Tag: libertarianism

Categories
Conflict & disaster Personal Society

[2428] How September 11 2001 affected me?

I have told this story many times to friends.

I just woke up from sleep. It was sometime between 8AM and 9AM. My first semester at Michigan. The first or the second week of class. Chemistry class was due at 10AM. Or really, ten after ten. It was Michigan time, you see.

I needed to print some notes and check my email before class. So, I came down from my room and saw a notice on the door of the computing lab at the basement of the Michigan Union. There was a national emergency, it said. The office was closed. I had no idea what the emergency was about.

I logged on the computer, went on Yahoo! and saw a burning World Trade Center. This must be a hoax, I told myself. It was too outrageous to believe.  I dismissed it.

I was young, barely 19, and was still processing what was going on.

I went to class anyway, not wanting to miss anything. I rushed across the Diag, on a possibly clear blue morning.

There was none to be had. The professor was there and the class was a little bit more than half-full, but everybody came to realize something bigger was happening. The Twin Towers had collapsed. Class, dismissed.

Elsewhere, there were talks of repercussion. Friends through emails were warning of backlash against Muslim students. That also included most Malaysian students in the United States. There was fear.

I had heard of stories of xenophobia elsewhere, but I did not suffer from it throughout my 4 years as a Michigan undergraduate. Not ever. Maybe it was the liberal nature of Ann Arbor compared to some other parts of the US, but never once I became a victim of xenophobia.

The weeks and months following the attack formed lasting impression of the US society in my mind. It was one of admiration. There were fierce debates throughout the years about what was right and what was wrong. But the society itself survived the illiberal tidal wave that threatened individual liberty. Coming from a relatively, very much closed society that prevailed in Malaysia then, the societal dynamic of the new world was enticing and refreshing. I was impressed at the US society despite all the criticisms against it.

It was in the US where I found my values.

I have always said that I became a libertarian because of my experience in Michigan. Now, I think I became a civil libertarian because of the September 11 attack. I did not have a label to point at then, but in retrospect, I knew September 11 was the seed for me.

I saw how a free society can regulate itself and overcome fear and distrust. There was little prejudice around even after the attack to completely unravel the argument that a free society will self-destruct, an idea that was prevalent in Malaysia, and maybe still is.

And I saw how freedom needed to be defended from fear and distrust. I saw friends were forced to report to the Department of Homeland Security in Detroit regularly, just because they came from certain countries. Every time I needed to board the plane, the security team would select me for extra screening, just because I am a Malaysia. I took that as racial profiling and I despised that. It was insulting.

That too, strengthened my view on racial discrimination.

I visited New York later in 2002. I visited the site of the World Trade Center. It moved me.

September 11 was not just some event that happened on the other side of the world. It happened on my side of the planet. It deeply was personal.

Categories
Society

[2422] The libertarian case against Petknode

When parties voluntarily enter into an agreement, there is a minimum of what is expected of them. In the case of Petknode, the customers pay the company RM3.95 per night. In return, Petknode will provide care for the customers’ cat pets. Simple and uncontroversial responsibilities.

Many would take that for granted. I would. Those responsibilities are set in stone. Failure to fulfil the agreement warrants punitive action within reason and the victims have the rights to demand reasonable compensation however reasonableness is defined.

The state has a responsibility to ensure that the punitive action is taken, unless the parties mutually agree to settle it amicably among themselves. The state also has the responsibility to ensure that the victims are properly compensated by those whom breached the contract, with the same qualification. After all, one of the functions of the state within libertarian tradition is the enforcement of contract.

With about 300 cats found starving with 16 more dead in the care of Petknode according to The Malaysian Insider, the company has failed to fulfil its end of the bargain. Lawyers may argue the finer points of what care is but surely, death has to be the ultimately failure under any kind of definition with respect to this episode.

Anybody who believes in the sanctity of contract will easily find Petknode at fault. It is a breach of contract. There is no excuse for the breach so far. As at this moment, we have learned nothing that could have prevented Petknode from fulfilling its duties. This is appearing to be a case sheer negligence.

And that negligence creates a case of cheating. To take potshots, this is how Petknode advertised its service: cut cost, not quality. The fact that hundreds of pet cats were left to starve and die shows the kind of deplorable service level Petknode provided. Both cost and quality were cut.

I would very much like to see the owners and operators of Petknode not only refund the money it cheated of its customers, but also severely punished for their irresponsibility, even to the point of bankruptcy.

To many, perhaps the loss of lives is a graver wrong than the breach of contract. What makes the owners and operators of Petknode all the more repulsive really is the nonchalant attitude it assumed against lives entrusted under its care. I take that line but in a world where the value of animal lives is debatable and definitely not universal, the libertarian contract argument is the best minimum to rationalize action against Petknode.

Furthermore, the death is a consequence of the breach of contract. I always prefer to derive the solution from the root, not from result. Even if there was no death, it would still be a breach of contract and therefore, punishable by the state (of course, with the typical caveat of a guilty verdict in a court of law of repute). Nine days spent trapped in a small cage with terribly insufficient food and water is not care. It is torture.

I am also in the opinion that the victims should pursue civil suit against Petknode rather than letting the incompetent Department of Veterinary Service or the police exhausts their options, if they are going to exhaust it at all. Judging how the police are handling the case, it seems that the police do not think much of it. The accused are roaming free and the crime scene is being cleaned up by family members of the accused. It is as if nothing happened.  This goes back to how much an individual values a life of an animal. The police officers handling this case are probably thinking, ah, they are just cats.

I think the lawyers would be more ferocious in pursuing the case, and have (libertarian or otherwise) justice served. Need I say, people respond to incentive?

Categories
Liberty Society

[2401] No to the Ministry of Non-Muslim Affairs, again

I am a secularist. I strongly believe in the separation of the state and religion. At the very least, the state should not interfere in personal belief within libertarian constraint and religion should not influence the state to the extent that it transgresses individual liberty.

Although there are other concerns I have written throughout this blog of mine, my primary concern here contextualized within the latest development on the issue revolves around negative individual liberty.

Religion and other personal beliefs are private matters. As long as these beliefs do not contradict individual liberty, the state should get out of the bedroom so-to-speak. Recall the base function of the liberal state: the protection of individual negative liberty.

The separation between the state and religion prevents religion from hijacking the state, and the state from controlling any religion. At one fell swoop, the separation goes a long way in guaranteeing freedom of religion and other individual rights that might come into conflict with religious beliefs.

This is not just some academic concern. It is a real worry in Malaysia. Existing institutions apply highly corrosive effects on individual rights granted through individual liberty. There are religious police in Malaysia.

Within Malaysian context, the roles of Islam in the state are repulsive. Before I am being misconstrued, I am referring to the relevant religious institutions in Malaysia, not the religion itself.

There is a need to reduce the prominence of these Islamic institutions that exert unduly coercive influence on liberty. The state controls Islam and the Islam as in the form sanctioned by the state and through apparatus of the state exerts suffocating stranglehold on individuals who refuse to bow.

The latest news has it that Roman Catholic Church in Malaysia will lobby for the formation of a non-Muslim affairs ministry, again.[1] I wrote again because it has been raised since as early as 2007. This should be seen in parallel to the state of Islam in Malaysia.

Will non-Muslims be forced to fit the mould of certain religion they identify themselves with? Will the government try to interfere in how non-Muslims practice their religion?

Even if the answers are no, it will give the state a piece of the pie. The Church and its merry men, which themselves have not-so-impeccable reputation as far as individual liberty are concerned, will have to share that pie of tyranny.

For an illiberal government eager of telling individual what to believe in, perhaps the formation of that ministry is consistent.

Yet, an illiberal government is not the ideal government for me.

I oppose the formation of the ministry. The formation will give greater legitimacy to moral policing within Islam. It gives legitimacy to the division and compartmentalization of society to coerce free persons. We already have two laws in this land, one for one group and another one for another. One is free, and the other is not as far as libertarians are concerned. The establishment of non-Muslim affairs ministry will strengthen that illiberal dichotomy.

Religion should play less significant roles in the state. That ministry will only enhance the roles of religion, and at the same time, the scope of the state. There should be less government, not more. There is already a lot of room for tyranny in the state. Why should more space be made for tyranny?

A certain somebody a long time ago said the era of government knows best is over. Now is yet another chance to prove whether that statement was made in good faith or not. Prove it by not dictating private individual beliefs. Prove it by rejecting the religious lobbyists out right.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — KUALA LUMPUR, July 26 — The Roman Catholic Church here will lobby for a non-Islamic affairs ministry now that Malaysia has formalised ties with the Vatican, says Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam. [Debra Chong. Catholic Church plugs for non-Muslim affairs ministry. The Malaysian Insider. July 26 2011]

Categories
Liberty

[2379] The spread of libertarianism in Malaysia

I just had a conversation with Delphine Alles, a PhD student at Sciences Po today. She is researching about libertarianism in Southeast Asia. I thought it was an interesting conversation because it forced me to straighten up my own thoughts on the history of libertarian movement in Malaysia.

One question: how did it happen? How did libertarianism spread in Malaysia?

I struggled with that. Here is my opinion nonetheless.

The spread of libertarianism — the free market kind obviously — is a recent phenomenon in Malaysia. I thought it seeped into Malaysian consciousness through Malaysian graduates from the US and UK universities. I admit that there might have been individual libertarians much, much earlier from other sources but as far as popular discourse is concerned, it is a recent phenomenon.

That is primarily thanks to the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs. IDEAS despite being a small grouping of libertarians has certainly punched above its weight. What made IDEAS a revolutionary force was that before them, libertarianism was confined almost exclusively to the blogoshere. Today, libertarian ideas are everywhere. Switch on the TV and there is a good chance you will see a libertarian speaking. Ditto for popular printed and electronic newspapers.

Did any tradition underpin the spread? Was a particular school of thought responsible for the spread?

I think not. If Malaysian libertarianism was spread by any particular tradition, then it was only through those engaged in popular discourse. Their understanding of libertarianism may be traced to certain traditions, but I think it is such a hodge-podge collectively that in the end, it is hard to see which tradition prevails. So, it is easier to say that it is due to these individuals. In some ways, these libertarians are the first generation libertarians in Malaysia.

Libertarianism has been popularly spread through issues. To put it another way, popular libertarianism in Malaysia is issue-based libertarianism. Delphine reframed it as pragmatic libertarianism. I have trouble with the term pragmatic because it alludes to cafeteria libertarians (ersatz libertarians to put it politely). Yet in a limited sense within local context, it is pragmatic libertarianism.

When I said issue-based, I meant libertarianism in the popular sphere. In the media, it is very rare if at all there is a case where libertarianism is written or explained explicitly by citing big names like Mises, Hayek, Rothbard and Friedman, or done axiomatically in the way Nozick did in Anarchy, State and Utopia.

Rather, it is the application of the first principles that made the spread of libertarianism possible. When issues arise, libertarian solution is offered. For instance, in the case of fuel subsidy, the virtue of free market is put forward. In case of religious conflict, freedom of conscience is offered as justification for a more liberal treatment of the issue. In education where the quality of public education is hotly debated, private initiatives are suggested as the solution to improve education outcome.

Because of this, popular libertarianism tend to be deficient compared to pure libertarianism. Questions that do not arise frequently in Malaysian society do not get answered. Malaysian libertarians in the popular arena are silent when it comes to right to arms for instance. Or a libertarian foreign policy.

Delphine asked about self-determination, i.e. what would local libertarians think about Pattani, Mindanao and the likes. A proper libertarian would have strong position on the matter but popular libertarianism gives it a shrug because it is not a concern to Malaysians, never mind a local libertarian consensus is likely hard to achieve, making a summary impossible. Whatever it is, the shrug leaves the general public unaware of the systematic view of libertarianism, which at the individual libertarian level is possibly well-argued.

In fact, it can only be well-argued and understood in intimate sessions, like in small discussion groups and such. Any full-blown discussion about libertarian in the public sphere would quickly bore laypersons, who are more interested in issues, not first principles.

The deficiency is not a problem by itself because popular libertarianism is meant for public consumption. It is meant to increase public aware of the libertarian alternatives. What is satisfying about this is when some strangers speak of an issue, he or she uses libertarian argument without realizing that argument is a libertarian implication.

That of course may create ersatz libertarians, but for a philosophy that began with a penny in its pocket here in Malaysia, it is a start.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

p/s — there were some self-proclaimed classical liberals earlier but I think I have come to discount them because I distrust them from one reason or another. I have concluded that they are liberal only in superlative sense. In a conservative society like Malaysia, it does not take much to be a liberal superlatively.

Categories
Liberty Science & technology Society

[2377] Technology, central planning and the fate of organic organization of society

There are several reasons why organic decision-making is better than central planning. The complexity of the world is one. By complexity, it means nobody has the ability to absorb all relevant information in a timely manner to react effectively. In some ways, this is the economic calculation problem. It is an argument against the communist economic system in favor of the free market, the free price system specifically.

While this particular reasoning has stood well against the test of time to defend the libertarian case, I do not think it will stand forever. It has stood well against the case for central planning because there is a limit to calculation processing.

An individual can solve his or her own problems but a central planner must solve all problems that exist in the world. The central planner has no capacity to solve for the general equilibrium. There are billions, trillions or even more variables and data points to consider. The problem of central planning has always been an optimization problem however complex it is. How many can we calculate? How fast can we calculate? Can we calculate it at all?

None in the past and at the present time has done that in a grand scale or for a long time successfully.

The date when technology overcomes the restriction will arrive. When that happens, the libertarian case may approach an expiry date.

The seeds are already here. Thomas Friedman writes in The World is Flat of a global supply chain. Detailed record of inventory is kept. The workflow is traceable. Orders, stock and production all around the world of a particular company can be tweaked easily. All relevant information crucial to production is available on the spot all the time.

It is not hard to imagine how that capability can be expanded beyond the boundary of a firm. As technology progresses to make that possible, the prospect of effective central planning is enhanced.

With technological progress, eventually, whatever superiority the organic method has can be replicated by a central planner. Perhaps, the central planner can produce superior outcome in some cases where asymmetric information is present. After all, with the relevant sufficiently advanced technology, there can be no asymmetric information problem.

This is a scary notion for libertarians. It should be a scary notion for all who believes in individual liberty. It will give birth a full and perfect information aggregator that is an omniscience state or anything that may function as a state. It will create a god none can disobey. Everything the god says is for the best. This will be the real god.

My question is, when the time comes, will the case for organic organization of society be obsolete?

After considering that, I think any case in support of libertarianism cannot be dependent on technology. Else, it puts an expiry date on the philosophy.

Whenever the expiry will be, I am inclined to believe that it is will be far off into the future, possibly making the technology-dependent argument useful still.