulate laws. Laws that are designed to improve the quality of life – physical, mental, moral, cultural – of our people, without greatly restricting individual freedom.  It is not their duty to execute and implement local projects because that is the task of the Executive branch, both the national government agencies and the local government units (LGUs).

Their task is to discuss and debate how to cut expenditures when these are no longer supported by projected revenues for the year and the coming years. When such expenditures will encourage dole-out and subsidy-dependence and hence, will further bloat future expenditures,  maintenance of which can only mean more and higher taxes from the citizens whom they are supposed to serve. 

Pol. Ideology 21: The Nature of Government

This paper was written by a good friend, Ed Coronel or "Citizen Kori" 10 years ago, and posted in the MG yahoogroups. Great ideas from Kori and should help clarify more issues on why we need (and not need) government on certain sectors and issues.
--------

On the Nature of Government:
Some Commentaries on Governance in Crisis

F. Kennedy Coronel
24 October 2001

Introduction

This paper has been prepared in response to a serious query if it is at all possible to completely "privatize" government. Debilitating problems of government, as well as issues on governance has led a number of private citizens to venture that perhaps market mechanisms are better means of delivering public goods. The question is not at all novel, as this has been posed even by classical thinkers.

What is perhaps new is the global setting that we find ourselves today. What you see around you is a phenomenon i'd like to call as a return of "hunting-gathering" societies. More powerful, perhaps more desperate, nations prey upon those less able to defend themselves. This predatory nature is reflected in the capital markets, global trade, human migration, and of course military conflict.

The very nature of an efficient market is predatory, the mechanism hunts the weak and the slow. Why, it's even natural-selectionist. If perhaps man does not have the faculty of choice, reason and aspiration, the market is the perfect mechanism as one would see among lesser mammals.

But the institutions that man has built indicate he is far removed from the world of animals, even if he does exhibit some of the instincts and tendencies. But then again, criticisms on government may use metaphors similar to feature stories in the National Geographic channel.

That government has been failing, albeit others seem to be succeeding elsewhere, does not negate the reality that government is necessary. Perhaps the issue is how much or how less of government do we want. But what we want we do not always get. What is necessary does not always turn out as we expect. One learns to live with what is available. But the beauty, value, importance of what is available is up to us. One can look at what is available as used clothing, or as vintage wine. Our perspective determines to a large extent the happiness or contentment that we get.

Pol. Ideology 19: What is the Role of Government?

A friend in facebook, wrote me today. She asked,

Hi Noy, Been reading your blog, carefully weighing your arguments against Big Government for a couple of months now. While I do agree with a lot of your arguments, I am left to wonder, in your framework, where should government be?

In a minimal government, what roles does it play?

I thanked my friend for asking that question. It allowed me to re-articulate my ideas and advocacies in the most spontaneous manner. Here they go.

What is the role of Government?

I think it boils down to only one important function: Promulgate the rule of law.

Government has laws against killing, against stealing, against kidnapping, against corruption, against plunder, against carnapping, etc. Let government implement ALL of them, ZERO EXCEPTION. No one is exempted from the law, and no one can grant excemption from the law. The law applies equally to unequal people.

I think most people will easily see that logic. Next questions will be: what about the very poor? Who will take care of them? What about big businesses, who will regulate them if they abuse their power and exploit the consumers, exploit their workers?

Well, if the poor will put up a vulcanizing shop, a barbeque stand, a barber shop, or plant kamote and pechay in vacant lots, or buy those farm products and sell in a corner stall, government should get out. Do NOT require these small and micro entrepreneurs to secure costly and bureaucractic business permit, barangay permit, sanitation permit, location permit, various other permits and pay lots of taxes and fees.

In short, if the poor will become industrious and would want to stand on their own, government should step back. If the poor will become lazy and steal, government should arrest them and put them behind bars. The rule of law says NO STEALING. It does not matter if the theft is the President of the country or a Congressman or the poorest man on earth. No one should steal, period. No ifs, no buts, no preconditions, no exceptions.

If the poor will become half-lazy and become irresponsible entrepreneurs, say they sell expired food and adulterated drinks in their carinderia and food stalls for quickie profit, resulting to food poisoning of their customers, then government comes in to haul them to prison bars as well. The rule of law says NO HARMING other people. It does not matter if the seller of adulterated food and drinks or counterfeit drugs is the biggest restaurant or hotel or pharma company in the planet, or the poorest man on earth, they should be accountable for their action, and they should be penalized for violating the law against harming the health of other people.

The big businesses and super rich people. If some other rich guys and companies will put up a competing corporation, government should step back, Do NOT require congressional franchise, NTC franchise, local government franchise, and other forms of govt-imposed monopolies and oligopolies. Let there be fierce and ruthless competition among businesses in all sectors and sub-sectors of the economy. Let there be a "perfectly contestable market" in most or all sectors of the economy.

When there is ruthless competition among players, businessmen will not exploit their workers like paying low wages. Workers and managers can quickly move to another competing company who will offer them good benefits. Or they can quit being ordinary employees and become employers and job creators themselves. They know the trade more or less, there is little or zero govt bureaucracy that will hamper them, so why not try their luck of being entrepreneurs?

What about price collusion by some companies in a particular industry? It is a possibility, but sticking to collusion for long is more cumbersome than going it their way.

Suppose all beer manufacturers will collude among themselves and set an agreed upon price even if they are competing with each other. Overall prices of beer will rise. No problem. Some beer drinkers will simply move to wine or gin or whisky or lambanog. Or they will patronize smuggled imported beer. Or they will simply reduce their drinking, or just stop taking any alcoholic drinks. Collusion will ultimately fail.

Free trade will further expand competition. That is why many vested business interests always run to government to demand protectionism. Protectionism is always a hypocrisy. Even the most protectionist producers (say, farmers) are also staunch advocate of free trade and more competition when they need hand tractors and spare parts for their farms , clothing, shoes and toys for their children, construction materials, tv and other appliances for their house, etc.

If we are to extend the "rule of law = no exception" principle, then if there should be protectionism in agricultural products, there should also be protectionism in all other commodities and services. Which means no imported shoes, clothes, cell phones, tv, computer, hand tractors, etc. Everyone should buy only what are locally produced, autarky or zero international trade.

I do not think anyone would love to live in an autarkic economy. But if they wish to try it, they can go to North Korea perhaps and while there, they should also resist the temptation of buying goods made from China or Russia.

Meanwhile, incorporating a short paper here...




Marcos and the Liberal Challenge


In one of his papers in the Philippine Star, columnist William "Billy" Esposo wrote last March 01, No way, Sen. Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., no way!, he wrote:

If it isn’t bad enough that the late unlamented Dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos brought us through a dark and bitter chapter of our history — now here comes his son, Senator Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., attempting to rewrite that story. No way, Sen. Marcos, absolutely no way!

When the young Marcos asserted with a straight face last week that our country would have been a Singapore by now if his father was not ousted by People Power in 1986 — thank God that I wasn’t seated as the impact of his wild imagination could have compelled me to wreck another chair. If there is anything I have consistently deplored about the sad state of affairs in our country, it is our very shallow appreciation of our real history....

I think the Senator is only doing what is "right" for him and his family -- to continue the lies and destruction that his family has slammed upon the country. It is safe to assume that the Senator will even gun for the Presidency in the 2016 or future elections. Thus, they need to start large-scale lying as early as possible.

It is our job in the civil society sector, especially the liberal -- not socialist, not nationalist and protectionist -- civil society, to help educate the public that subsuming individual liberty under forced, collective liberty is not acceptable. When Marcos declared Martial Law and similar measures, certain individual rights like freedom of expression, freedom of setting up business in a fair environment, were killed in the name of the collective, in the name of the so-called "national interest".

It is too tempting that many groups that were once trained in the liberal philosophy, would forget what liberalism really is. The Friedrich Naumann Foundation (FNF) was even re-titled as FNF fur die FREIHEIT, with huge and bold emphasis on FREIHEIT or LIBERTY. And Liberty here as defined by the Friedrich Naumann, Theodor Heusse and other liberal German thinkers, referred to individual liberty.

There is too much emphasis on anti-corruption, good governance, etc., to the point of embracing BIG government and widespread collectivism, of trampling individual liberty (like the liberty to keep more of one's earnings and savings) in favor of the collective (high and multiple taxes).
----------


See also:

Pol. Ideology 13: Liberty and Liberty Forum, the LP, March 19, 2009 

Pol. Ideology 14: Liberalism, Democratism and Coercion, January 18, 2010

Pol. Ideology 15: Socialism, Conservatism and Liberalism, March 08, 2010

Pol. Ideology 16: Liberalism and Social Opportunity, July 29, 2010

Pol. Ideology 17: The LP and the Philippine President, November 03, 2010

Pol. Ideology 18: John Lennon and Liberty, Purpose of the Law, December 15, 2010