Edward Snowden statement: "It was the right thing to do and I have no regrets"

In Moscow, whisteblower Edward Snowden lashes back at the US government.

From the Guardian (hat tip lewrockwell.com)

Full transcript of the statement made by Edward Snowden, in which he accepts all offers of asylum he has been given

Statement by Edward Snowden to human rights groups at Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport, posted by WikiLeaks:

Friday July 12, 15:00 UTC

Hello. My name is Ed Snowden. A little over one month ago, I had family, a home in paradise, and I lived in great comfort. I also had the capability without any warrant to search for, seize, and read your communications. Anyone's communications at any time. That is the power to change people's fates.

It is also a serious violation of the law. The 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution of my country, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and numerous statutes and treaties forbid such systems of massive, pervasive surveillance. While the US Constitution marks these programs as illegal, my government argues that secret court rulings, which the world is not permitted to see, somehow legitimize an illegal affair. These rulings simply corrupt the most basic notion of justice – that it must be seen to be done. The immoral cannot be made moral through the use of secret law.

I believe in the principle declared at Nuremberg in 1945: "Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring."

Accordingly, I did what I believed right and began a campaign to correct this wrongdoing. I did not seek to enrich myself. I did not seek to sell US secrets. I did not partner with any foreign government to guarantee my safety. Instead, I took what I knew to the public, so what affects all of us can be discussed by all of us in the light of day, and I asked the world for justice.

That moral decision to tell the public about spying that affects all of us has been costly, but it was the right thing to do and I have no regrets.

Since that time, the government and intelligence services of the United States of America have attempted to make an example of me, a warning to all others who might speak out as I have. I have been made stateless and hounded for my act of political expression. The United States Government has placed me on no-fly lists. It demanded Hong Kong return me outside of the framework of its laws, in direct violation of the principle of non-refoulement – the Law of Nations. It has threatened with sanctions countries who would stand up for my human rights and the UN asylum system. It has even taken the unprecedented step of ordering military allies to ground a Latin American president's plane in search for a political refugee. These dangerous escalations represent a threat not just to the dignity of Latin America, but to the basic rights shared by every person, every nation, to live free from persecution, and to seek and enjoy asylum.

Yet even in the face of this historically disproportionate aggression, countries around the world have offered support and asylum. These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless. By refusing to compromise their principles in the face of intimidation, they have earned the respect of the world. It is my intention to travel to each of these countries to extend my personal thanks to their people and leaders.

I announce today my formal acceptance of all offers of support or asylum I have been extended and all others that may be offered in the future. With, for example, the grant of asylum provided by Venezuela's President Maduro, my asylee status is now formal, and no state has a basis by which to limit or interfere with my right to enjoy that asylum. As we have seen, however, some governments in Western European and North American states have demonstrated a willingness to act outside the law, and this behavior persists today. This unlawful threat makes it impossible for me to travel to Latin America and enjoy the asylum granted there in accordance with our shared rights.

This willingness by powerful states to act extra-legally represents a threat to all of us, and must not be allowed to succeed. Accordingly, I ask for your assistance in requesting guarantees of safe passage from the relevant nations in securing my travel to Latin America, as well as requesting asylum in Russia until such time as these states accede to law and my legal travel is permitted. I will be submitting my request to Russia today, and hope it will be accepted favorably.

If you have any questions, I will answer what I can.

Thank you.

Quote of the Day: To Achieve Liberty, Envy and Intolerance have to be Overcome

To achieve liberty and peace, two powerful human emotions have to be overcome. Number one is "envy" which leads to hate and class warfare. Number two is "intolerance" which leads to bigoted and judgmental policies. These emotions must be replaced with a much better understanding of love, compassion, tolerance, and free market economics. Freedom, when understood, brings people together. When tried, freedom is popular.

The problem we have faced over the years has been that economic interventionists are swayed by envy, whereas social interventionists are swayed by intolerance of habits and lifestyles. The misunderstanding that tolerance is an endorsement of certain activities, motivates many to legislate moral standards which should only be set by individuals making their own choices. Both sides use force to deal with these misplaced emotions. Both are authoritarians. Neither endorses voluntarism. Both views ought to be rejected.

I have come to one firm conviction after these many years of trying to figure out "the plain truth of things." The best chance for achieving peace and prosperity, for the maximum number of people world-wide, is to pursue the cause of LIBERTY.

If you find this to be a worthwhile message, spread it throughout the land.

This excerpt is from the stirring farewell speech by Ron Paul at the US Congress

How Despotism Promoted Ignorance in Myanmar

Many people nurture the mystical impression that noble intentions drive actions of governments pertinent to social welfare concerns.

Well, not in Myanmar’s case, where the former rulers opted for policies that resulted to a massive black hole in education.

From Wall Street Journal, (bold emphasis mine)

The University of Yangon was once one of Asia's best colleges. Today, abandoned buildings rot away on its overgrown campus, with some walkways deserted except for dogs.

Its state of affairs embodies a crucial challenge for leaders as Myanmar opens to the outside world. The military junta that dominated the country for five decades all but destroyed the university system after a series of student protests convinced its leaders that schools were breeding grounds for dissent.

But now that the lifting of most Western sanctions has paved the way for an expected wave of investment, companies are finding a nation largely bereft of skilled workers. Doctors and lawyers often lack up-to-date training, and other professions are desperately short of qualified staff with even basic critical-thinking skills, employers say.

The lack of expertise in the country was sometimes used by military leaders as a justification for handing big business contracts to associates of the regime. A small number of Myanmar students went overseas to study. Only over the past year, since the military regime stepped down, has the government actively encouraged those educated abroad to return and share expertise.

Of course such policies reflected on the “rule of thumb” for politicians where the principal concern of politics has been about political control or political power.

The difference lies in the nature of political institutions in Myanmar. The ruling military junta relied on a regime whose power has been rooted on ignorance and fear rather than from getting the consent of the governed. So the curtailment of dissent was then seen as a political imperative.

In addition, the past regime profited from society’s ignorance through the “justification for handing big business” or by awarding economic opportunities to favored network of families, friends or allies: cronyism in socialist clothing.

But all these have backfired.

Compounded by the snowballing opposition to the military junta, eventually the military junta was forced into a referendum that transformed Myanmar’s politics into a presidential republic with a bicameral legislature. 

And thus, the pronounced turnaround in Myanmar’s political economy, through economic reform policies of liberalization.

The political and economic developments in Myanmar seem to be confirming the position held by the great Professor Ludwig von Mises (Liberalism p.46),

Only a group that can count on the consent of the governed can establish a lasting regime. Whoever wants to see the world governed according to his own ideas must strive for dominion over men's minds. It is impossible, in the long run, to subject men against their will to a regime that they reject. Whoever tries to do so by force will ultimately come to grief, and the struggles provoked by his attempt will do more harm than the worst government based on the consent of the governed could ever do. Men cannot be made happy against their will.

For as long as economic liberalization will be the premier thrust, Myanmar looks like a promising compliment to ASEAN, whom likewise needs to have more economic freedom.

Quote of the Day: The Right of the Individual’s Happiness

Now let me point out to you that we have not arrived simply at an abstract result, but that this question of liberty as against force will be found to enter into all the great questions of the day. It is the only one real and permanent dividing line between opinions. Whatever party names we may give ourselves, this is the question always waiting for an answer, Do you believe in force and authority, or do you believe in liberty? Hesitations, inconsistencies there may be—men shading off from each side into that third party which in critical and decisive times has become a proverb of weakness—but the two great masses of the thinking world are ever ranged on the one side or the other, supporters of authority, believers in liberty.

What, then, is the creed of liberty, and to what, in accepting it, are we committed? We have seen that there exists a great primary right that as men are placed here for happiness (we need not dispute as to the meaning of the term), so each man must be held to be the judge of his own happiness. No man, or body of men, has the right to wrest this judgment away from their fellow man. It is impossible to deny this, for no man can have rights over another man unless he first have rights over himself. He cannot possess the right to direct the happiness of another man, unless he possess rights to direct his own happiness: and if we grant him the latter right, this is at once fatal to the former right. Indeed to deny this right, or to abridge anything from it, is to reduce the moral world to complete disorder. Deny this right and you have no foundation left for rights of any kind—for justice, political freedom, or political equality—you have established the reign of force, and whatever gloss of civilization you may place over it, you have brought men once more to the “good old plan” on which our fathers stood.

(bold emphasis added) 

This excellent quote is from philosopher and individualist Auberon Edward Herbert in The Widest Possible Liberty written in January 1, 1885

Graphic of the Day: Voting Doesn’t Make You Free

While this graphic is targeted to American audience, amidst the coming US presidential elections,this message is relevant to all.

(source Lew Rockwell Blog)

Gary North on How to Gum Up Any Institutions

Well if governments can make a mess of society through immoral  statutes and regulations, people can reciprocate by goofing up the system through non-violent means.

Austrian economist and author Gary North offers how to gum up any institutions, not limited to the government.

Rules are about redirecting people’s behavior to assure compliance. And institutions rely on sets of rules for it to thrive.

Economist Gary North explains:

First, every institution assumes voluntary compliance in at least 95% of all cases. This may be a low-ball estimate. Most people comply, either out of fear or lack of concern or strong belief in the system and its goals.

Second, every institution has more rules than it can follow, let alone enforce. Some of these rules are self-contradictory. The more rules, the larger the number of contradictions. (There is probably a statistical pattern here – some variant of Parkinson's law.)

Third, every institution is built on this assumption: partial compliance. Not everyone will comply with any given procedural rule. There are negative sanctions to enforce compliance on the few who resist. They serve as examples to force compliance. Conversely, very few people under the institution's jurisdiction will attempt to force the institution to comply exactly with any procedural rule.

These three laws of institutions – and they really are laws – offer any resistance movement an opportunity to shut down any system.

Economist North provides an example of how Vladimir Bukovsky jammed the Soviet Union Gulag, along with other inmates, by sending daily letter of protests to the Soviet bureaucracy from which the latter had to legally respond. The result was bureaucratic chaos.

As the 75,000 complaints became part of the statistical record, the statistical record of the prison camp and the regional camps was spoiled. All bureaucrats suffered. There went the prizes, pennants, and other benefits. "The workers start seething with discontent, there is panic in the regional Party headquarters, and a senior commission of inquiry is dispatched to the prison."…

Finally, in 1977, they capitulated to several specific demands of the prisoners to improve the conditions of the camps. The governor of the prison was removed and pensioned off. Their ability to inflict death-producing punishments did them little good, once the prisoners learned of the Achilles' heel of the bureaucracy: paperwork.. The leaders of the Soviet Union could bear it no longer: they deported Bukovsky.

Economist North further discusses on American community organizer Saul Alinsky’s improvisation of Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violent means of protests:

Alinksy realized early that very few people will pay the price that Gandhi paid. So, he devised a system of resistance that lowered the risk, thereby lowering the cost. He understood the economists' law: "When the cost of producing anything falls, more will be supplied." More of what? Resistance.

His system involved at least one of two tactics: (1) violating a rule to which only a minimal negative sanction was attached, (2) follow the organization's procedural rules to the letter in a Bukovsky-like manner.

He tested his non-violent strategy and tactics in the 1960s in Chicago. He wrote a book on his system, Rules For Radicals (1972). He wrote this.

Let us in the name of radical pragmatism not forget that in our system with all its repressions we can still speak out and denounce the administration, attack its policies, work to build an opposition political base. True, there is still government harassment, but there still is that relative freedom to fight. I can attack my government, try to organize to change it. That's more than I can do in Moscow, Peking, or Havana. Remember the reaction of the Red Guard to the "cultural revolution" and the fate of the Chinese college students. Just a few of the violent episodes of bombings or a courtroom shootout that we have experienced here would have resulted in a sweeping purge and mass executions in Russia, China, or Cuba. Let us keep some perspective.

We will start with the system because there is no other place to start from except political lunacy. It is most important for those of us who want revolutionary change to understand that revolution must be preceded by reformation. To assume that a political revolution can survive without a supporting base of popular reformation is to ask for the impossible in politics. Men don't like to step abruptly out of the security of familiar experience; they need a bridge to cross from their own experience to a new way. A revolutionary organizer must shake up the prevailing patterns of their lives – agitate, create disenchantment and discontent with the current values, to produce, if not a passion for change, at least a passive, affirmative, non-challenging climate. "The revolution was effected before the war commenced; John Adams wrote. "The Revolution was in the hearts and minds of the people. . . . This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments and affections of the people was the real American Revolution." A revolution without a prior reformation would collapse or become a totalitarian tyranny.

Read the rest here 

Mr. Alinsky then devised of 13 tactical guidelines for the “gummit” model, again Mr. North:

1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long is a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counter side.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize and polarize it.

The Gandhi Alinsky disobedience model reminds me of Etienne de la Boetie, French judge, writer and founder of modern philosophy and one of the early advocates of civil disobedience, who once wrote 

Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces

Gumming up a tyrannical institution is a way to re-establish or win back freedom.

Video: Should the Government Track Your Political Activity?

Thanks to Learn Liberty's Tim Hedberg for the video

Quote of the Day: Preservation of Political Freedom through the Free Markets

What the market does is to reduce greatly the range of issues that must be decided through political means, and thereby to minimize the extent to which government need participate directly in the game. The characteristic feature of action through political channels is that it tends to require or enforce substantial conformity. The great advantage of the market, on the other hand, is that it permits wide diversity. It is, in political terms, a system of proportional representation. Each man can vote, as it were, for the color of tie he wants and get it; he does not have to see what color-the majority wants and then, if he is in the minority, submit.

It is this feature of the market that we refer to when we say that the market provides economic freedom. But this characteristic also has implications that go far beyond the narrowly economic. Political freedom means the absence of coercion of a man by his fellow men. The fundamental threat to freedom is power to coerce, be it in the hands of a monarch, a dictator, an oligarchy, or a momentary majority. The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of such concentration of power to the fullest possible extent and the dispersal and distribution of whatever power cannot be eliminated – a system of checks and balances. By removing the organization of economic activity from the control of political authority, the market eliminates this source of coercive power. It enables economic strength to be a check to political power rather than a reinforcement.

(bold emphasis added)

This from Milton and Rose Friedman’s 1962 book (p.15), Capitalism and Freedom (as quoted by Professor Don Boudreaux at Café Hayek).

The illustrious economist and freedom fighter Milton Friedman celebrated his centennial birthday yesterday. And this stirred up the hornet’s nest about Dr. Friedman’s “love fest” with Keynes.

I’d say that this controversy just shows how people’s views evolve and this applies to Dr. Friedman. For instance, despite promoting activist monetarism, Dr. Friedman eventually declared that he favored the abolishment of the US Federal Reserve see here and here

Nevertheless, while I may not be agreeable to some of his earlier “statist comprises”, he surely has been one of the most eloquent and charismatic promoter and advocate of free markets, in general. That's why many of his videos have been posted here.

Belated Happy Birthday Dr. Friedman

Quote of the Day: Terrorism Cannot Take Away Our Freedoms

The goal of terrorism is not to crash planes, or even to kill people; the goal of terrorism is to cause terror. Liquid bombs, PETN, planes as missiles: these are all tactics designed to cause terror by killing innocents. But terrorists can only do so much. They cannot take away our freedoms. They cannot reduce our liberties. They cannot, by themselves, cause that much terror. It's our reaction to terrorism that determines whether or not their actions are ultimately successful. That we allow governments to do these things to us—to effectively do the terrorists' job for them—is the greatest harm of all.

That's from Mr. Bruce Schneier, a security expert, in a debate on Airport Security at the Economist (hat tip Cato's Julian Sanchez)

EUROASIAN Union: Regionalizing Cronyism or Despotism?

Russia’s Vladimir Putin has a grand design, he intends to integrate ex-Soviet Union states.

From the Businessinsider.com,

It's likely you've never heard of half of the prospective members of Vladimir Putin's plans for a "Eurasian Union".

However, if the plan goes ahead, you'll need to get familiar with them quick.

A Eurasian Union (EuU) including most of the former U.S.S.R. would become a major counterweight to the EU (a Eurasian Union could control up to 33 percent of the world’s proven natural gas reserves, according to Forbes).

Putin, who floated the idea in October of last year, at the time went to lengths to deny that the bloc would recreate the Soviet Union. However, Russia has already gotten many other former Soviet Union states to sign up for a free trade agreement, including Armenia, Moldova, Ukraine (which was initially set on joining the EU), Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan could follow suit.

Purportedly the union is about a establishing a free trade bloc.

More from Reuters,

Putin said the new union would build on an existing Customs Union with Belarus and Kazakhstan which from next year will remove all barriers to trade, capital and labor movement between the three countries.

"We are not going to stop there and are setting an ambitious goal -- to achieve an even higher integration level in the Eurasian Union," Putin wrote in an article which will be published in Izvestia newspaper on October 4…

Putin wrote that he saw the way out of the global crisis through a regional integration, mentioning the European Union, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations as examples.

"These 'bricks' can assemble into a more stable global economy," Putin wrote.

Politicians espousing free trade or liberalization of the markets have always been welcome news. However one should be leery of any noble sounding intentions, because what politicians say almost always works to the contrary from what they do.

The great Professor Ludwig von Mises says that free trade is about practicing what has been preached

Everybody was in favor of free trade for all other nations and of hyper‑protectionism for his own. It did not seem to occur to anyone that free trade begins at home. For nearly everyone favored government control of busi­ness within his own country.

True to the word of Professor von Mises, we find that the supposed ex-Soviet free trade bloc are composed of mostly economically UNFREE nations.

According to the Heritage economic freedom index, Russia ranks 144^th, Ukraine 163^rd, Moldova 124^th, Armenia 39^th, Kyrgyz Republic 88^th, Tajikistan 129^th and potential participants Uzbekistan 164^th Azerbaijan 91^st and Turkmenistan 168^th.

Except for Armenia and the Kyrgyz Republic whom are classified as moderately free, all the rest led by Putin’s Russia has been mostly unfree.

And the deficiency in freedom has not been limited to economic sphere but has likewise been reflected in their respective political institutions. The following categorization according to Freedomhouse.org

Partly Free: Ukraine, Moldova Kyrgyz Republic

Not free: Russia, Tajikistan. Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan

So free trade looks likely a façade to what seems as covert design to control energy reserves which will likely be corralled by the political class and their regional private sector allies.

And like the EU, whom has gone in the direction of a political union, Putin’s union seems like a step towards centralization of the region’s political framework.

Genuine free trade doesn’t need trading blocs or treaties. All that is required of a nation need is to voluntarily open the doors for trade, regardless of the what neighbors or others do.

Again this golden nugget from Professor Ludwig von Mises.

It is hopeless to expect a change by an international agreement. If a country thinks that more free trade is to its own advantage, then it may always open its frontiers. But if it views free trade as a disadvantage to its own interests it will not be more willing to grant it in an international treaty.

Well I hope I am wrong on this, and that such trading bloc will pry open these mostly unfree economies and spur not only regional trade openness but a global one too.

World Press Freedom Rankings: Philippines 140th

Reporters without borders recently released the Press Freedom index.

The press release goes…

This year’s index sees many changes in the rankings, changes that reflect a year that was incredibly rich in developments, especially in the Arab world,” Reporters Without Borders said today as it released its 10th annual press freedom index. “Many media paid dearly for their coverage of democratic aspirations or opposition movements. Control of news and information continued to tempt governments and to be a question of survival for totalitarian and repressive regimes. The past year also highlighted the leading role played by netizens in producing and disseminating news.

Crackdown was the word of the year in 2011. Never has freedom of information been so closely associated with democracy. Never have journalists, through their reporting, vexed the enemies of freedom so much. Never have acts of censorship and physical attacks on journalists seemed so numerous. The equation is simple: the absence or suppression of civil liberties leads necessarily to the suppression of media freedom. Dictatorships fear and ban information, especially when it may undermine them.

It is no surprise that the same trio of countries, Eritrea, Turkmenistan and North Korea, absolute dictatorships that permit no civil liberties, again occupy the last three places in the index. This year, they are immediately preceded at the bottom by Syria, Iran and China, three countries that seem to have lost contact with reality as they have been sucked into an insane spiral of terror, and by Bahrain and Vietnam, quintessential oppressive regimes. Other countries such as Uganda and Belarus have also become much more repressive.

This year’s index finds the same group of countries at its head, countries such as Finland, Norway and Netherlands that respect basic freedoms. This serves as a reminder that media independence can only be maintained in strong democracies and that democracy needs media freedom. It is worth noting the entry of Cape Verde and Namibia into the top twenty, two African countries where no attempts to obstruct the media were reported in 2011.

Read the rest here. I didn’t read through the entire report though as to how the press freedom is treated or measured in terms of the cyberspace or the netizens.

But in many instance where many (in the local community) seem to believe that there has been much press freedom in the Philippines, the rankings (140th out of 179) would give them a disappointment.

Press freedom represents an indispensable or sine qua non element for civil liberties, a representative government, and especially, for market economies (economic freedom or capitalism)

As the great Ludwig von Mises explains,

A free press can exist only where there is private control of the means of production. In a socialist commonwealth, where all publication facilities and printing presses are owned and operated by the government, there cannot be any question of a free press. The government alone determines who should have the time and opportunity to write and what should be printed and published. Compared with the conditions prevailing in Soviet Russia, even Tsarist Russia, retrospectively, looks like a country of a free press. When the Nazis performed their notorious book auto-da-fes, they exactly conformed to the designs of one of the great socialist authors, Cabet.

As all nations are moving toward socialism, the freedom of authors is vanishing step by step. From day to day it becomes more difficult for a man to publish a book or an article, the content of which displeases the government or powerful pressure groups. The heretics are not yet "liquidated" as in Russia nor are their books burned by order of the Inquisition. Neither is there a return to the old system of censorship. The self-styled progressives have more efficient weapons at their disposal. Their foremost tool of oppression is boycotting authors, editors, publishers, booksellers, printers, advertisers, and readers.

Does Rising Global Middle Class Presage Growing Demand for Classical Liberalism?

Globalization seems to have brought about a significant surge in the number of middle class.

Chart from the Economist

As a political force, the role of the middle class has been transitioning from one of passivism into activism.

The Economist notes, (bold highlights mine)

In rich countries the humbling of governments has been largely a result of economic slowdown, combined with problems in controlling public finances. Emerging markets, in contrast, have kept growth going, while public spending is (mostly) under control. The explanation for their political woes must lie elsewhere. The most plausible one is that India and China—and possibly other emerging markets, too—are experiencing the early stirrings of political demands by the growing ranks of their middle classes…

Polling evidence says middle-class values are distinctive. In a survey of 13 emerging markets by the Pew Global Attitudes Project in Washington, DC, the middle classes consistently give more weight to free speech and fair elections than do the poor, who are more concerned than the middle class about freedom from poverty. These differences hardly come as a shock. But they still matter because they mean that as the middle class grows, abstract ideas about governance come to play a bigger role in politics.

For now their focus has mostly been in the politics of corruption (bold emphasis mine)

There is no single explanation for the new middle-class activism. Given the rise in their numbers, it was probably bound to happen at some point. The spread of micro-blogging services has surely made some difference. Sina Weibo claims 140m users, mostly from China’s urban middle class. They posted 10m messages about the rail crash within days. The emerging giants have lost some of their economic sizzle lately, which might have had an effect—not (as in the West) by cutting jobs and government services, but by casting doubts on the cult of growth. Some observers (including, it seems, the Chinese Communist Party) have even worried that demonstrators might be emboldened to copy the Arab spring, though that seems far-fetched.

In contrast to the unrest in Middle Eastern countries, the middle-class activism of India and China is not aimed at bringing governments down. Rather, a narrower concern animates them: corruption…

This focus on corruption suggests that, at the moment, middle-class activism is a protest movement rather than a political force in the broader sense. It is an attempt to reform the government, not replace it. But that could change. In most middle-income countries, corruption is more than just a matter of criminality; it is also the product of an old way of doing politics, one that is unaccountable, untransparent and undemocratic. Ashutosh Varshney, at the Institute of Social and Economic Change in Bangalore, also argues that richer Indians resent corruption less because of the money wasted—which they can afford—than because they want clean government for its own sake: “the middle class is asserting its citizenship right to get government services without a bribe.”

As wealth from globalization expands and diffuses, it is likely that the desire for political freedom would follow. Such dynamic appears to be epitomized by the seminal focus on free speech, ‘fair’ elections and corruption free governance.

Yet again, the internet (via the blogsphere) has been proving to be a potent force in influencing such changes.

As the great Ludwig von Mises wrote (Planning for Freedom p.38),

The idea that political freedom can be preserved in the absence of economic freedom, and vice versa, is an illusion. Political freedom is the corollary of economic freedom. It is no accident that the age of capitalism became also the age of government by the people. If individuals are not free to buy and to sell on the market, they turn into virtual slaves dependent on the good graces of the omnipotent government, whatever the wording of the constitution may be.

In my view, the trend towards Classical liberalism seem to be seguing from the fringes towards the mainstream.

Economic Freedom Is Key To Prosperity

Great stuff from Professor Walter Williams, (bold highlights mine)

Poverty in Egypt, or anywhere else, is not very difficult to explain. There are three basic causes: People are poor because they cannot produce anything highly valued by others. They can produce things highly valued by others but are hampered or prevented from doing so. Or, they volunteer to be poor.

Some people use the excuse of colonialism to explain Third World poverty, but that's nonsense. Some the world's richest countries are former colonies: United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong. Some of the world's poorest countries were never colonies, at least for not long, such as Ethiopia, Liberia, Tibet and Nepal. Pointing to the U.S., some say that it's bountiful natural resources that explain wealth. Again nonsense. The two natural resources richest continents, Africa and South America, are home to the world's most miserably poor. Hong Kong, Great Britain and Japan, poor in natural resources, are among the world's richest nations.

We do not fully know what makes some societies more affluent than others; however, we can make some guesses based on correlations. Rank countries according to their economic systems. Conceptually, we could arrange them from those more capitalistic (having a large market sector and private property rights) to the more socialistic (with extensive state intervention, planning and weak private property rights). Then consult Amnesty International's ranking of countries according to human rights abuses going from those with the greatest human rights protections to those with the least. Then get World Bank income statistics and rank countries from highest to lowest per capita income.

Having compiled those three lists, one would observe a very strong, though imperfect correlation: Those countries with greater economic liberty and private property rights tend also to have stronger protections of human rights. And as an important side benefit of that greater economic liberty and human rights protections, their people are wealthier. We need to persuade our fellow man around the globe that liberty is a necessary ingredient for prosperity.

Professor Steven Landsburg shows 3 charts that arrive with same conclusion: Economic Freedom supersedes civil liberties or Political rights. In other words, democracy is only second to economic freedom.

Says Professor Steven Landsburg,

Political freedom and civil liberties are good things. I endorse them. But as far as human happiness goes, capitalism is an even better thing

The Revivalism of Friedrich Hayek's Ideas

Great stuff by Professor Russ Roberts at the Wall Street Journal on "Why Friedrich Hayek Is Making a Comeback"

(all bold highlights mine)

He championed four important ideas worth thinking about in these troubled times.

First, he and fellow Austrian School economists such as Ludwig Von Mises argued that the economy is more complicated than the simple Keynesian story. Boosting aggregate demand by keeping school teachers employed will do little to help the construction workers and manufacturing workers who have borne the brunt of the current downturn. If those school teachers aren't buying more houses, construction workers are still going to take a while to find work. Keynesians like to claim that even digging holes and filling them is better than doing nothing because it gets money into the economy. But the main effect can be to raise the wages of ditch-diggers with limited effects outside that sector.

Second, Hayek highlighted the Fed's role in the business cycle. Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan's artificially low rates of 2002-2004 played a crucial role in inflating the housing bubble and distorting other investment decisions. Current monetary policy postpones the adjustments needed to heal the housing market.

Third, as Hayek contended in "The Road to Serfdom," political freedom and economic freedom are inextricably intertwined. In a centrally planned economy, the state inevitably infringes on what we do, what we enjoy, and where we live. When the state has the final say on the economy, the political opposition needs the permission of the state to act, speak and write. Economic control becomes political control.

Even when the state tries to steer only part of the economy in the name of the "public good," the power of the state corrupts those who wield that power. Hayek pointed out that powerful bureaucracies don't attract angels—they attract people who enjoy running the lives of others. They tend to take care of their friends before taking care of others. And they find increasing that power attractive. Crony capitalism shouldn't be confused with the real thing.

The fourth timely idea of Hayek's is that order can emerge not just from the top down but from the bottom up. The American people are suffering from top-down fatigue. President Obama has expanded federal control of health care. He'd like to do the same with the energy market. Through Fannie and Freddie, the government is running the mortgage market. It now also owns shares in flagship American companies. The president flouts the rule of law by extracting promises from BP rather than letting the courts do their job. By increasing the size of government, he has left fewer resources for the rest of us to direct through our own decisions.

Hayek understood that the opposite of top-down collectivism was not selfishness and egotism. A free modern society is all about cooperation. We join with others to produce the goods and services we enjoy, all without top-down direction. The same is true in every sphere of activity that makes life meaningful—when we sing and when we dance, when we play and when we pray. Leaving us free to join with others as we see fit—in our work and in our play—is the road to true and lasting prosperity. Hayek gave us that map.

Despite the caricatures of his critics, Hayek never said that totalitarianism was the inevitable result of expanding government's role in the economy. He simply warned us of the possibility and the costs of heading in that direction. We should heed his warning. I don't know if we're on the road to serfdom, but wherever we're headed, Hayek would certainly counsel us to turn around.

The Importance of Choice

This is great stuff from marketing guru Seth Godin,

With so many options in media, interaction and venues, you now get to choose what you expose yourself to.

Expose yourself to art, and you'll come to appreciate it and aspire to make it.

Expose yourself to anonymous scathing critics and you will begin to believe them (or flinch in anticipation of their next appearance.)

Expose yourself to get-rich-quick stories and you'll want to become one.

Expose yourself to fast food ads and you'll crave french fries.

Expose yourself to angry mobs of uninformed, easily manipulated protesters and you'll want to join a mob.

Expose yourself to metrics about your brand or business or performance and you'll work to improve them.

Expose yourself to anger and you might get angry too.

Expose yourself to people making smart decisions and you'll probably learn how to do it as well.

Expose yourself to eager long-term investors (of every kind) and you'll likely to start making what they want to support.

It's a choice if you want it to be.

There is a political aspect to this message; that's if we are made free to make that choice.

Unfortunately, many people would like to have such privilege taken away from us.

They prefer individual choice to be substituted by choice made by some elite group, particularly, technocrats, officials, bureaucrats or politicians, expecting that you and I are not qualified to make the right decisions on ourselves. And worst, they force their choices on us!

The moral as I see it from Seth's message, is best said by Archibald MacLeish [(1892-1982) Poet, playwright, Librarian of Congress, & Assistant Secretary of State under Franklin Roosevelt],

"Freedom is the right to choose: the right to create for oneself the alternatives of choice. Without the possibility of choice and the exercise of choice, a man is not a man but a member, an instrument, a thing."

Global Political Freedom Backslides, Asia Improves

Speaking of freedom. It has generally been a bad news for global political freedom.

The Economist recently observed that recent trends reveal of a general deterioration of political freedom even prior to the crisis. This means that many countries have turned inwards.


From the Economist (all bold highlights mine)

``Political rights and civil liberties around the world suffered for the fourth year on the trot in 2009, according to the latest report published by Freedom House, an American think-tank. This represents the longest continuous period of deterioration in the history of the report. The number of electoral democracies dropped from 119 to 116, the lowest figure since 1995. Six countries were downgraded: Lesotho to partly free and Bahrain, Gabon, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan and Yemen dropped into the “not free” category. Around a third of the world’s population live in countries deemed not free, although over half of these live in China. In the Middle East and North Africa 70% of countries are not free. Still, freedom was on the march in 16 countries, notably in the Balkans, where Montenegro is now considered free, and Kosovo is partly free."

The chart below shows of the distribution pie of the world's political freedom according to Freedomhouse.org

And here is the 20 year trend of the global political freedom.

Notice that the surge of nations that assimilated political freedom was during the 90s. This coincides with, if not signifies as the aftermath of the fall of the Berlin Wall and India's liberalization.

And global political freedom appears to have climaxed during 2004-2005.

Nevertheless, as mentioned above, the marked declines had been accounted for by marginal emerging market states, so the loss in political freedom may not be as significant relative to economic contribution.

According again to Freedomhouse.org

(all bold highlights mine)

``In this year’s findings, five countries moved into Not Free status, and the number of electoral democracies declined to the lowest level since 1995. Sixteen countries made notable gains, with two countries improving their overall freedom status. The most significant improvements in 2009 occurred in Asia.

``The Middle East remained the most repressive region in the world, and some countries that had previously moved forward slipped back from Partly Free into the Not Free category. Africa suffered the most significant declines, and four countries experienced coups.

``This year’s findings reflect the growing pressures on journalists and new media, restrictions on freedom of association, and repression aimed at civic activists engaged in promoting political reform and respect for human rights.

“In 2009, we saw a disturbing erosion of some of the most fundamental freedoms—freedom of expression and association—and an increase in attacks on frontline activists in these areas,” said Jennifer Windsor, Executive Director of Freedom House. “From the brutal repression on the streets of Iran, to the sweeping detention of Charter 08 members in China and murders of journalists and human rights activists in Russia, we have seen a worldwide crackdown against individuals asserting their universally accepted rights over the last five years.”

In other words, despite the bad news there have been some noteworthy improvements.

And consistent with recent accounts that exhibits a trend towards adapting more economic freedom [see Asia Goes For Free Trade], Asia seem to defy withering concerns of political freedom.

Here is how political freedom in East Asia is classified (green -free, yellow partly free and blue-not free). Again from Freedomhouse.org

This implies that for political freedom (civil liberties and political rights) to flourish via representative governments requires economic freedom to similarly blossom.

Why?

The preeminent economist Milton and wife Rose Friedman provides the answer:

``Economic freedom is an essential requisite for political freedom. By enabling people to cooperate with one another without coercion or central direction, it reduces the area over which political power is exercised. In addition, by dispersing power, the free market provides an offset to whatever concentration of political power may arise. The combination of economic and political power in the same hands is a sure recipe for tyranny.

``The combination of economic and political freedom produced a golden age in both Great Britain and the United States in the nineteenth century. The United States prospered even more than Britain. It started with a clean slate: fewer vestiges of class and status; fewer government restraints; a more fertile field for energy, drive, and innovation; and an empty continent to conquer. . . .

``Ironically, the very success of economic and political freedom reduced its appeal to later thinkers. The narrowly limited government of the late nineteenth century possessed little concentrated power that endangered the ordinary man. The other side of that coin was that it possessed little power that would enable good people to do good."

In short, economic freedom and political freedom are two obverse sides of the same coin.

Power Of Social Networking: President Obama Responds To A Freedom Advocate Blogger

We have written alot about how web based technology have been democratizing information. Its apparent impact appears to be vastly broadening and filtering into the political space.

Recently, Cuba's controversial freedom advocate blogger Yoani Sánchez received a surprise reply from US President Obama. From Committee to Protect Journalist, (bold highlights mine) [pointer from Professor Mark Perry]

``Cuban blogger Yoani Sánchez was astounded this week by President Barack Obama’s decision to respond a written questionnaire Sánchez submitted to the White House. Still recovering from bruises left by a recent vicious attack by state security agents, she told CPJ from her home in Havana: “This is the best way to get better.”

``The blogger said that she had tried for months to reach the U.S. president through different channels. Sánchez said she had sent written questions to Obama through a wide range of different people before the White House responded. On her blog Generación Y, where she has posted Obama’s answers to her seven questions, Sánchez explained that the questions were based on issues “that keep me from sleeping,” and were born from her personal experience.

``“It was a very pleasant surprise,” Sánchez said, acknowledging that the chances that Obama would reply were minimal. Before responding to the questions, Obama thanked Sánchez for the opportunity to exchange views with her and her readers in Cuba, and congratulated her for receiving Columbia’s University Maria Moors Cabot Award for excellence in Latin American reporting.

“Your blog provides the world a unique window into the realities of daily life in Cuba,” Obama wrote. “It is telling that the Internet has provided you and other courageous Cuban bloggers with an outlet to express yourself so freely, and I applaud your collective efforts to empower fellow Cubans to express themselves through the use of technology. The government and people of the United States join all of you in looking forward to the day all Cubans can freely express themselves in public without fear and without reprisals.”

``Sánchez asked Obama questions that ranged from U.S. foreign policy toward Cuba, to the legitimacy of President Raúl Castro and the potential involvement of the Cuban exile community, the political opposition, and nascent civil society groups.

``Sánchez also raised the issue of limited Internet access in Cuba, asking whether the U.S. embargo has anything to do with it. Obama responded by saying that his administration has taken steps “to promote the free flow of information to and from the Cuban people particularly through new technologies.” But Obama warned that this will not have its full effect without action from Cuba. “I understand the Cuban government has announced a plan to provide Cubans greater access to the Internet at post offices,” said Obama. The president urged the Cuban government “to allow its people to enjoy unrestricted access to the Internet and to information.”

Additional comments..

It is precisely such freedom of expression that serves as important barriers against socialism. Yet governments worldwide, despite the pronouncements of President Obama, has taken aim to control or regulate the cyberspace.

Somalia’s Growing Pirate Industry, Understanding Pirates’ Historical Role

Happy Easter!

Pirates are in the news again.

No, this isn’t about Johnny Depp as Jack Sparrow and the Pirates of the Caribbean in search of mythical treasures but about Somalia’s burgeoning Pirate industry.

The recent abduction of Maersk Alabama Captain Richard Philips puts into spotlight how Somali’s buccaneering industry has grown audacious enough to challenge world’s superpower.

According to the Associated Press, ``Capt. Richard Phillips, of Underhill, Vt., is believed to have been the first U.S. citizen taken by pirates since 1804, when U.S. Navy Commodore Stephen Decatur battled the infamous Barbary pirates off the northern coast of what is now Libya, dispatching U.S. Marines to the shores of Tripoli.”

``Last year, more than 40 ships were captured, and with ransoms ranging from $500,000 (£341,120) to $2m, they have made a fortune. One pirate, Yassin Dheere, recently said he had made $250,000 from a single incident” reports the BBC.

In a memo prepared last month by the staff of the U.S. House Armed Services the estimated cumulative ransoms ranged from around $30-80 million in a $5.524 billion economy- based on purchasing power (CIA).

The distribution of the Pirates revenues are based on an organizational hierarchy as described by the Associated Press,

``The memo cited one captured pirate as saying pirates only take 30 percent of ransoms — on average $1 million to $2 million per boat.

``Twenty percent goes to group bosses, 30 percent is spent on bribing local officials, and 20 percent goes for capital investment like guns, ammunition, fuel, food, cigarettes. (Cuss said pirates were becoming more sophisticated and in the last two months have, for the first time, begun launching nighttime attacks, possibly indicating pirates have obtained night-vision goggles).

``U.S. officials have found no direct ties between East African pirates and terror groups, but the illegal trade is believed backed by an international network of Somali expatriates who offer funds, equipment and information in exchange for a cut of ransoms.

``The House memo said Somali buccaneers operate in five well-organized groups, drawing members from large clans, which are extended family networks. Cuss said the industry is controlled by "warlords and criminal gangs who recruit local fishermen and take a lion's share of the profits."…

``Today, they number around 1,500, up from around 100 five to seven years ago, Mwangura said.”

What’s interesting to know is that following years of Somali’s statelessness, piracy evolved not out of the intent to practice banditry but from a vigilante movement aimed at fighting off unlicensed foreign trawlers (estimated at 700 foreign fishing vessels by a UN group) which has illegally been fishing and against foreign vessels which has been dumping toxic and hazardous waste at Somalia's fish rich waters. In addition, trespassing foreign boats had allegedly used intimidation tactics and hired militants to harass natives.

With threatened livelihoods, a communal thrust to combat these external threats emerged. Hence, Somalia’s pirate industry was born.

``What began as a defensive movement by local fishermen has evolved into a complex amalgamation of banditry, organized crime, freebooting, and insurgency targeting all types of vessels from fishing trawlers to oil tankers. Somali waters emerged as the hotbed of piracy, accounting for close to 32% of attacks reported globally between January and September 2008. Some fishermen independently attack foreign vessels, others join well-organized pirate groups consisting of criminal gangs, warlords, and clan militias who in turn attack foreign vessels, local fishermen, and each other. Organized groups commit most attacks and are well armed, equipped with fast-boats, satellite navigation, radios, and employ large “mother-ships” to launch long-distance operations.” wrote Christopher Jasparro National Security Affairs at the U.S. Naval War College at Yale Center for Globalization (Yale global)

Pirates have also functioned as private security for some private companies which has likewise parlayed into a booming coastal cities.

Adds Mr. Jasparro, ``The failed governance of the country also comes into play. Officials from Somalia’s semi-autonomous region of Puntland issue “licenses” to foreign vessels that then employ pirates as security. With local and diaspora businessmen and clan leaders providing logistics and capital to pirates Puntland’s coastal cities are experiencing a piracy fueled economic boom. Pirates masquerade as Robin Hood-like defenders of Somalia, supposedly protecting the country from exploitation.”

Remember, there are always 2 sides to a coin.

And yes, they’ve been described “noble heroes” by native Somalis according to the Associated Press.

Another angle to look at this is--since Somalia has no functional government, pirates operate similar to an ad hoc naval force which taxes (by kidnap for ransom or by robbery) on vessels plying their waters.

The fact that Somalia’s Pirate industry stemmed from what Mr. Jasparro aptly calls as ``Weakly governed and failed states are often themselves victimized by foreigners” suggests that the solution required to deal with this highly complex predicament is not merely a military approach but principally a geopolitical one.

For as long the interests of the Somalis appear to be threatened by so-called “abusive” foreigners, under the conditions where the country can’t fend for itself, Somalis will likely justify the existence of the industry.

Finally, Peter Leeson an economics professor at George Mason University and author of The Invisible Hook: The Hidden Economics of Pirates recently has an interesting take on the contribution of historical Pirates to the quest for liberty…

Mr. Lesson wrote at the NPR.org (all bold highlights mine),

``Pirates are getting a bad rep. Every month we hear more news of the Somali pirates' depredations, most recently involving an attack on an American crew. To be sure, these pirates deserve our condemnation. They're thugs and the world would be better without them.

``But we shouldn't let our condemnation of modern pirates spill over, unchecked, onto their more colorful, and socially contributory, early 18th-century forefathers. These Caribbean pirates, men like Blackbeard, "Black Bart" Roberts, and "Calico" Jack Rackam, were also watery thieves. But unlike their Somali successors, they didn't only take something out of the world. They gave the world something of value, too.

``Historical pirates were harbingers of some of contemporary civilization's most cherished values, such as liberty, democracy and social safety. At a time when the legitimate world's favored system of government was unconstrained monarchy, Caribbean pirates were practicing constitutional democracy. Before setting sail each would-be pirate crew drew up and agreed to a set of written rules that governed them. These rules regulated gambling, smoking, drinking, the adjudication of conflicts and, in some cases, even prohibited harassing members of the fairer sex.

Read the rest here.