[youtube]Zc7oZ9yWqO4[/youtube]
Tag: libertarianism
Dear Mr. Prime Minister Sir,
How are you these days?
I heard it has been cloudy over there in Putrajaya for the past several months. I reckon starting the day so gloomily almost every day does little to inspire the heart. I do not envy you but I wish you well regardless!
Fortunately for many others, it has not been all doom and gloom everywhere. The sun has been shining brilliantly for the past few months now here. With blue sky as a background, white cotton-like cloud slowly crawls across the space above. In other words, life is not too bad at all. You should get out of Putrajaya more often and enjoy the sun!
Initially, I had thought a storm was brewing. All those threats issued by various groups made me all jittery and I am only glad that those threats did not materialize. I am sure many others felt the same way. Those dark clouds inevitably broke up and gave way to the sun. Hey, we all could use some time under the sun!
Anyway, enough about the weather.
How long has it been since March 8?
About a hundred days? I cannot believe that it has been so long since March 8. How time flies, do you not think so?
Just after March 8, I have heard a number of individuals doubting the stability of Pakatan state governments in the west coast of the Peninsula. They alleged that DAP and PAS could not possibly work together. On the contrary, those state governments are still standing and they appear to have warmed their seats rather comfortably.
Well, good for them.
In fact, instead of worrying about the stability of these state governments, I am now concerned with the stability of the federal government!
I am worried for you because I like how the whole equation works out at the moment. The latest general election put a pause on those Sovietique developmental corridors which involved too much central planning for my taste. At the same time, some of the more outrageous wealth redistribution policies proposed by the Pakatan front could not be implemented because you have successfully manned your fort in Putrajaya.
The result?
A small government!
I wanted a small government and I got it. And you, sir, made all that possible! You sir, are one of the greatest things a lot of libertarians could ask for.
And you know what? I love you for that!
I know, I know. I am probably one of those weird individuals whom not too many find it easy, if at all possible, to accommodate. This law is tyranny; that speech is too populist; those rulings irrelevant; these papers rubbish; etc. It is as if nothing could please people like me, libertarians!
There are people out there that think libertarians are rebels without a cause. But they are wrong dear sir, they are utterly wrong. All we wanted is a small government.
We just want to manage our own money. We do not want to have our money redistributed by other people. We do not appreciate being forced to fund the EPF so that it could buy some local banks. Oh, we hate bailouts. We do not like paying excessive tax and we do not plan to fund any subsidy. We would like the government to concentrate on what it is supposed to do and that is governance, not doing businesses or redistributing wealth. We do not like to be told what to do. We want to speak freely. We want to shout nonsense in the middle of the Dataran Merdeka. We want the state to get out of our bedrooms. Take those CCTVs in public spaces down. Our religious beliefs are our own, not yours. We want local government. We want a liberal democracy!
We want freedom.
All in all, we, libertarians, the individualists, distrust the state. So distrustful we are that we would want to have a strong check and balance mechanism in the government. And the current political scenario allows just that!
You sir, have made the impossible possible! You have achieved what many have failed. Without you, we would not have got what we aimed for. Because of you, we libertarians, previously always grumbling, have now begun smiling. For that, you thoroughly deserve a raving applause. For he’s a jolly good fellow, for he’s a jolly good fellow, for he’s a jolly good fellow, that nobody can deny!
These days, too many people say too many bad things about you. Understandably, you may feel lonely sometimes but fret not however. Whenever you are feeling the blues, be rest assured that there are those whom appreciate you!
So, take heart dear sir. After a rainy day in the evening, just go outside of your office and look for a rainbow out there. If you are lucky, you may find a Leprechaun with a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Kind regards,
Your friendly libertarian
P.S. Do you have any plan to abolish the Inland Revenue Board? Filling up those forms is such a drag. Worse, those IRB songs are so bad that it made Britney Spears a superstar!
p/s — a version of this article was first published by The Malaysian Insider.
Categories
[1492] Of I will take both
The moment CNN announced the assassination of Benazir Bhutto at a political rally on TV, I immediately realized how the event could be sung to impress to the world of the idea that security supersedes liberty. I half expected Pervez Musharraf to justify his previous decision to impose martial law but it did not right away come across my mind on how the assassination affects Malaysian politics. Weeks earlier, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said that he is willing to sacrifice public freedom for public safety.[1] Indeed, Deputy PM Najib Razak wasted no time to relate the uncertainties in Pakistan with dissent in Malaysia just a day after the death of Mrs. Bhutto.[2] The pictures painted by the Malaysian government however are disagreeable. The juxtaposition between liberty and security and the supposed trade off between the two is only an illusion undeserving of consideration of the rational minded. On the contrary, it is possible to have both. In fact, individual liberty cannot exist without security.
The concept of individual liberty within classical interpretation at the very least relies on the precept that an individual is free to act according to his will, bounded only by others’ same rights. These rights — negative rights — include but not limited to rights to life, to property and to freedom of expression that we Malaysians lack. It is a grave irony of us celebrating our freedom from colonial powers on yearly basis only to suffer oppression brought upon by our own government.
We are not unique. History without fail has shown how transgression of liberty occurs throughout human consciousness. One of many lessons we could derive from history is this: we must be prepared to defend our liberty; our individual liberty. These rights that make up liberty have to be protected from all efforts to negate it. Thus, as is ever so common in literatures of freedom, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
Liberty cannot stand without security. The instability of anarchy — anarchy as in the political philosophy — is a proof to that. This gives the impetus for a society to create a government, a state or any entity for that matter, to protect its members’ liberty from internal and external threats.
At the same time, a liberal constitution outlines individual liberty and in that respect, the role of government in protecting that liberty. While the entity enforcing the constitution is the rightfully elected arbiter of conflict of rights between individuals, in no whatsoever way it gives the state the authority to disrespect individual liberty, unlike the meek Malaysian Constitution.
A good liberal constitution is able to stop anybody, the state, the majority, the mob even, from robbing an individual of his liberty. Democracy by itself is useless; it has to be guided by a liberty-conscious document for tyranny of a majority is no different from tyranny of a dictator. That is the ultimate security. From there, is it not clear that for liberty to prevail, security is required?
In the end, there is no dilemma between liberty and security.
Security however does not necessarily demand liberty. One can be thrown into a cellar for hundreds of years, be safe and unfree from cradle to grave. I have a tingling suspicion that when a politician speaks as if there is a trade off between liberty and security, the term security requires qualification. He seeks not to throw himself into the cellar but instead, he seeks to throw free individuals, whom will not stand aside quietly while watching liberty is being trampled upon for whatever reason, into the cellar. When he speaks of security, he speaks for himself and not for others, not for individuals. When he speaks of security, he speaks of security to his grip to power. The only dilemma he speaks of is between others’ individual liberty and tyrants’ security.
Therefore, the next time someone presents to you an option between liberty and security, tell them with utmost confidence that you insist on having both.
[1] — PUTRAJAYA: Public safety will be the Government’s top priority before public freedom and there will be no hesitation to take the stiffest action on irresponsible people, said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
“If the choice is between public safety and public freedom, I do not hesitate to say here that public safety will always win. I will not sacrifice my sense of accountability to the greater public, especially in the face of police intelligence about planned fighting or other violent intent.” [PM: Public safety will prevail over public freedom. The Star. December 10 2007]
[2] — Najib said political conflicts, assassinations and instability seen in some other countries should serve as a lesson for all Malaysians.
In this connection, he rapped those who had orchestrated street demonstrations that caused property damage and disrupted people’s daily activities, just to gain political mileage. [Najib: Goverment To Act Against Troublemakers. Bernama. December 29 2007]
This article was first published on Bolehland.
Ever wonder what?
Well, a true-blue libertarian would exercise his right to bear arms and wait for a chance to shoot Santa for trespassing private property.
Hey Santa! Merry Christmas! BAMN!
Oh, wait, wait. Merry Eid-mas! (That would make somebody scream in horror! LOL!)
I’m not an isolationism — an isolationist. I want to trade with people, talk with people, travel, but I don’t want… to send our troops overseas using force to tell them how to live. We would object to it here, and they’re going to object to us over there.
— Congressman Ron Paul during the November 28 2007 Republican Presidential Debate, in response to Senator John McCain.